The facts: Misbah-ul-Haq v Umar Akmal v Younis Khan v Asad Shafiq v Azhar Ali v Babar Azam

[Junaids]

I have started to tire of people spreading false claims about the Test records outside Asia of Pakistan’s leading batsmen of the last decade.

The facts are simple and they are horrifying: they expose the Misbah Years as the time when Pakistan’s best batsman was thrown overboard and replaced by serial failures.

It is a simple fact of Test cricket that you need to score runs to win Tests. Any specialist batsman needs to score at least 20 in any given innings or he has let his side down. Partnerships are everything.

I have broken down the Test records outside Asia of every major batsman since the debut of Umar Akmal in 2009.

I have categorised Innings into the following categories:

1. Failures (scores of less than 20).

2. Moderate but acceptable innings (20-39).

3. Successful innings (40+).

I had to place Not Outs of under 20 runs somewhere, so I placed them in the 20-39 category. That only really benefitted Misbah’s own stats.

The sample size was plenty: even Babar Azam has played 25 innings outside Asia. Having said that, Younis, Misbah, Azhar and Shafiq are favoured by having played more innings in Zimbabwe and the West Indies.

And here are the results:

List 1: Pakistan batsmen failing most frequently outside Asia

1. Asad Shafiq fails in 62% of innings
2. Azhar Ali fails in 58% of innings
3. Babar Azam fails in 52% of innings
4. Younis Khan fails in 44.7% of innings
5. Misbah-ul-Haq fails in 43.8% of innings
6. Umar Akmal fails in 35.7% of innings.

List 2: Pakistan batsmen succeeding most frequently outside Asia

1. Umar Akmal succeeds in 39.3% of innings
2. Misbah-ul-Haq succeeds in 37.5% of innings
3. Babar Azam succeeds in 36% of innings
4. Azhar Ali succeeds in 28.3% of innings
5. Younis Khan succeeds in 26.3% of innings
6. Asad Shafiq succeeds in 26% of innings.

The numbers are devastating and irrefutable.

Pakistan discarded the wrong batsman when they got rid of Umar Akmal.

But they also invested BOTH in the wrong youngsters (Shafiq and Azhar) AND in the wrong veterans in Younis and Misbah.

The numbers tell a very simple story.

Now Pakistan have to decide between selecting tried and tested failures like Azhar and Shafiq, or recognising that both are lost causes.

 

[Markhor]

Dr saab stop ducking the question. How many FC 100s has Umar Akmal scored in each domestic season since his dropping from Tests in 2011 ?

If he's the best batsman in the country, surely he must have topped the batting charts every year.

 

[Junaids]

Dr saab stop ducking the question. How many FC 100s has Umar Akmal scored in each domestic season since his dropping from Tests in 2011 ?

If he's the best batsman in the country, surely he must have topped the batting charts every year.

He scored one in the QEA Final. And if that’s the selection criterion, why wasn’t Salman Butt recalled three years ago?

I have given you the precise numbers in Test cricket of Pakistan’s six middle-order batsmen of the last decade.

 

[dhump]

Selective stats with no regard to sample size and posted to prove something you like. That is how the UK ended up with Brexit.

 

[m.awais]

Umar Akmal has a relatively small sample size and secondly his stats are from 2009 to 2011 when he was a newbie at international stage. However, as we all know that instead of progressing, he has continuously regressed. So I dont think that his current form and fitness secure a spot for him in Pakistan team.

 

[Titan24]

While I agree Umar Akmal was hard done by PCB as well along with his own antiques but the sample size for Umar Akmal in tests is too small for comparison with others.

Did Umar Akmal had more chance of succeeding in overseas tests then other names you have mentioned? Yes, atleast I believe so as he was technically pretty decent and used to pick the lines and lengths much better than many.

 

[Sir-fraz]

umars time is done. better to invest in younger talent who have the willingness to learn.

yes pcb screwed his career, but 60% of that fault is umars. he never learned, never improved. and kept making the same mistakes.

 

[silentkiller187]

How many games were played by each player, credit where credit is due you are trying very hard Junaid to lobby for Umar Akmals recall, however i can almost put my mortgage on the fact that his return will do us more harm then good.

 

[Slog]

Lol at 40+ being successful

The fact is that the only test innings of note Umar Akmal played was his very first test innings and that was a fluke

 

[Junaids]

While I agree Umar Akmal was hard done by PCB as well along with his own antiques but the sample size for Umar Akmal in tests is too small for comparison with others.

Did Umar Akmal had more chance of succeeding in overseas tests then other names you have mentioned? Yes, atleast I believe so as he was technically pretty decent and used to pick the lines and lengths much better than many.

No, the sample size is fine - even Umar Akmal played 28 innings outside Asia and Babar Azam has 25 so far.

Let me put it differently:

Azhar Ali has reached 40 just 19 times in 66 innings.

Asad Shafiq has reached 40 just 13 times in 50 innings.

Umar Akmal reached 40 11 times in 28 Test innings outside Asia.

Misbah did it 18 times in 48 innings.

Younis did it 10 times in 38 innings.

Babar has done it 9 times in 25 innings.

The stats show very clearly that outside Asia Umar Akmal is the best Test batsman that Pakistan has had in the last ten years.

 

[big_gamer007]

Umar akmal had immense potential. He was wasted by PCB. A young talented kid, should have been backed more during early stage of his career.

Even today, if he gets recalled to test side he will do well.

 

[Junaids]

Lol at 40+ being successful

The fact is that the only test innings of note Umar Akmal played was his very first test innings and that was a fluke

By that logic, players like Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq who score UNDER TWENTY in more than 50% of their innings have less right to be selected than Umar Akmal does.

Even Misbah and Younis scored UNDER TWENTY in over 40% of their innings outside Asia.

Umar Akmal scored over 40 more frequently than Younis or Misbah or Azhar or Shafiq or even Babar.

 

[sshakir411]

The entire world is conspiring against Junior......

Including himself

 

[Major]

Umar Akmal was already exposed as a poor batsmen in 2010. Yes, he came and smashed New Zealand around and we all loved it. But during the same year he had turned into a joke, but yet He was given a good run until he went to another extreme level.

In 2010 there were rumours of him faking injury for his brother and than 2011 came and he did it again. Faking injuries are criminal and he did that by making PCB desperate into playing his brother.

Performance is not the only thing that is considered, it is the players behavior aswell..

Anways, OP talks about West Indies and Zimbabwe, well UMar Akmal was given a chance to make a combeack against the very same opposition and he sucked bad.......

Umar Akmal is just another Yasir Hameed story

 

[The_Odd_One]

Umar’s numbers are from the time when he was a much better batsman. He regressed alarmingly after 2011 across all formats. If he was such a world class batsman, he would have done better at least in shorter formats where he was a permanent member of the team.

Younis, Misbah, Azhar, and Asad have very good work ethics. Despite being less talented, their discipline helped them succeed in tests. Any comparison with Younis and Misbah is laughable. At 40 years, they were more fit than a decade younger Umar.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Akmal could not handle any decent spinner in ODIs. In tests, he would have been eaten alive.

 

[CricketDon]

Umar Akmal would of averaged 42 with a SR of 70 plus if he was not discarded wrongfully. He’d be Pakistan’s best batsman and would of carrier the form into one day format and averaged a solid 45 with a SR of 90. However dropping him from tests and turning him into a slogger because no one else had the strength or ability to play a big shot was the biggest mistake in Pakistan history. Sad

 

[MMHS]

Beautiful stats, I liked it. But, I had little confusion, so I did another analysis with two different batsman with same logic -

First one was Javed Miandad, arguably and ATG and definitely the very best batsman PAK has ever produced. Out of his 189 innings, he had 69 scores Under 20 (between 0-19). However, Javed had 3 Not Outs in that score - SO, his failure rate comes to 66/189 = 34.92% - that makes Umar very close to Javed in terms of failure.

Now, success - I did the same analysis with Javed's career and he has 77 innings over 40, out of 189 - that's around 41%, again that put's Umar very close to Javed Miandad in terms of success. THOUGH, there is a cool 18 runs gap between their average and about 60 gap in terms of 50 & 100s scored. I am sure if I do this with "stats outside Asia", Umar will come ahead of Javed.

However, to get a better clarity (& give Javed a benefit of doubt - he might be better than Umar out-side Asia that this success-failure analysis show), I did the same with a guy playing 80 Test innings - "all of them outside Asia". It comes out like this -

0-19 :22 Innings (27.5%)
20-39: 10 Innings & (12.5%)
40 or above: 48 Innings (60%)

This time I got a bit chuckled - this old guy (now diseased) had almost 28% failure rate compared to Umar's 35%, ...... though there is a bit gap between their career average : 35.82 VS 99.94.

This time, as the null hypothesis of Umar Akmal almost equal to Javed Miandad (better outside Asia) failed to convince me, I had to do a sanity check - IS THE RESEARCH BASIS VALID? Now, I found that the criteria (the range of success & failure) was set such that it considers Umar Akmal's slogged 46 at Wellington carrying same weight-age of Younis Khan's 216 at Oval - both are equally successful innings, because both were over 40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to conclude that, this will be an absolute stupidity to spend further time on a thread that proves Umar Akmal is almost equal to Javed Miandad (Better outside Asia) and in terms of failure, Umar Akmal isn't far behind than someone, named Sir Donald Gregory Bradman.

Thanks for reading - one of my worst 30 minutes of time wasting ................

 

[Major]

Beautiful stats, I liked it. But, I had little confusion, so I did another analysis with two different batsman with same logic -

First one was Javed Miandad, arguably and ATG and definitely the very best batsman PAK has ever produced. Out of his 189 innings, he had 69 scores Under 20 (between 0-19). However, Javed had 3 Not Outs in that score - SO, his failure rate comes to 66/189 = 34.92% - that makes Umar very close to Javed in terms of failure.

Now, success - I did the same analysis with Javed's career and he has 77 innings over 40, out of 189 - that's around 41%, again that put's Umar very close to Javed Miandad in terms of success. THOUGH, there is a cool 18 runs gap between their average and about 60 gap in terms of 50 & 100s scored. I am sure if I do this with "stats outside Asia", Umar will come ahead of Javed.

However, to get a better clarity (& give Javed a benefit of doubt - he might be better than Umar out-side Asia that this success-failure analysis show), I did the same with a guy playing 80 Test innings - "all of them outside Asia". It comes out like this -

0-19 :22 Innings (27.5%)
20-39: 10 Innings & (12.5%)
40 or above: 48 Innings (60%)

This time I got a bit chuckled - this old guy (now diseased) had almost 28% failure rate compared to Umar's 35%, ...... though there is a bit gap between their career average : 35.82 VS 99.94.

This time, as the null hypothesis of Umar Akmal almost equal to Javed Miandad (better outside Asia) failed to convince me, I had to do a sanity check - IS THE RESEARCH BASIS VALID? Now, I found that the criteria (the range of success & failure) was set such that it considers Umar Akmal's slogged 46 at Wellington carrying same weight-age of Younis Khan's 216 at Oval - both are equally successful innings, because both were over 40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to conclude that, this will be an absolute stupidity to spend further time on a thread that proves Umar Akmal is almost equal to Javed Miandad (Better outside Asia) and in terms of failure, Umar Akmal isn't far behind than someone, named Sir Donald Gregory Bradman.

Thanks for reading - one of my worst 30 minutes of time wasting ................

oh bhai some one give him another POTW plz..

He deserves another award. No POTW for 2 weeks after that

Good analysis bro.

 

[Markhor]

Beautiful stats, I liked it. But, I had little confusion, so I did another analysis with two different batsman with same logic -

First one was Javed Miandad, arguably and ATG and definitely the very best batsman PAK has ever produced. Out of his 189 innings, he had 69 scores Under 20 (between 0-19). However, Javed had 3 Not Outs in that score - SO, his failure rate comes to 66/189 = 34.92% - that makes Umar very close to Javed in terms of failure.

Now, success - I did the same analysis with Javed's career and he has 77 innings over 40, out of 189 - that's around 41%, again that put's Umar very close to Javed Miandad in terms of success. THOUGH, there is a cool 18 runs gap between their average and about 60 gap in terms of 50 & 100s scored. I am sure if I do this with "stats outside Asia", Umar will come ahead of Javed.

However, to get a better clarity (& give Javed a benefit of doubt - he might be better than Umar out-side Asia that this success-failure analysis show), I did the same with a guy playing 80 Test innings - "all of them outside Asia". It comes out like this -

0-19 :22 Innings (27.5%)
20-39: 10 Innings & (12.5%)
40 or above: 48 Innings (60%)

This time I got a bit chuckled - this old guy (now diseased) had almost 28% failure rate compared to Umar's 35%, ...... though there is a bit gap between their career average : 35.82 VS 99.94.

This time, as the null hypothesis of Umar Akmal almost equal to Javed Miandad (better outside Asia) failed to convince me, I had to do a sanity check - IS THE RESEARCH BASIS VALID? Now, I found that the criteria (the range of success & failure) was set such that it considers Umar Akmal's slogged 46 at Wellington carrying same weight-age of Younis Khan's 216 at Oval - both are equally successful innings, because both were over 40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to conclude that, this will be an absolute stupidity to spend further time on a thread that proves Umar Akmal is almost equal to Javed Miandad (Better outside Asia) and in terms of failure, Umar Akmal isn't far behind than someone, named Sir Donald Gregory Bradman.

Thanks for reading - one of my worst 30 minutes of time wasting ................

Analysis delivered with precision as ever.

 

[The Viper]

Beautiful stats, I liked it. But, I had little confusion, so I did another analysis with two different batsman with same logic -

First one was Javed Miandad, arguably and ATG and definitely the very best batsman PAK has ever produced. Out of his 189 innings, he had 69 scores Under 20 (between 0-19). However, Javed had 3 Not Outs in that score - SO, his failure rate comes to 66/189 = 34.92% - that makes Umar very close to Javed in terms of failure.

Now, success - I did the same analysis with Javed's career and he has 77 innings over 40, out of 189 - that's around 41%, again that put's Umar very close to Javed Miandad in terms of success. THOUGH, there is a cool 18 runs gap between their average and about 60 gap in terms of 50 & 100s scored. I am sure if I do this with "stats outside Asia", Umar will come ahead of Javed.

However, to get a better clarity (& give Javed a benefit of doubt - he might be better than Umar out-side Asia that this success-failure analysis show), I did the same with a guy playing 80 Test innings - "all of them outside Asia". It comes out like this -

0-19 :22 Innings (27.5%)
20-39: 10 Innings & (12.5%)
40 or above: 48 Innings (60%)

This time I got a bit chuckled - this old guy (now diseased) had almost 28% failure rate compared to Umar's 35%, ...... though there is a bit gap between their career average : 35.82 VS 99.94.

This time, as the null hypothesis of Umar Akmal almost equal to Javed Miandad (better outside Asia) failed to convince me, I had to do a sanity check - IS THE RESEARCH BASIS VALID? Now, I found that the criteria (the range of success & failure) was set such that it considers Umar Akmal's slogged 46 at Wellington carrying same weight-age of Younis Khan's 216 at Oval - both are equally successful innings, because both were over 40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to conclude that, this will be an absolute stupidity to spend further time on a thread that proves Umar Akmal is almost equal to Javed Miandad (Better outside Asia) and in terms of failure, Umar Akmal isn't far behind than someone, named Sir Donald Gregory Bradman.

Thanks for reading - one of my worst 30 minutes of time wasting ................

Great post. I have got to say the logic is mind blowing here. Why is 40 the magical number?

 

[Savak]

With Misbah as head coach and Waqar as bowling coach, Umar Akmal can kiss his international career goodbye

 

[MMHS]

Just to add (had to, otherwise it would have been incomplete); Javed Miandad played 78 innings "Outside Asia". This is his break-up

Failure (0-19): 33 (1 NO) ~ 32/78= 41.03% VS Umar Akmal 35.7%
Acceptable (20-39): 17 ~ 18/78 = 23.08% VS Umar Akmal 25.0%
Success (40 & +): 28 ~ 28/78 = 35.89% VS Umar Akmal 39.3%

* Javed's 4 away venues were AUS, ENG, NZ & WIN. Umar's away venues are AUS, NZ, WIN, ENG & ZIM - that one innings in ZIM actually has pulled down his "performance" a little (Was out for 15). Apple to apple it'll be even better.

Wonderful logic & analysis - Umar Akmal is comfortably better player than Javed Miandad outside Asia (Javed's acceptable to success percentage is 59%; Umar's acceptable to success percentage is 64% - that's an increment of 5%, on a base of 59%, means almost 10% better)

We need to check this analysis with few other modern Asian greats like SRT, Dravid, Sangakara, Mahela, Gavaskar, Inzi, MoYo, Zaheer, Azhar, Sehwag, Saeed, Hanif, Marchent, VVS .... to actually know, where Umar Akmal stands in 'All Time Greatness" list, among top Asian batsmen in history (On the basis of Out Side Asia performance)

 

[Last Monetarist]

Umar Akmal must own some thrillingly delicious kompromat on the good doctor, for him to willingly forsake his dignity and actually post such devastating analysis from time to time.

 

[big_gamer007]

Just to add (had to, otherwise it would have been incomplete); Javed Miandad played 78 innings "Outside Asia". This is his break-up

Failure (0-19): 33 (1 NO) ~ 32/78= 41.03% VS Umar Akmal 35.7%
Acceptable (20-39): 17 ~ 18/78 = 23.08% VS Umar Akmal 25.0%
Success (40 & +): 28 ~ 28/78 = 35.89% VS Umar Akmal 39.3%

* Javed's 4 away venues were AUS, ENG, NZ & WIN. Umar's away venues are AUS, NZ, WIN, ENG & ZIM - that one innings in ZIM actually has pulled down his "performance" a little (Was out for 15). Apple to apple it'll be even better.

Wonderful logic & analysis - Umar Akmal is comfortably better player than Javed Miandad outside Asia (Javed's acceptable to success percentage is 59%; Umar's acceptable to success percentage is 64% - that's an increment of 5%, on a base of 59%, means almost 10% better)

We need to check this analysis with few other modern Asian greats like SRT, Dravid, Sangakara, Mahela, Gavaskar, Inzi, MoYo, Zaheer, Azhar, Sehwag, Saeed, Hanif, Marchent, VVS .... to actually know, where Umar Akmal stands in 'All Time Greatness" list, among top Asian batsmen in history (On the basis of Out Side Asia performance)

Beautiful stats, I liked it. But, I had little confusion, so I did another analysis with two different batsman with same logic -

First one was Javed Miandad, arguably and ATG and definitely the very best batsman PAK has ever produced. Out of his 189 innings, he had 69 scores Under 20 (between 0-19). However, Javed had 3 Not Outs in that score - SO, his failure rate comes to 66/189 = 34.92% - that makes Umar very close to Javed in terms of failure.

Now, success - I did the same analysis with Javed's career and he has 77 innings over 40, out of 189 - that's around 41%, again that put's Umar very close to Javed Miandad in terms of success. THOUGH, there is a cool 18 runs gap between their average and about 60 gap in terms of 50 & 100s scored. I am sure if I do this with "stats outside Asia", Umar will come ahead of Javed.

However, to get a better clarity (& give Javed a benefit of doubt - he might be better than Umar out-side Asia that this success-failure analysis show), I did the same with a guy playing 80 Test innings - "all of them outside Asia". It comes out like this -

0-19 :22 Innings (27.5%)
20-39: 10 Innings & (12.5%)
40 or above: 48 Innings (60%)

This time I got a bit chuckled - this old guy (now diseased) had almost 28% failure rate compared to Umar's 35%, ...... though there is a bit gap between their career average : 35.82 VS 99.94.

This time, as the null hypothesis of Umar Akmal almost equal to Javed Miandad (better outside Asia) failed to convince me, I had to do a sanity check - IS THE RESEARCH BASIS VALID? Now, I found that the criteria (the range of success & failure) was set such that it considers Umar Akmal's slogged 46 at Wellington carrying same weight-age of Younis Khan's 216 at Oval - both are equally successful innings, because both were over 40!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to conclude that, this will be an absolute stupidity to spend further time on a thread that proves Umar Akmal is almost equal to Javed Miandad (Better outside Asia) and in terms of failure, Umar Akmal isn't far behind than someone, named Sir Donald Gregory Bradman.

Thanks for reading - one of my worst 30 minutes of time wasting ................

Thanks for ruining the fun for everyone [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] brother. Now [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] won't come to this thread

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I actually disagree with you.

Younis Khan’s 218 at The Oval and 175 at Sydney were typical of his output as a Forty Something.

In 6 out of 7 innings in England he failed in 2016, and left his team in trouble.

It’s no use being a top order batsman who makes one huge innings per series and gets out cheaply the rest of the time.

The whole point of this thread is that since Umar Akmal debuted he is the Pakistan batsman who got out cheaply the least often and passed 40 the most often.

That’s just a fact.

 

[ARK Rafay]

The selective stats is twisted to fit in your facts. It doesn't mean much.

But one thing is a fact. Most Pakistani batsman aren't good enough in test cricket outside Asia

 

[IMMY69]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I actually disagree with you.

Younis Khan’s 218 at The Oval and 175 at Sydney were typical of his output as a Forty Something.

In 6 out of 7 innings in England he failed in 2016, and left his team in trouble.

It’s no use being a top order batsman who makes one huge innings per series and gets out cheaply the rest of the time.

The whole point of this thread is that since Umar Akmal debuted he is the Pakistan batsman who got out cheaply the least often and passed 40 the most often.

That’s just a fact.

Umar Akmal is a brainless dodo who is unfit and played like a headless chicken.

No amount of stats is going to change this. FACT.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

Honestly, to even mention the name of Junior Akmal in the same sentence as Misbah, Younis and Babar Azam is actually weird. Kamran Akmal was a better batsmen than Umar. apart from 1 century vs SL, i think we will find it difficult to find single innings from Umar Akmal where he won the game for Pak. He is only good for 20/30 runs at max. very pointless to be honest. and on the other side, Pak cricket can have grudge against him but wats wrong with CPL, Vitality blast, and other leagues around the globe who completly ignore him and ignore him for good .. ... simply put, he is a batsmen who can hit a few good shots but doesnt have the skills, temprament or commitment to play the game

 

[Junaids]

Honestly, to even mention the name of Junior Akmal in the same sentence as Misbah, Younis and Babar Azam is actually weird. Kamran Akmal was a better batsmen than Umar. apart from 1 century vs SL, i think we will find it difficult to find single innings from Umar Akmal where he won the game for Pak. He is only good for 20/30 runs at max. very pointless to be honest. and on the other side, Pak cricket can have grudge against him but wats wrong with CPL, Vitality blast, and other leagues around the globe who completly ignore him and ignore him for good .. ... simply put, he is a batsmen who can hit a few good shots but doesnt have the skills, temprament or commitment to play the game

Umar Akmal is a brainless dodo who is unfit and played like a headless chicken.

No amount of stats is going to change this. FACT.

The selective stats is twisted to fit in your facts. It doesn't mean much.

But one thing is a fact. Most Pakistani batsman aren't good enough in test cricket outside Asia

Your assertions bear no resemblance to the FACTS.

Umar Akmal passes 40 in a higher proportion of Test innings outside Asia than any other Pakistan batsman in the last decade.

Umar Akmal gets out for less than 20 outside Asia less frequently than any other Pakistan Test batsman in the last decade.

These aren’t twisted facts. They are plain facts.

 

[Junaids]

Great post. I have got to say the logic is mind blowing here. Why is 40 the magical number?

Because everyone who has played cricket will tell you that when you reach 40 you know you have at the very least “pulled your weight” as a batsman in that innings.

20-39 is ok. Just. But not really good enough.

40+ you’ve done your bit.

Less than 20 as a specialist batsman and you have actually harmed your team.

 

[IMMY69]

Your assertions bear no resemblance to the FACTS.

Umar Akmal passes 40 in a higher proportion of Test innings outside Asia than any other Pakistan batsman in the last decade.

Umar Akmal gets out for less than 20 outside Asia less frequently than any other Pakistan Test batsman in the last decade.

These aren’t twisted facts. They are plain facts.

Honestly, I think you've lost it.

 

[Sir-fraz]

if this was argued in 2012 it would make sense, but we are on the cusp of 2020. and he has done nothing in domestic first class to be considered again.

umar has lost his skill and ability to play like that. also his iq is too low for him to change his personality.

this is a closed chapter now. better to move on.

 

[Hasan123]

Lol so reaching 40 is a success for a test player ? )

You should be questioning why he isnt kicking on after getting starts .

You have way too much faith in your selections.

 

[Zaz]

Anybody who has followed umar akmals career knows that umar akmal is rightly well out of the test reckoning and this has been the correct decision for the last several years

His indiscipline both on and off the pitch and that he now has become a certified slogger means he should be nowhere near any pakistan squad never mind the test team

And to be say he is a better test bat than the likes of younus or even misbah is laughable

 

[ads101]

Umar Akmal's test career isn't that relevant. Too small sample size, and yes wasn't given enough chances.

I'm more concerned about his LOI career where he has played many games over a lengthy time span.

His stats in all formats in that first year were great. He regressed after that 1st year. It's not fair to champion 1 year of stats when he was 18 when he's been in international cricket for around 10 years.

His test career was cut short more on the manner which he played it didn't look like he would be a success long term, and had an awful 2010 where he averaged 24 and thus dropped. He made it back on West Indies team only to temporarily fill in for Younis khan, and despite doing pretty decent, one 50 wasn't enough to force his way back into the team, YK was always going to come back.

Asad shafiq on the other hand, you could put it down to fortune of where he played, did well in his first three years of cricket, averaging 61, 37 and 47. Thus it was natural that he earnt a longer run due to initial success, plus his technique at the time looked better for tests while Umar's quickly fell apart after 2010. 3 years of consistent good form looked better than 1 good year followed by steep decline. There was also greater reliance on Umar Akmal in LOI, and was seen as a decent decision to let Umar Akmal concentrate on LOI where he has also slid in performance.

The way umar akmal plays suits LOI far more than tests. If he couldn't hack it at LOI, he was even more unlikely to hack it at tests.

The biggest disappointment with umar akmal wasn't lack of chances, but why he declined year after year since his 1st year of international cricket in 2009. The guy that was at the crease doesn't look the same class as he did in that one year. And he never really got it back.

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I actually disagree with you.

Younis KhanÂ’s 218 at The Oval and 175 at Sydney were typical of his output as a Forty Something.

In 6 out of 7 innings in England he failed in 2016, and left his team in trouble.

ItÂ’s no use being a top order batsman who makes one huge innings per series and gets out cheaply the rest of the time.

The whole point of this thread is that since Umar Akmal debuted he is the Pakistan batsman who got out cheaply the least often and passed 40 the most often.

ThatÂ’s just a fact.

Your entire logic is flawed - this is based on the use of 40 as a benchmark for success, because that fits Umar Akmal. In his colorless career of 28 innings, he has 4 innings between 40 to 49, that's almost 15%, that's what making him look good, which is making your analysis useless.

There is absolutely no reason to pick 40 as a success bench mark, because it's a random number picked to skew the analysis for someone (or some element) - it's biased selection error. I can pick 170 as benchmark for success and prove that Jason Gillespee is better (successful) player than Umar Akmal. You have to justify the "Basis of estimation" first - why 40 and why not 50 or 30 or 100. That biased selection error will be "null & void" after couple of testing in real life (that's the way Project Quality Management works) - Javed & Bradman's example should have been enough for this one.

You want to do a proper analysis - let's do it. There are 11 players in a XI, plus extra contributes around 6 to 12%. Of the 11 batsmen, top 6's job is to score runs, so their contribution should be higher, while last 3 are purely for bowling. Let's take an estimate - top 6 should contribute 75% of team total (ideal case would have been to pick at least 30 random Test innings out of 7,000+ innings, and figure out what is average % contribution by top 6). So, by law of average one of top 6 should contribute 12.50% of team total at average to be on per (that's 38 in a team total of 300), to be successful, it should be around double - 25% .... that's for a complete innings of 300, to be considered as success, a top 6 should contribute 75. Or other way, 40 can be considered a success if PAK's score for those innings played by Umar is around 160.

You can question why 25%, why not 50% or 20%, but that debate will always be there, until someone can evaluate what actually is an ideal percentage contribution for a batsman to be considered successful. BUT, that can't be done, because even Brian Lara's 223 at Adelaide didn't save WIN losing the Test, or his 35%+ contribution (of team total) in the entire Series (SRL 2001) couldn't save 0-3 defeat, while WY's 20* at Lord's (1992), or Mushi's 19* (Karachi 1994) actually won those Tests for PAK - therefore it's impossible to benchmark what should be the magic number for success. That's why they consider few standard milestones - 50, century, double century, triple .... You could have used 50 as a bench mark at least to have some credibility, but I understand the problem - UAkmal's 49, 49, 47 & 46 goes to other bucket then - for 28 innings, that's almost 15% discount.

Personally, you ask me - a score of 40 is the worst score for a Test batsman - it's a nothing innings after staying in middle for a session. A batsman should be kicked out of the team if he regularly fails around that score - it means, he isn't mentally stable enough to concentrate beyond a certain time and Umar Akmal is exactly that, no wonder his average is 35 and scatter graph of his innings will be populated more around that 25 to 50 range - T20 fit's him better.

Polar opposite is the guy I mentioned above - 80 innings, half (39) of those under 50 ..... but the guy once crossed 50, batted for long, long - 29 hundreds and only 12 scores between 50 to 99 and out of those 29, 12 are over 200, 19 over 150 - that's why his team lost just one series in his 21 years career. When he stayed for an hour, he won that Test often - those days MoM wasn't awarded, but I had analyzed Bradman's career manually - roughly he would have won MoM between 23 to 29 times out of his 52 Tests. that's one out 2 Tests played by 22 players. Umar Akmal would have won a Super Bowl size egg in terms of MoM with your success criteria. And, to your surprise, this guy YK is among the very few of those after Bradman, whose single contribution won a Test. Regarding YK's 218 - that one innings won PAK a Test - one of 2 they won outside Asia in 6 years with YK in it.

I do agree that Umar Akmal was hard done by and I have every bit of sympathy for him, but you can't downplay other players just to promote your favorite. I am a big fan of YK, and I have utmost respect for Misbah, but even without that, just being a neutral cricket enthusiast, I won't have accepted something that defames respected players. In his entire life, Umar Akmal had never shown discipline or commitment even for an hour, remotely close to what Azhar Ali showed in his 201* at MCG .... YK or Misbah is well above his imagination - leave it like that, your facts won't come back to hunt you.