The Facts: Pakistan batsmen over 30 underperform by 49%

[Junaids]

I get incredibly frustrated when people constantly tell me that age is just a number, and that there is every reason why Pakistan should keep picking batsmen at ages at which their foreign counterparts are dropped forever.

Pakistan has played 7 away Tests since January 2019. That provides a huge sample size, especially when you consider the old adage that "an old player is just one bad series away from the chop".

I have used current ages. I have left out Sarfraz Ahmed as he is not a frontline batsman - even though I included Shadab, so I am being charitable. I am being even more charitable by leaving out Iftikhar Ahmed on the basis of his questionable age. I counterbalanced that by excluding Fakhar Zaman, whose Test career was a terrible experiment.

Here are the numbers by two simple age bands: 21-30 and Over 30.

The Over Thirty's
Azhar Ali (35): 159 runs at 12.23
Asad Shafiq (34): 375 runs at 28.84
Fawad Alam (34): 0 runs at 0.00
Abid Ali (32): 96 runs at 32.00
Haris Sohail (31): 9 runs at 4.50
OVERALL - 639 runs in 32 innings at an average of 19.97

Aged 21-30
Shan Masood (30): 541 runs at 41.61
Mohammad Rizwan (28): 273 runs at 45.50
Babar Azam (25): 552 runs at 42.46
Imam-ul-Haq (24): 151 runs at 18.88
Shadab Khan (21): 112 runs at 37.33
OVERALL - 1,629 runs in 44 innings at an average of 38.79

These figures are extraordinary. The numbers are actually huge - well over 30 innings in each age range.

But Pakistan's batsmen over the age of 30 literally score 48.52% fewer runs per innings than the guys aged under 30.

If there is a legitimate role for senior batsmen the numbers should be the other way round. In theory, only elite veterans are retained whereas some of the younger batsmen - such as Imam-ul-Haq - are of lower quality and are discarded.

But what we actually see is that the "senior batsmen" are a dead weight, a burden on the team who cannot even average 20 between them, even across over 30 innings.

Pakistan's batsmen aged 21 to 30 are doing all the heavy lifting, scoring all the runs, while the seniors simply put the team in a sequence of losing positions.

 

[andy0204]

So basically you are telling Shan Masood should be kicked out within a year.

 

[Junaids]

So basically you are telling Shan Masood should be kicked out within a year.

I think Shan Masood is entering Abid Ali territory - probably the last 12-24 months that he will be a Test quality batsman.

It's incredibly rare for batsmen to still do well as late as Misbah and Younis did - and their numbers were distorted by playing so many matches in the UAE on wickets which negated pace bowling.

I think any Test team can pick a single batsman aged 30 for another couple of years to shepherd the youngsters through. But you can't have more than at most 2 batsmen in that 30-32 range, or youngsters can't establish themselves in the team and don't develop.

Alastair Cook retired at 33 - he's the same age as Azhar Ali.

AB De Villiers retired 8 weeks after his 34th birthday - he's the same age as Azhar Ali.

Graeme Smith retired 4 weeks after his 33rd birthday.

Azhar and Shafiq and Abid and Haris and Fawad are not Ponting or Kohli or even Younis or Misbah. They are players who were mediocre at their peak and are worse than mediocre now.

Shafiq has retained more of his prior performance than Azhar or Haris or Fawad. But is he really worth keeping to average 28.84? Wouldn't it be better having Haider Ali or Abdullah Shafique or Saud Shakeel averaging 29 on their way up rather than a geriatric averaging that on his way down?

 

[Ab Fan]

If it was about age, what are the records of Younis Khan, Asad Shafiq, Azhar Ali and Misbah-ul-Haq once they turned 30?

Age does have an impact(no denying on that) but if a player is mediocre, he will be mediocre irrespective of age.

Shan Masood current version, Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan are good players and that's why they are doing well. Azhar (except for a couple of peak years), Asad and Haris are mediocre and hence continue to flop. However, I would agree with the idea that if a player in his 20s is giving same output as the experienced player in 30s then why not persist with the guy in 20s assuming that he does have his heart in right place.

If someone is doing well even in 30s, he should be persisted like A & B for England.

Ishant Sharma has gone better with age and even Tim Southee has his career average trend going upward.

Your logic is correct but the interpretation on the basis of plain averages and age is incorrect.

 

[Junaids]

If it was about age, what are the records of Younis Khan, Asad Shafiq, Azhar Ali and Misbah-ul-Haq once they turned 30?

Age does have an impact(no denying on that) but if a player is mediocre, he will be mediocre irrespective of age.

Shan Masood current version, Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan are good players and that's why they are doing well. Azhar (except for a couple of peak years), Asad and Haris are mediocre and hence continue to flop. However, I would agree with the idea that if a player in his 20s is giving same output as the experienced player in 30s then why not persist with the guy in 20s assuming that he does have his heart in right place.

If someone is doing well even in 30s, he should be persisted like A & B for England.

Ishant Sharma has gone better with age and even Tim Southee has his career average trend going upward.

Your logic is correct but the interpretation on the basis of plain averages and age is incorrect.

These are very fair points.

Ultimately, surely you give an underperforming youngster a longer opportunity than an underperforming senior?

Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq are simply blocking up 2 of the 5 or 6 specialist bating positions and then failing to score enough runs.

It might be different if they were inspiring everyone with their positive body language and leadership - but they are not - they are the two members of the team whose body language is always overwhelmed and hopeless.

Would Abdullah Shafique and Haider Ali average less than 19.97? If not, why aren't they in the team ahead of Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Fawad Alam?

 

[leg-side-flick]

All these threads on AGE, it feels like a marriage bureau

 

[Giannis]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] so are doctors in their 20s and 30s superior to doctors in their 40s and 50s because they're younger therefore have faster reflexes, better stamina and better cognitive ability?

 

[Zaz]

Junaid is obsessed

Yes there is a factor once you get around the mid 30s you do regress as players but theres no hard or fast rule in cricket

One player can still be great at 34 and the other now very poor at the same age

Look at anderson at 38 Bowlers his age have retired by their mid 30s

Each case should be judged on its own merit

 

[GreenKhan]

Whilst this analysis is factually correct , it is merely because Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq have been in a barren run of form . The

If you use the same figures for 2016 and even 2017 then you will notice that misbah , Younis, Azhar Ali who at the time was also over 30 , averaged 45 in that period .

Not defending Azhar , or Asad, but this is a very flawed argument .

Sanga, jayawardena, were the pivot of SL batting way in to their 30s. Same goes for shivnarine chanderpaul. Hashim Amla still has a very good record post 30 .

Ross Taylor is another example .

It seems very bizarre that the OP is so age obsessed .

Simple mantra should be if your performing you should be in the team and vice versa. We should not discriminate on the basis of age, where your from etc .

We expect that in general life , why should it not apply cricket .

Oh by the way Ronnie o Sullivan a “45 year old “ is in to a another world snooker final .

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] so are doctors in their 20s and 30s superior to doctors in their 40s and 50s because they're younger therefore have faster reflexes, better stamina and better cognitive ability?

Surgeons reach a peak when they are experienced at any given procedure, but their coordination fades with time and you would never want a surgeon over 55 if you could have one a decade younger.

 

[Junaids]

Whilst this analysis is factually correct , it is merely because Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq have been in a barren run of form .

It seems very bizarre that the OP is so age obsessed .

Simple mantra should be if your performing you should be in the team and vice versa. We should not discriminate on the basis of age, where your from etc .

We expect that in general life , why should it not apply cricket . .

This isn’t a loss of form. It’s an age-related loss of ability.

Wayne Rooney is the same age as Asad Shafiq and he not only is no longer an international, he plays for a second division club.

If you look at elite footballers the same age as Azhar Ali, only Cristiano Ronaldo and Luka Modric are left - and Ronaldo is both supremely fit and a guy who never tracks back.

In any sport around the world there may be one or two elite 35 year olds and four of five elite 34 year olds left - in the world.

But Pakistan - and Misbah - seem to think that age is no handicap. But it clearly is.

If I had to name the two guys born around 84/85 who are still very good cricketers I would say BJ Watling and Ross Taylor - and that both recently were exposed in Australia as inferior to who they were 4 years earlier.

I wouldn’t say Azhar or Shafiq or Fawad - they are all in the Wayne Rooney category of “No longer International Class”.

 

[Junaids]

As for Ronnie O’Sullivan:

1. He plays a sedentary sport in which you wear a tie.

2. He is the greatest player of all time - which I don’t believe that either Azhar or Shafiq are.

This guy reached 4 snooker World Championship quarter-finals!

 

[Zaz]

How does junaid explain graham gooch between ages 36 -41 avging over 50 in the last 5 years of his intnl cricket and playing the best he ever did?

Warne having first played gooch when gooch was aged 39-40 rates him the best england player he ever bowled at

 

[andy0204]

How does junaid explain graham gooch between ages 36 -41 avging over 50 in the last 5 years of his intnl cricket and playing the best he ever did?

Warne having first played gooch when gooch was aged 39-40 rates him the best england player he ever bowled at

Clive llyod retired as the no 1 batsman at the age of 39,
Tendulkar was the no 1 batsman at the age of 38.
It works on both ways but Junaids is nitpicking stats and Iam not saying Azhar and Shafiq are good but the criteria Junaids made that batsman over the age of 30 are useless is not digesting me.

 

[Junaids]

How does junaid explain graham gooch between ages 36 -41 avging over 50 in the last 5 years of his intnl cricket and playing the best he ever did?

Warne having first played gooch when gooch was aged 39-40 rates him the best england player he ever bowled at

I accept that there may be a freak in any given generation who is a top player at a very late age. But Misbah has over a dozen in his squad, suggesting that he is either a genius or a cretin.

Gooch was actually better in his late thirties than previously better players like Viv Richards and Javed Miandad and Allan Border. Younis lasted better than Ponting or Kallis!

The problem is, Azhar Ali has never done anything to suggest that he should continue to get exhumed to play every Test match posthumously.

By the way, I feel very honoured to have uploaded a picture of a true sporting hero, Bill Werbeniuk!

 

[marlonbrowndo]

But Pakistan batsmen over 30 please Misbah by 49%

 

[Indiafan]

So the really question here is, at the age which batsmen of other countries peak, why do pakistani batsmen start underperformed?.

You can also see this trend in the bowlers. Instead of maturing and performing better with age why do they come with a flash and then fade away? Is it a system failure? It cannot be a lack of talent. How does the system fail them?

 

[Indiafan]

I accept that there may be a freak in any given generation who is a top player at a very late age. But Misbah has over a dozen in his squad, suggesting that he is either a genius or a cretin.

Gooch was actually better in his late thirties than previously better players like Viv Richards and Javed Miandad and Allan Border. Younis lasted better than Ponting or Kallis!

The problem is, Azhar Ali has never done anything to suggest that he should continue to get exhumed to play every Test match posthumously.

By the way, I feel very honoured to have uploaded a picture of a true sporting hero, Bill Werbeniuk!

how is this a freak? All the top batsmen in all countries were at the top well past 30s. Look t any batting legend. Even average batsmen all peaked around 30s and continued for a few more years

 

[Giannis]

This isn’t a loss of form. It’s an age-related loss of ability.

Wayne Rooney is the same age as Asad Shafiq and he not only is no longer an international, he plays for a second division club.

If you look at elite footballers the same age as Azhar Ali, only Cristiano Ronaldo and Luka Modric are left - and Ronaldo is both supremely fit and a guy who never tracks back.

In any sport around the world there may be one or two elite 35 year olds and four of five elite 34 year olds left - in the world.

But Pakistan - and Misbah - seem to think that age is no handicap. But it clearly is.

If I had to name the two guys born around 84/85 who are still very good cricketers I would say BJ Watling and Ross Taylor - and that both recently were exposed in Australia as inferior to who they were 4 years earlier.

I wouldn’t say Azhar or Shafiq or Fawad - they are all in the Wayne Rooney category of “No longer International Class”.

But cricket isn't a highly athletic sport unlike other sports, it's most similar to Baseball and over here in America there are plenty of baseball players in their 30s and even early 40s - baseball players are known for having the longest careers.

 

[Junaids]

Clive llyod retired as the no 1 batsman at the age of 39,
Tendulkar was the no 1 batsman at the age of 38.
It works on both ways but Junaids is nitpicking stats and Iam not saying Azhar and Shafiq are good but the criteria Junaids made that batsman over the age of 30 are useless is not digesting me.

Clive Lloyd and Sachin Tendulkar were ATGs. So was Graham Gooch.

Azhar and Shafiq barely averaged 40 at their peak. The idea that they are comparable with Lloyd or Tendulkar or Gavaskar is a bit of a stretch!

 

[marlonbrowndo]

But Pakistan batsmen over 30 please Misbah by 49%

This matters more than winning

 

[Junaids]

But cricket isn't a highly athletic sport unlike other sports, it's most similar to Baseball and over here in America there are plenty of baseball players in their 30s and even early 40s - baseball players are known for having the longest careers.

Batting is all about hand-eye coordination, especially if like Azhar you have a flawed technique.

Why else has Azhar Ali’s away average fallen to 12.23 at the ages of 34 and 35?

Why has Asad Shafiq’s fallen to 28.84?

Or are you saying that it’s just because they are too mentally weak to perform without Misbah and Younis at the non-strikers’ end to hold their hand?

 

[Giannis]

Plenty of great sportsman over 30

LeBron James - 35
Kevin Durant - 30
Steph Curry - 31
Roger Federer - 38
Serena Williams - 38
Rafael Nadal - 34
Novak Djokovic - 33
Tom Brady - 43
Peyton Manning - 44 (retired at 39)
Eli Manning - 39, just retired
Michael Jordan - retired at 40, won last title at 35.
Kobe - retired at 37, won last title at 32
Dirk Nowitzki - retired at 41, last playoff run at 38.
Imran Khan - retired at 39 when he won the world cup

Lets not forget a lot of Indian batsmen playing late into their 30s, Dravid was literally the star batsmen during the tour of England in 2011.

 

[Junaids]

Plenty of great sportsman over 30

LeBron James - 35
Kevin Durant - 30
Steph Curry - 31
Roger Federer - 38
Serena Williams - 38
Rafael Nadal - 34
Novak Djokovic - 33
Tom Brady - 43
Peyton Manning - 44 (retired at 39)
Eli Manning - 39, just retired
Michael Jordan - retired at 40, won last title at 35.
Kobe - retired at 37, won last title at 32
Dirk Nowitzki - retired at 41, last playoff run at 38.
Imran Khan - retired at 39 when he won the world cup

Lets not forget a lot of Indian batsmen playing late into their 30s, Dravid was literally the star batsmen during the tour of England in 2011.

You are misinterpreting that information.

The greatest one or two players of each generation in each sport are generally still good enough to compete at the top level once their skills have deteriorated a little with age.

Nobody disputes that.

But 99% of their contemporaries are long retired. That’s the whole point.

Imran Khan won the 1992 World Cup. Where was Viv Richards? Michael Holding? Andy Roberts? Richard Hadlee?

They were all long retired, and while Richards lasted longer the price was that his career Test average fell from 57 to 50.

Azhar and Shafiq were never in that class. And Fawad wasn’t even good enough to be selected for a decade.

 

[Giannis]

You are misinterpreting that information.

The greatest one or two players of each generation in each sport are generally still good enough to compete at the top level once their skills have deteriorated a little with age.

Nobody disputes that.

But 99% of their contemporaries are long retired. That’s the whole point.

Imran Khan won the 1992 World Cup. Where was Viv Richards? Michael Holding? Andy Roberts? Richard Hadlee?

They were all long retired, and while Richards lasted longer the price was that his career Test average fell from 57 to 50.

Azhar and Shafiq were never in that class. And Fawad wasn’t even good enough to be selected for a decade.

Fair point.

Btw as a Doctor, what would your advice be for young men trying preserve cognitive ability and reflexes? Do you think excercise and/or psycho stimulants could help prevent/slow down the process of aging or is it all inevitable?

 

[Junaids]

Lets not forget a lot of Indian batsmen playing late into their 30s, Dravid was literally the star batsmen during the tour of England in 2011.

And four months later he averaged 24.25 in Australia and immediately retired, completely humiliated.

India have lost every away series in SENA for years, apart from when Australia’s only two good batsmen were suspended.

I actually think that India self-harm with geriatrics as badly as Pakistan did.

The Indians who humiliated themselves in New Zealand five months ago were full of serial losers who had lost their last series in England, South Africa etc etc.

Indians and Pakistanis keep selecting people with a rubbish track record, and somehow expect them to improve as they age through their 30’s.

 

[Junaids]

Fair point.

Btw as a Doctor, what would your advice be for young men trying preserve cognitive ability and reflexes? Do you think excercise and/or psycho stimulants could help prevent/slow down the process of aging or is it all inevitable?

Staying fit is great.

But only a few richly gifted freaks will still be international quality sportsmen beyond around 31 or 32 years old.

Anderson and Broad? Yes.

Sohail Khan? No.

Alastair Cook? No.

Azhar Ali? No.

It’s normal. International sport is a young man’s game, and you only need a tiny sprinkling of experience in a team.

 

[Giannis]

Staying fit is great.

But only a few richly gifted freaks will still be international quality sportsmen beyond around 31 or 32 years old.

Anderson and Broad? Yes.

Sohail Khan? No.

Alastair Cook? No.

Azhar Ali? No.

It’s normal. International sport is a young man’s game, and you only need a tiny sprinkling of experience in a team.

But how should one retain their reflexes and cognitive abilities? There's gotta be something

 

[Indiafan]

You are misinterpreting that information.

The greatest one or two players of each generation in each sport are generally still good enough to compete at the top level once their skills have deteriorated a little with age.

Nobody disputes that.

But 99% of their contemporaries are long retired. That’s the whole point.

Imran Khan won the 1992 World Cup. Where was Viv Richards? Michael Holding? Andy Roberts? Richard Hadlee?

They were all long retired, and while Richards lasted longer the price was that his career Test average fell from 57 to 50.

Azhar and Shafiq were never in that class. And Fawad wasn’t even good enough to be selected for a decade.

There have been multiple analysis done which show even average batsmen peak around 30 or after and tht they average more in their 30s than in their 20


https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22034017/the-optimum-age-cricketer

http://thegameisafoot.weebly.com/sp...atsmen,approximation to a normal distribution

.https://5addedminutes.com/2016/09/03/the-batting-age-curve/amp/

Genal conclusion seems to be that batsmen peak between 29 to 33 and even those over that age when they decline, they don't go below the the 24 to 28 years average

AGE BATTING AVERAGE BOWLING
<20 28.34 34.01
20 26.66 35.78
21 29.08 36.45
22 30.55 36.92
23 30.31 36.10
24 31.23 34.93
25 30.77 33.22
26 31.67 33.56
27 30.99 32.75
28 31.53 32.86
29 32.41 31.45
30 33.96 30.58
31 32.35 32.19
32 34.63 30.42
33 31.64 29.93
34 30.71 31.19
35 32.72 33.32
>35 33.06 34.97

 

[Indiafan]

And four months later he averaged 24.25 in Australia and immediately retired, completely humiliated.

India have lost every away series in SENA for years, apart from when Australia’s only two good batsmen were suspended.

I actually think that India self-harm with geriatrics as badly as Pakistan did.

The Indians who humiliated themselves in New Zealand five months ago were full of serial losers who had lost their last series in England, South Africa etc etc.

Indians and Pakistanis keep selecting people with a rubbish track record, and somehow expect them to improve as they age through their 30’s.

Once again your India bias takes over your reason

India won and drew in all those countries with a much older team. By your own logic the team which was humiliated in new Zealand, etc should have done much better than the team which won in England and New Zealand and drew in South Africa because the former had batsmen which had a lesser average age.

But facts show that India won in England and New Zealand and drew in South Africa with much older batsmen

 

[Junaids]

But how should one retain their reflexes and cognitive abilities? There's gotta be something

My 18 year old son is a Law student who is being mentored through university by his 79 year old ex-doctor grandmother had his 51 year old dad (me!).

In our walks of life our experience is really helpful to him, and it doesn’t matter that I am slow and fat.

But I wouldn’t win a 100 metre race against him.

But if you decide on a career as a professional sportsman, you need to understand that you will be 95% likely to be finished by 32.

For every Ronaldo there are fifty Rooney’s who are finished at 32.

For every Buffon there are fifty Joe Harts.

Unfortunately the Indian subcontinent’s deference towards “age” and “experience” ruins the development of sports teams, which don’t let youngsters through early enough and let old men stay on too long.

 

[Junaids]

Once again your India bias takes over your reason

India won and drew in all those countries with a much older team. By your own logic the team which was humiliated in new Zealand, etc should have done much better than the team which won in England and New Zealand and drew in South Africa because the former had batsmen which had a lesser average age.

But facts show that India won in England and New Zealand and drew in South Africa with much older batsmen

No!

The likes of Dravid and Laxman were so good that even when they deteriorated they were still excellent players for a fairly long time.

But Misbah thinks that he can clone Younis Khan as Azhar Ali. But Azhar was never as good as Younis in the first place. Azhar at 31 was worse than Younis at 41. There was a chasm in class.

If you want to include geriatric players, ensure that they are still performing.

But Azhar averages 12 away.

Shafiq averages 29 away.

Why would you persist with that?

 

[Bullet Drive]

I think Shan Masood is entering Abid Ali territory - probably the last 12-24 months that he will be a Test quality batsman.

It's incredibly rare for batsmen to still do well as late as Misbah and Younis did - and their numbers were distorted by playing so many matches in the UAE on wickets which negated pace bowling.

I think any Test team can pick a single batsman aged 30 for another couple of years to shepherd the youngsters through. But you can't have more than at most 2 batsmen in that 30-32 range, or youngsters can't establish themselves in the team and don't develop.

Alastair Cook retired at 33 - he's the same age as Azhar Ali.

AB De Villiers retired 8 weeks after his 34th birthday - he's the same age as Azhar Ali.

Graeme Smith retired 4 weeks after his 33rd birthday.

Azhar and Shafiq and Abid and Haris and Fawad are not Ponting or Kohli or even Younis or Misbah. They are players who were mediocre at their peak and are worse than mediocre now.

Shafiq has retained more of his prior performance than Azhar or Haris or Fawad. But is he really worth keeping to average 28.84? Wouldn't it be better having Haider Ali or Abdullah Shafique or Saud Shakeel averaging 29 on their way up rather than a geriatric averaging that on his way down?

We genuinely have two upcoming batting greats in Abdullah and Saud Shakeel, yet if Misbah stays under 'rule' they'll debut when they're 30+

Abdullah is an unbelievable talent. Please do check out some videos of him batting.

 

[Mamoon]

I thought they underperformed by 48.5%.

So I was slightly off the mark.

 

[Junaids]

I thought they underperformed by 48.5%.

So I was slightly off the mark.

May I ask you a polite question?

I understand that you are frustrated by low standards and pretty much expect Pakistan to lose against decent opposition.

You and I partly agree here. I think that in that situation at least Babar and Rizwan are good players and Naseem and Shaheen and Shadab are highly promising and would be fixtures on the New Zealand and South Africa teams.

My question is this. You don’t like low standards. You expect the current Pakistanis to lose.

So if you are going to lose anyway, which of the following scenarios for the other 6 players in the team do you prefer?

Option A: Combine those five players with men in their thirties, the Misbah way. You will lose but can complain about the lack of quality, selection, etc.

Option B: Combine those five players with guys in their twenties who still have the potential to improve. You will probably lose, but can develop or discard younger talent.

What would you prefer [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] ?

 

[Bewal Express]

It's a shame that we dont play Ind more often because a few losses to them would mean the dross would be binned much quicker because of public pressure. The likes of AA and AS are past their sell by date but Misbah knows that in the short term we would get smashed even more because the likes of Haider, Saud, Imam etc aren't any good either or aren't ready . This is where a good domestic system would bridge the gap, but that's still in infancy and will take at least 5 years to produce results. We have the basis of a solid team, Babar was excellent yesterday and really battled it out and IA we not only have a talented guy but a real scrapper. Rizwan has emerged as tough cookie and then 2 talented young bowlers. Shan is still so and so, his dismissal here was too easy and it showed that he is happy to live off his performance at OT, Abid is OK and in the short he will do, he showed more fortitude here, than OT where he should he was mentally weak.

 

[Mamoon]

May I ask you a polite question?

I understand that you are frustrated by low standards and pretty much expect Pakistan to lose against decent opposition.

You and I partly agree here. I think that in that situation at least Babar and Rizwan are good players and Naseem and Shaheen and Shadab are highly promising and would be fixtures on the New Zealand and South Africa teams.

My question is this. You don’t like low standards. You expect the current Pakistanis to lose.

So if you are going to lose anyway, which of the following scenarios for the other 6 players in the team do you prefer?

Option A: Combine those five players with men in their thirties, the Misbah way. You will lose but can complain about the lack of quality, selection, etc.

Option B: Combine those five players with guys in their twenties who still have the potential to improve. You will probably lose, but can develop or discard younger talent.

What would you prefer [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] ?

The problem is that I don’t see any bright future for the current crop of young players except Babar and Shaheen.

And Babar’s status as a youngster with great potential is eroding because he is now seen as an established player who should be at the top of his game.

So that only leaves us with Shaheen who provides genuine hope for the future.

I would not mind losing with players in their 20’s if I could see world class potential in them, but to lose with young players who would be good for nothing seniors in the future is pointless.

If Pakistan continues to pick the likes of Shadab and Faheem with the hope that they would be top cricketers in the future, it is only setting itself up for disappointment.

I really don’t see Pakistan becoming a top 4 side any time soon unless the other sides rapidly decline or Pakistan produces a wave of youngsters who have the quality of Babar and Shaheen.

Naseem is tremendously overhyped because PCB have sold a lie with respect to his age. He is roughly as old as Shaheen but clearly an inferior prospect.

I don’t see him developing into anything more than a Hasan Ali level bowler even if he cuts down his over the top arrogance and forced aggression.

 

[Titan24]

They definitely have been underperforming but as said in another thread other than Azhar’s peak none of them did anything extraordinary in test cricket and were mediocre for most part of their careers. Haris Sohail and Abid Ali have a pretty small sample size so I wont judge them too harshly as of now.

Its a fact that 35 years old Azhar and 34 years old Asad are definitely not in the too 5-7 test batsmen of Pakistan currently and their stats for last 2-3 years reflect that. Atleast one young guy should have been developed in this time by dropping one of these if not both. Now when Haris was missing we went with 34 years old Fawad Alam to correct the mistake of not selecting him 6-7 years ago.

I can put down a list of young batsmen who couldnt have done worse then some of these in the last few years and even if they would have been as worse atleast there would have been some investment for long term.

No team in the world can afford failing batsmen in their mid 30s when they werent even some legendary batsmen to start with. A 25 year old failing worse than some of the batsmen we have will be better investment as there will be something to look forward in the future.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], point by point.

1. I accept your criticism of Faheem Ashraf.
2. Your comments about Shadab don’t match his Test record. Six away Tests, 5 in difficult conditions, yet his batting and bowling averages are in their thirties and he really is 21. At that stage both Steve Smith and Labuschagne were bits and pieces leggies, and he is better than either was at both batting and bowling at the same age. And he has something about him, that hunger and drive that only the best players ever have.
3. Naseem Shah is probably 19 or 20. We all know that. But his action is amazing, his speed is excellent and in spite of his height even I recognise his potential! He’d be a 16 year old genius, but he’s still the best 19 year old bowler that I have seen since Wasim Akram.
4. Younger players. When you clear out the old, for every Steve Waugh there is a Mike Veletta, for every Josh Hazlewood there is a Doug Bollinger. But wouldn’t it excite you to watch Haider Ali come out to bat rather than Azhar Ali?

 

[Bewal Express]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], point by point.

1. I accept your criticism of Faheem Ashraf.
2. Your comments about Shadab don’t match his Test record. Six away Tests, 5 in difficult conditions, yet his batting and bowling averages are in their thirties and he really is 21. At that stage both Steve Smith and Labuschagne were bits and pieces leggies, and he is better than either was at both batting and bowling at the same age. And he has something about him, that hunger and drive that only the best players ever have.
3. Naseem Shah is probably 19 or 20. We all know that. But his action is amazing, his speed is excellent and in spite of his height even I recognise his potential! He’d be a 16 year old genius, but he’s still the best 19 year old bowler that I have seen since Wasim Akram.
4. Younger players. When you clear out the old, for every Steve Waugh there is a Mike Veletta, for every Josh Hazlewood there is a Doug Bollinger. But wouldn’t it excite you to watch Haider Ali come out to bat rather than Azhar Ali?

This is a weird discussion. You are talking about a guy that has never celebrated a single PK victory, is still hurting after our victory in the CT and has never said a positive word.

 

[Junaids]

This is a weird discussion. You are talking about a guy that has never celebrated a single PK victory, is still hurting after our victory in the CT and has never said a positive word.

I guess my points in this thread are that:

1. Pakistan’s senior batsmen are contributing nothing.
2. All the runs are being scored by guys aged 21-30.
3. So why not dump the seniors in favour of promising youngsters? They can’t score any less runs than the seniors, but at least it would be fascinating to watch.

 

[Bewal Express]

I guess my points in this thread are that:

1. Pakistan’s senior batsmen are contributing nothing.
2. All the runs are being scored by guys aged 21-30.
3. So why not dump the seniors in favour of promising youngsters? They can’t score any less runs than the seniors, but at least it would be fascinating to watch.

I can't disagree with your basic premise. The problem is that Misbah thinks that we will be even worse with the younger guys. I agree with you that both AA and AS are past their sell by date but because of bad planning, Misbah is scared to use the axe. I like Haider but it wouldn't have been sensible to select him in these conditions against 2 guys with a 1000 wickets. I would certainly select him for the next series at home.

 

[Kroll]

Rather than having a cutoff mark at 31/32, I think the issue is that under Misbah, Pak have a penchant for playing and selecting really old guys, like from mid thirties on wards. With the precedence that Misbah set, some of these guys like Azhar Ali now want to play on till 42.

Clearly a lot of athletes are still at the top of their games in their early to mid thirties. One prominent instance of this is when Justin Gatlin (notwithstanding drug issues years before) won the 100m sprint WC at age 35.

The other issue is that a lot of these guys like Shafiq and Azhar are no longer good enough to play in the side even though they are on the wrong side of thirty.

Masood and Abid should still be persisted with as they have shown good performances but obviously, there should be a close eye on replacements and this is an area where the planners are failing badly.