The statistics tell the whole story in South Africa

[Junaids]

So Pakistan is about to lose the series, throwing it away inside 7 days of cricket just like India did in South Africa a year earlier.

The thing is, the numbers show very clearly why Pakistan is losing a low-scoring series.

Most of the South African batsmen have mediocre numbers, and three of the four top scorers are actually Pakistani.

The problem is that 3 of Pakistan’s 6 batsmen are contributing NOTHING, and so is one of Pakistan’s bowlers.

Here is the tale of the numbers:

Highest Scorers
1. Shan Masood 189 runs at 47.25.
2. Babar Azam 151 runs at 37.25
3. Temba Bavuma 141 runs at 70.50.
4. Asad Shafiq 121 runs at 30.25

All of those batsmen have done just fine overall.

The problem for Pakistan is what the rest of the batsmen have delivered: of South Africa’s other five batsmen 4 have delivered mediocre returns and 1 has bombed out, while all 3 of Pakistan’s other batsmen plus the keeper have delivered nothing.

How South African batting mediocrity won in the end
6. FAF du Plessis 103 runs at 34.33 with 2 ducks
7. Hashim Amla 95 runs at 47.50
8. Dean Elgar 92 runs at 30.66
9. Aidan Markram 90 runs at 30.00.

The disasters which lost the series
10. Imam-ul-Haq 71 runs at 17.75.
11. Sarfraz Ahmed 62 runs at 15.50
(12. Theunis de Bruyn 52 runs at 17.33)
13. Azhar Ali 44 runs at 11.00
14. Fakhar Zaman 32 runs at 8.00

In other words, Shan Masood, Babar Azam and Asad Shafiq have done their jobs.

The problem is that the series would be level if Imam, Azhar and Fakhar had just been like Elgar or Markram and delivered 25-30 runs per innings instead of 10.

At Cape Town, EVERY South African from Numbers 1 to 11 reached double figures in their First Innings.

But Imam, Azhar, Fakhar and Yasir Shah - in other words THREE of Pakistan’s Six Specialist Batsmen - failed to reach 10 in EITHER innings.

The bowling tells a similar story.

Top wicket-takers
1. Duanne Olivier 16 wickets in 2 matches at 14.25.
2. Kagiso Rabada 12 wickets in 2 matches at 16.83.
3. Dale Steyn 10 wickets in 2 matches at 23.30.
4. Shaheen Shah Afridi 9 wickets in 2 matches at 26.66.
5. Mohammad Amir 8 wickets in 2 matches at 21.75.

Those bowlers have obviously performed well. And South Africa has had 3 functioning bowlers while Pakistan has only had 2 in each match, because......

The bowlers who have failed
6. Hasan Ali 3 wickets in 1 match at 36.33
(He failed because he bled runs too fast which let South Africa get too far ahead.)
7. Vernon Philander 2 wickets in 1 match at 43.50
(Semi-fit and rusty)
8. Mohammad Abbas 1 wicket at 100.00
(Semi-fit and rusty)
9. Yasir Shah 1 wicket in 2 matches at 123.00.
10. Keshav Maharaj 0 wickets in 1 match.

Perhaps here more of the blame attaches to Pakistan’s South African coach for not pulling rank on Sarfraz and Inzamam in team and squad composition for South Africa.

All of us who have watched cricket in South Africa knew that Yasir Shah or Shadab Khan (or Maharaj) would effectively be selected as a Specialist Batsman. It made far more sense to pick Faheem Ashraf or even Shadab Khan.

After all, Yasir Shah’s total output in 2 Test matches has been:

1 wicket at 123.00
14 runs at 3.50.

So the numbers really do tell the whole story.

Two teams with weak batting and 2 or 3 effective bowlers, with Pakistan losing because although they had 3 of the 4 top scoring batsmen, 3 of their batsmen and their keeper delivered nothing with the bat.

This is the series that South Africa won because their 4th to 6th highest scoring batsmen averaged 30-34.

And Pakistan lost it because their 4th to 6th highest scoring batsmen averaged 11-18.

And Pakistan lost because they picked Yasir Shah.

People criticise Mitchell Starc currently because his Test bowling record since Cape Town has returned to almost exactly what it was before 2016.

But Yasir Shah’s bowling in South Africa has equally predictably been exactly like it was in Australia and New Zealand. He seems to be picked overseas purely because of what he once did in 2 Tests in London when he had lots of runs to play with on a wearing pitch.

 

[Savak]

Have to completely agree with this. Pakistan should have played Faheem Ashraf and Shadab Khan and dropped Azhar Ali. The plan should have been 5 bowling options giving the pacers the license to go full throttle

 

[Suleiman]

A Junaids post without Umar Akmal, Salman Butts, shows how serious this thrashing to Pakistan was. But very good analysis bhai sahab.

As a long time friend and supporter of Shan, I just hope people don’t hype him to the moon after dragging him through the mud for years. Let him do him.

 

[Wristy_Shuffler]

I think Yasir was picked also because of Ajmal's 10 wickets in 2013 but for any spinner to be effective, the batsmen have to make a score. They assumed that Pakistan with this line up would be able to rack up a 300+ score and keep this game alive past day 3. The inconsistent bounce yesterday showed that a spinner probably would help if SA Pak had runs to defend on day 4 and 5 but I guess that was always impossible given how frail the batting was and how quickly the runs were scored.

 

[Junaids]

I think Yasir was picked also because of Ajmal's 10 wickets in 2013 but for any spinner to be effective, the batsmen have to make a score. They assumed that Pakistan with this line up would be able to rack up a 300+ score and keep this game alive past day 3. The inconsistent bounce yesterday showed that a spinner probably would help if SA Pak had runs to defend on day 4 and 5 but I guess that was always impossible given how frail the batting was and how quickly the runs were scored.

But even if that is true, why pick a SIXTH batsman rather than a FIFTH bowler?

I’ve shown in my statistics that:

1. The fourth, fifth and sixth batsman have only scored 147 runs between them in 6 innings. Imam is half a batsman while Azhar and Fakhar are each roughly a quarter of a batsman.

2. Yasir Shah has effectively played as a specialist batsman who has made 14 runs in 4 innings.

Could Faheem Ashraf have done any worse?

 

[Oligochaetes]

But even if that is true, why pick a SIXTH batsman rather than a FIFTH bowler?

I’ve shown in my statistics that:

1. The fourth, fifth and sixth batsman have only scored 147 runs between them in 6 innings. Imam is half a batsman while Azhar and Fakhar are each roughly a quarter of a batsman.

2. Yasir Shah has effectively played as a specialist batsman who has made 14 runs in 4 innings.

Could Faheem Ashraf have done any worse?

Better to pack the third test with allrounders and see what happens. It's a good opportunity to try out some new team combinations, rather than go with the same old strategies which have failed repeatedly.

 

[Wristy_Shuffler]

But even if that is true, why pick a SIXTH batsman rather than a FIFTH bowler?

I’ve shown in my statistics that:

1. The fourth, fifth and sixth batsman have only scored 147 runs between them in 6 innings. Imam is half a batsman while Azhar and Fakhar are each roughly a quarter of a batsman.

2. Yasir Shah has effectively played as a specialist batsman who has made 14 runs in 4 innings.

Could Faheem Ashraf have done any worse?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Even if Yasir was played, they should have slotted Faheem in there somewhere. It's a team game but I'm kinda disappointed with how little nouse Micky Arthur shown coming in to this series.

The thing with Yasir is, it's impossible to ignore his 200 wickets and also, that one spell against NZ in the second Test is one of many he has bowled to lead Pak to victory. It's just this romanticism idea that many fans (including myself) have had where you just tune in to watch a Yasir Shah ball that flights, dips, grips and turns to start a mini collapse seemingly from nowhere.

Even with hindsight, I would've still played him but used Azhar as an opener, with Shan and never played Fakher. I wonder what the heck happens in these net sessions because it should've been obvious Zaman was struggling - again, I guess there was this fantasy that Fakher would get through a few overs of testing bowling flashing over the slips, top edge over fine leg and go on to score big but the reality was that he just ended up replacing Hafeez as something new for the South African bowlers to laugh at.

 

[Spidy201]

So Pakistan is about to lose the series, throwing it away inside 7 days of cricket just like India did in South Africa a year earlier.

The thing is, the numbers show very clearly why Pakistan is losing a low-scoring series.

Most of the South African batsmen have mediocre numbers, and three of the four top scorers are actually Pakistani.

The problem is that 3 of Pakistan’s 6 batsmen are contributing NOTHING, and so is one of Pakistan’s bowlers.

Here is the tale of the numbers:

Highest Scorers
1. Shan Masood 189 runs at 47.25.
2. Babar Azam 151 runs at 37.25
3. Temba Bavuma 141 runs at 70.50.
4. Asad Shafiq 121 runs at 30.25

All of those batsmen have done just fine overall.

The problem for Pakistan is what the rest of the batsmen have delivered: of South Africa’s other five batsmen 4 have delivered mediocre returns and 1 has bombed out, while all 3 of Pakistan’s other batsmen plus the keeper have delivered nothing.

How South African batting mediocrity won in the end
6. FAF du Plessis 103 runs at 34.33 with 2 ducks
7. Hashim Amla 95 runs at 47.50
8. Dean Elgar 92 runs at 30.66
9. Aidan Markram 90 runs at 30.00.

The disasters which lost the series
10. Imam-ul-Haq 71 runs at 17.75.
11. Sarfraz Ahmed 62 runs at 15.50
(12. Theunis de Bruyn 52 runs at 17.33)
13. Azhar Ali 44 runs at 11.00
14. Fakhar Zaman 32 runs at 8.00

In other words, Shan Masood, Babar Azam and Asad Shafiq have done their jobs.

The problem is that the series would be level if Imam, Azhar and Fakhar had just been like Elgar or Markram and delivered 25-30 runs per innings instead of 10.

At Cape Town, EVERY South African from Numbers 1 to 11 reached double figures in their First Innings.

But Imam, Azhar, Fakhar and Yasir Shah - in other words THREE of Pakistan’s Six Specialist Batsmen - failed to reach 10 in EITHER innings.

The bowling tells a similar story.

Top wicket-takers
1. Duanne Olivier 16 wickets in 2 matches at 14.25.
2. Kagiso Rabada 12 wickets in 2 matches at 16.83.
3. Dale Steyn 10 wickets in 2 matches at 23.30.
4. Shaheen Shah Afridi 9 wickets in 2 matches at 26.66.
5. Mohammad Amir 8 wickets in 2 matches at 21.75.

Those bowlers have obviously performed well. And South Africa has had 3 functioning bowlers while Pakistan has only had 2 in each match, because......

The bowlers who have failed
6. Hasan Ali 3 wickets in 1 match at 36.33
(He failed because he bled runs too fast which let South Africa get too far ahead.)
7. Vernon Philander 2 wickets in 1 match at 43.50
(Semi-fit and rusty)
8. Mohammad Abbas 1 wicket at 100.00
(Semi-fit and rusty)
9. Yasir Shah 1 wicket in 2 matches at 123.00.
10. Keshav Maharaj 0 wickets in 1 match.

Perhaps here more of the blame attaches to Pakistan’s South African coach for not pulling rank on Sarfraz and Inzamam in team and squad composition for South Africa.

All of us who have watched cricket in South Africa knew that Yasir Shah or Shadab Khan (or Maharaj) would effectively be selected as a Specialist Batsman. It made far more sense to pick Faheem Ashraf or even Shadab Khan.

After all, Yasir Shah’s total output in 2 Test matches has been:

1 wicket at 123.00
14 runs at 3.50.

So the numbers really do tell the whole story.

Two teams with weak batting and 2 or 3 effective bowlers, with Pakistan losing because although they had 3 of the 4 top scoring batsmen, 3 of their batsmen and their keeper delivered nothing with the bat.

This is the series that South Africa won because their 4th to 6th highest scoring batsmen averaged 30-34.

And Pakistan lost it because their 4th to 6th highest scoring batsmen averaged 11-18.

And Pakistan lost because they picked Yasir Shah.

People criticise Mitchell Starc currently because his Test bowling record since Cape Town has returned to almost exactly what it was before 2016.

But Yasir Shah’s bowling in South Africa has equally predictably been exactly like it was in Australia and New Zealand. He seems to be picked overseas purely because of what he once did in 2 Tests in London when he had lots of runs to play with on a wearing pitch.

your statics are right but you did a horrible analysis. here is why I think that:
Firstly, you convinently forgot that South Africa is chasing Pakistan's target in both the matches. Chasing teams just need 1 more run to when the match. so judging batters with "most runs" column is unfair. in first match South Africa was 154 for 4 when they won the match, Amla set on 63 not out and bavuma batting on 13 & de kock didn't even get a chance. that's half of their batting line up. In second match South Africans are yet to play there 2nd innings & with just 40 runs to get,how do you expect them to completely outscore Pakistani batsmen ? A better indicator for judging batter's performance is batting average (I am sure you have some idea what batting average means) & here are top three batsmen with highest batting avg:
T Bavuma: avg 70
Q de Kock: avg 52
H Amla: avg 47.5

why unfairly judge them with aggregate scores when they have batted in 3 innings ( de Kock in just 2) whereas all Pakistani batters batted in all four innings? that's like 25% lesser opportunities to bat than the other team (even if we ignore that SA was still 4 down when they won the 1st match )

secondly, how many of ppers would have picked shadab over yasir before the series started? it's easy to make "Bali ka Bakra" (scapegoat) of selectors after someone extremely important to the team fails to perform but very difficult to make that pridiction before series starts.
I'm 100% certain that if shadab was picked over yasir and Pakistan had still lost(believe me the would have) we would have seen burning effigies of selectors/team management in Pakistan for not picking yasir.

 

[Junaids]

your statics are right but you did a horrible analysis. here is why I think that:
Firstly, you convinently forgot that South Africa is chasing Pakistan's target in both the matches. Chasing teams just need 1 more run to when the match. so judging batters with "most runs" column is unfair. in first match South Africa was 154 for 4 when they won the match, Amla set on 63 not out and bavuma batting on 13 & de kock didn't even get a chance. that's half of their batting line up. In second match South Africans are yet to play there 2nd innings & with just 40 runs to get,how do you expect them to completely outscore Pakistani batsmen ? A better indicator for judging batter's performance is batting average (I am sure you have some idea what batting average means) & here are top three batsmen with highest batting avg:
T Bavuma: avg 70
Q de Kock: avg 52
H Amla: avg 47.5

why unfairly judge them with aggregate scores when they have batted in 3 innings ( de Kock in just 2) whereas all Pakistani batters batted in all four innings? that's like 25% lesser opportunities to bat than the other team (even if we ignore that SA was still 4 down when they won the 1st match )

secondly, how many of ppers would have picked shadab over yasir before the series started? it's easy to make "Bali ka Bakra" (scapegoat) of selectors after someone extremely important to the team fails to perform but very difficult to make that pridiction before series starts.
I'm 100% certain that if shadab was picked over yasir and Pakistan had still lost(believe me the would have) we would have seen burning effigies of selectors/team management in Pakistan for not picking yasir.

That’s a good reply, but I have two responses.

Firstly, Test cricket is won by whoever scores more runs across two innings. So my batting analysis is fundamentally sound: Masood, Babar and Shafiq have scored enough runs but Azhar, Fakhar And Imam have not.

(And by your argument I was too harsh on Amir and Shaheen as they took their wickets across 3 innings and not 4 like the South Africans!)

Secondly, I wrote in three different threads before the series started that Shadab should be preferred to Yasir in South African conditions.

(I flew to South Africa last February to watch their last home series v Australia, and I also attended the Brisbane and Sydney Tests two years ago where Yasir failed dismally. I know he is a waste of space on Aussie, Kiwi and South African pitches).

Both attacks struggled at Centurion because the three quicks needed a fourth one to share the workload. And neither team scored 250 in the match.

At Cape Town the Pakistanis bowled wonderfully on the second morning, but having Yasir rather than a Fourth quick wore them out and South Africa got away to make over 400 against an exhausted attack.

These are two teams in which 8 players on each team are fairly evenly matched.

South Africa is only winning because their 4th to 6th batsmen are mediocre while Pakistan’s are rubbish.

And because Yasir Shah has been a wasted selection.

 

[mohan11]

In hindsight that guy knows everything.

 

[CricketCartoons]

South Africa is only winning because their 4th to 6th batsmen are mediocre while Pakistan’s are rubbish.

Rubbish statement, and also factually incorrect. South africa has played two full innings, one was while chasing and middle order wasnt needed. Out of the 2 full innings, the middle order has had 3 fifties and 1 century. that is not mediocre on these pitches.

The main reason pakistan has lost is because their bowlers have not performed on conditions which should suit them.

 

[Junaids]

Rubbish statement, and also factually incorrect. South africa has played two full innings, one was while chasing and middle order wasnt needed. Out of the 2 full innings, the middle order has had 3 fifties and 1 century. that is not mediocre on these pitches.

The main reason pakistan has lost is because their bowlers have not performed on conditions which should suit them.

With respect, I disagree.

I fully agree that Amir and Afridi have lacked fit supporting pace bowlers.

But the difference between these two teams is less than it looks after two Tests, just like when India visited a year ago. They too lost the series inside 7 days, but they then addressed their strategic and selection errors and won the dead rubber.

I would argue that:

Shan Masood + Babar Azam + Asad Shafiq = Bavuma + Markram + De Kock
Azhar Ali + Fakhar Zaman + Imam-ul-Haq = Amla + De Bruyn

That leaves the runs of FAF and Elgar which Pakistan is not counteracting.

The attack has been wrong, I agree. The Yasir Shah experiment has been a disaster.

But the composition of the attack was wrong before it arrived in the country. It didn’t help that Abbas was injured, but South African conditions sometimes require a tall right arm quick to stifle the run rate while the strike bowlers rest.

Hasan Ali is too short to bowl those spells of 6-2-8-0, whereas Ehsan Adil even as an Under-19 always excelled in South Africa.

I still think that Pakistan’s best chance with Haris Sohail and Mohammad Abbas injured was - as [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] and I discussed BEFORE the series - was to go with:

1. Azhar Ali
2. Shan Masood (Yes, he’s won me over)
3. Asad Shafiq
4. Babar Azam
5. Umar Akmal
6. Sarfraz Ahmed (now I’d replace him with Mohammad Rizwan)
7. Shadab Khan
8. Faheem Ashraf
9. Mohammad Amir
10. Ehsan Adil
11. Shaheen Shah Afridi

The bottom line is this: would Umar Akmal, Shadab Khan and Faheem Ashraf have scored more runs than the 71 in 4 innings by Imam, 44 by Azhar Ali and 32 by Fakhar Zaman?

To me it’s a no-brainer.

And in two Tests would Faheem have scored fewer than Yasir’s 14 runs, or taken less than his 1 wicket?

 

[ExpressPacer]

Good post. You're very dedicated to the Pakistani Test team in spite of having very little connection with Pakistan. I admire that.

 

[Muhammad10]

In other words, Shan Masood, Babar Azam and Asad Shafiq have done their jobs.

Asad? Really? His first three scores in the series were 7, 6 and 20! Batting at 5! Then, when we are 99% out of the series after conceding a 250+ first innings lead, he goes and smacks a quick 80 to pad his stats...

 

[Junaids]

Asad? Really? His first three scores in the series were 7, 6 and 20! Batting at 5! Then, when we are 99% out of the series after conceding a 250+ first innings lead, he goes and smacks a quick 80 to pad his stats...

Faf’s first two innings were 0 and 0. Then he scored 103 and won the Second Test.

Shafiq infuriates me. But he’s done okay.

But I’ve written before, replace the oldest non-performing batsman each year to avoid simultaneous exits.

So Azhar needs to be dropped forever after Johannesburg, while Shafiq gets one more season.

In eleven months there are two Tests in Australia at venues which require a four quick attack: Perth and a day/nighter at Adelaide.

The end of Azhar Ali allows Pakistan to move to a team better suited to those conditions:

1. Shan Masood (c)
2. Mohammad Rizwan (wk)
3. Asad Shafiq
4. Haris Sohail.
5. Babar Azam
6. Umar Akmal
7. Shadab Khan
8. Faheem Ashraf
9. Mohammad Amir
10. Shaheen Shah Afridi at Perth, Ehsan Adil at Adelaide.
11. Mohammad Abbas

Sarfraz’ demise really strengthens the batting but also opens up a slot for a fifth bowler.

 

[Abdullah]

Have to completely agree with this. Pakistan should have played Faheem Ashraf and Shadab Khan and dropped Azhar Ali. The plan should have been 5 bowling options giving the pacers the license to go full throttle

I'm desperate they get this right next game.
Even that will be suboptimal as they will have to acclimitise quickly whereas the others will have had game.
It is still what should have been done since should do it. I would drop Yasir and fakhar for them

 

[Dark Magician]

Asian teams are stupid for picking spinners in South Africa. It's just being stupid. It means your team goes into a game that 1 player short and when that player can't even bat it's worse. Pakistan needed to have 4 fast bowler's bowling at Max pace looking to unsettle the opposition instead they only had 3 legitimate wicket takers and one bowls military medium.

 

[Dark Magician]

Keshav Maharaj has been dropped even though he's one of the best spinners we've ever had. The team comes first. Selection should be based on which team is gonna win the match. Yasir Shah is not gonna win a test match in South Africa. It's just never gonna happen.

 

[soso_killer]

Garbage analysis as always, which isn't surprising. For all intent and purpose South African bats have batted for three innings, Pakistan 4. Leading run scorers without context is meaningless. You don't call a side that just blanked you inside 7 days mediocre, makes no sense.

 

[Junaids]

Garbage analysis as always, which isn't surprising. For all intent and purpose South African bats have batted for three innings, Pakistan 4. Leading run scorers without context is meaningless. You don't call a side that just blanked you inside 7 days mediocre, makes no sense.

Are you sure you haven’t missed the point?

My main point was that only 3 of Pakistan’s Top Seven batsmen have scored any runs.

Whereas only De Bruyn has contributed that little for South Africa.

Cricket in South Africa has not changed really since the dark days of Apartheid. If you score 600 runs in a match you will almost certainly win, but if you score less than 500 you will probably lose.

If you only have 3 batsmen contributing, you’re in trouble.

 

[Junaids]

Keshav Maharaj has been dropped even though he's one of the best spinners we've ever had. The team comes first. Selection should be based on which team is gonna win the match. Yasir Shah is not gonna win a test match in South Africa. It's just never gonna happen.

Asian teams are stupid for picking spinners in South Africa. It's just being stupid. It means your team goes into a game that 1 player short and when that player can't even bat it's worse. Pakistan needed to have 4 fast bowler's bowling at Max pace looking to unsettle the opposition instead they only had 3 legitimate wicket takers and one bowls military medium.

Exactly.

Rotating three quicks because the spinner is a passenger just slows them all down and wears them all out.

 

[Junaids]

I don’t really see this as a mismatch.

A team which is used to the conditions and has a proper balanced side has got past a team which has been badly selected and which turned up late and under-prepared.

But it’s not like when Sri Lanka or the West Indies tour and usually it’s a bigger mismatch because they can’t get anyone out.

 

[Muhammad10]

Faf’s first two innings were 0 and 0. Then he scored 103 and won the Second Test.

Shafiq infuriates me. But he’s done okay.

But I’ve written before, replace the oldest non-performing batsman each year to avoid simultaneous exits.

So Azhar needs to be dropped forever after Johannesburg, while Shafiq gets one more season.

In eleven months there are two Tests in Australia at venues which require a four quick attack: Perth and a day/nighter at Adelaide.

The end of Azhar Ali allows Pakistan to move to a team better suited to those conditions:

1. Shan Masood (c)
2. Mohammad Rizwan (wk)
3. Asad Shafiq
4. Haris Sohail.
5. Babar Azam
6. Umar Akmal
7. Shadab Khan
8. Faheem Ashraf
9. Mohammad Amir
10. Shaheen Shah Afridi at Perth, Ehsan Adil at Adelaide.
11. Mohammad Abbas

Sarfraz’ demise really strengthens the batting but also opens up a slot for a fifth bowler.

Well, Asad's had ages to prove himself, without ever being dropped for his poor performances, but has never really done so. He's almost 33 years old, and I reckon we're wasting our time by persisting with him.

Do you want Rizwan to open and keep in Tests? That might be asking a bit too much of him, since he's generally been a middle-order batsman in domestic cricket, and keepers don't usually open in Tests.

 

[Junaids]

Well, Asad's had ages to prove himself, without ever being dropped for his poor performances, but has never really done so. He's almost 33 years old, and I reckon we're wasting our time by persisting with him.

Do you want Rizwan to open and keep in Tests? That might be asking a bit too much of him, since he's generally been a middle-order batsman in domestic cricket, and keepers don't usually open in Tests.

Very good points.

The problem is that Azhar Ali has to go - you can’t be picked if you’re 34 and fail this often.

He is performing worse than Shafiq and is a year older, so he has to be dropped forever first.

But there’s no viable opening partner for Shan Masood.

So I say let Rizwan be a stopgap opener, like Manoj Prabhakar or Nayan Mongia. He can’t play spin anyway.

That lets you bring in another middle-order batsman in Australia - and Umar Akmal has scored Test runs and Pakistan A Test runs in Australia.

Yasir Shah is not going to succeed outside Asia against decent opposition. So go for Shadab at 7 and Faheem at 8, behind a keeper in Rizwan who can bat better and more reliably than Sarfraz.

 

[big_gamer007]

Haha the burn is real.. Junaid and his outrageous theories he comes up with to bait posters here..

SA have outclassed Pakistan plain and simple.. Only positive for Pakistan is Babar, Shaheen and Shan Masood. If Pakistan as a team wants to become better they should focus on these players and get others like them around in future...

 

[Junaids]

Haha the burn is real.. Junaid and his outrageous theories he comes up with to bait posters here..

SA have outclassed Pakistan plain and simple.. Only positive for Pakistan is Babar, Shaheen and Shan Masood. If Pakistan as a team wants to become better they should focus on these players and get others like them around in future...

Go through the numbers I posted.

The difference between the teams is that

1) South Africa has 10 functioning players plus 1 passenger in Theunis De Bruyn.

2) Pakistan has 6 functioning players plus 5 passengers in Azhar Ali, Fakhar Zaman, Imam-ul-Haq, Sarfraz Ahmed and Yasir Shah.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Go through the numbers I posted.

The difference between the teams is that

1) South Africa has 10 functioning players plus 1 passenger in Theunis De Bruyn.

2) Pakistan has 6 functioning players plus 5 passengers in Azhar Ali, Fakhar Zaman, Imam-ul-Haq, Sarfraz Ahmed and Yasir Shah.

But Imam and Sarfu have a half century each to their name. In fact Sarfu ensured Pak was competitive in the game.

 

[big_gamer007]

Go through the numbers I posted.

The difference between the teams is that

1) South Africa has 10 functioning players plus 1 passenger in Theunis De Bruyn.

2) Pakistan has 6 functioning players plus 5 passengers in Azhar Ali, Fakhar Zaman, Imam-ul-Haq, Sarfraz Ahmed and Yasir Shah.

That's exactly the point in cricket whoever has better performing players win test series.

SA has better performing players so they won.. Removing those 6 non performing players and getting someone else would have made a difference? Maybe but that's how sports are you don't know what could have happened if a,b,c was different..

At end of the day for this particular series SA played extremely good and Pakistan were below average as a team.

 

[BreadPakoda]

From Fakhar must play to Fakhar is more suited to 6 to Fakhar is a passenger.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

First of all ind lost series on 8th day.

On topic,
Pakistan was severely outclassed and no amount of dropping and chopping could have prevented it.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Pakistani bowlers are getting credit from some posters but i don't think that they did anything good.
Pakistani pacers also failed but batsmen were even bigger failures which helped them avoid criticism.

 

[MMHS]

I agree with the data (it’s fact, can’t deny) but not with the interpretation. The telling factor is the bowling chart - top 3 bowlers by some distance are from SAF and none of their bowlers suffered a bad series (not even Mahraj, who didn’t get much of a chance). Besides, in a 4 bowler strategy by both teams, if top 3 (by some margin) out of 8 is from one team, it’s not comparable. Against 3, 4fors for PAK, SAF has 3, 5fors and a 10for - statistically that’s wider than Bradman vs rest.

Loophole in batting stats probably everyone has identified- in total less than 6 days are played & PAK lost 40 wickets, SAF 25; for 5 extra runs .... to me that’s effectively 1.5 times better. Had SAF batted first both times, they would have declared both times in 2nd innings and probably would have scored 250-350 more runs, with the cost of 10-12 wickets less. Apart from the white quota player De Bruyn, each of their top 7 has scored a 50 at least and that’s playing one less innings.

It’s not even a contest - had this been a boxing match, referee would have stopped the fight after 2nd day of 2nd Test - that’s before half way through the series, PAK has suffered TKO.

 

[BreadPakoda]

I agree with the data (it’s fact, can’t deny) but not with the interpretation. The telling factor is the bowling chart - top 3 bowlers by some distance are from SAF and none of their bowlers suffered a bad series (not even Mahraj, who didn’t get much of a chance). Besides, in a 4 bowler strategy by both teams, if top 3 (by some margin) out of 8 is from one team, it’s not comparable. Against 3, 4fors for PAK, SAF has 3, 5fors and a 10for - statistically that’s wider than Bradman vs rest.

Loophole in batting stats probably everyone has identified- in total less than 6 days are played & PAK lost 40 wickets, SAF 25; for 5 extra runs .... to me that’s effectively 1.5 times better. Had SAF batted first both times, they would have declared both times in 2nd innings and probably would have scored 250-350 more runs, with the cost of 10-12 wickets less. Apart from the white quota player De Bruyn, each of their top 7 has scored a 50 at least and that’s playing one less innings.

It’s not even a contest - had this been a boxing match, referee would have stopped the fight after 2nd day of 2nd Test - that’s before half way through the series, PAK has suffered TKO.

I don't get it - with the white quota player restrictions, how did De Bruyn get into this side?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I agree with the data (it’s fact, can’t deny) but not with the interpretation. The telling factor is the bowling chart - top 3 bowlers by some distance are from SAF and none of their bowlers suffered a bad series (not even Mahraj, who didn’t get much of a chance). Besides, in a 4 bowler strategy by both teams, if top 3 (by some margin) out of 8 is from one team, it’s not comparable. Against 3, 4fors for PAK, SAF has 3, 5fors and a 10for - statistically that’s wider than Bradman vs rest.

Loophole in batting stats probably everyone has identified- in total less than 6 days are played & PAK lost 40 wickets, SAF 25; for 5 extra runs .... to me that’s effectively 1.5 times better. Had SAF batted first both times, they would have declared both times in 2nd innings and probably would have scored 250-350 more runs, with the cost of 10-12 wickets less. Apart from the white quota player De Bruyn, each of their top 7 has scored a 50 at least and that’s playing one less innings.

It’s not even a contest - had this been a boxing match, referee would have stopped the fight after 2nd day of 2nd Test - that’s before half way through the series, PAK has suffered TKO.

I was wondering who Zubayr would come in for. But after the first 2 tests its clear that Amla and Faf have to play and Zubayr can come in for De Bruyn. Although i'm not sure they can manage their various quotas if that happens.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
The First Test was so short that South Africa got away with only having three quicks.

But in the Second Test, Pakistan was a little unlucky when Azhar wasn’t given the catch which would have made it 155-5.

That left Amir and SSA to bowl with a half-fit Abbas and a liability in Yasir Shah.

The South Africans all bowled 40 minutes on, 40 minutes off, whereas the Pakistanis basically had to rotate three quicks.

When I wrote that SSA should play (10 weeks ago) I specified only as the fourth pacer in the attack, and limited to 4 over spells. At 145K he is scary, but at 135K he is Chris Tremlett.

Pakistan have been less than the sum of their parts because their team includes:

1. The Chief Selector’s out-of-form nephew.

2. A limited-overs slogger.

3. A past-it has-been blocker.

4. A mentally-shot skipper.

5. A toothless spinner who is taking the place of a Fourth quick who bats well.

Those are five huge liabilities to try to carry against a home team with a good attack.

 

[MMHS]

I don't get it - with the white quota player restrictions, how did De Bruyn get into this side?

There is officiall non white quota for which we do lots of hoopla; then there is an unofficial white quota as well under which players like Cook, Bruyn are playing.

 

[BreadPakoda]

There is officiall non white quota for which we do lots of hoopla; then there is an unofficial white quota as well under which players like Cook, Bruyn are playing.

Ah. Didn't know this. Bruyn looks like a walking wicket.

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
The First Test was so short that South Africa got away with only having three quicks.

But in the Second Test, Pakistan was a little unlucky when Azhar wasn’t given the catch which would have made it 155-5.

That left Amir and SSA to bowl with a half-fit Abbas and a liability in Yasir Shah.

The South Africans all bowled 40 minutes on, 40 minutes off, whereas the Pakistanis basically had to rotate three quicks.

When I wrote that SSA should play (10 weeks ago) I specified only as the fourth pacer in the attack, and limited to 4 over spells. At 145K he is scary, but at 135K he is Chris Tremlett.

Pakistan have been less than the sum of their parts because their team includes:

1. The Chief Selector’s out-of-form nephew.

2. A limited-overs slogger.

3. A past-it has-been blocker.

4. A mentally-shot skipper.

5. A toothless spinner who is taking the place of a Fourth quick who bats well.

Those are five huge liabilities to try to carry against a home team with a good attack.

You have to decide first which route you want to go - data or logic/circumstances.

I went for the easier one - 2 Tests, ended in 6 days instead of 10 and SAF won by 6 (effectively 9, you know why) & 9 wickets. It was absolute no contest and I don’t disagree with your 5 points.

We can discuss “factors” & what could have beens, but those who can do it, can manage. If he was fit, Ngidi wound have played for Olivier ..... who made maximum use of his opportunities, that’s what better teams do. Hypothetically, had AdV was playing, SAF would have batted twice in this series and instead of 6, it would have been 5 days.

I’ll come back every time as long as you try to give idea that both are closely matched teams & PAK is doing “similar” to IND a year back. Don’t disagree with the “circumstances”, but it doesn’t change the fact that pros are punching novices here & referee should have stopped the fight long back.

 

[kamz]

should have not played yasir

faf pointed out a stat no innings lasted beyond 70 overs - hence he didnt play a spinner. if 4 fast bowlers that is around 18 overs per bowler.

Should have gone with hassan. if he wanted spinners could have used fakhar, asad, azhar.

Tough decision to drop an in - form world class leg spinner. the management (captain, coach etc) need to take these tough decisions. Not a believer that all the blame should go to sarfaraz or mickey. Both collectively responsible and should be asked whether they even discussed such a stat or not.

I am not a certified level 1 or 2 coach, but I surely saw that Imam is committing to front foot very early, whereas on bouncy wickets you try to play late and meet the ball under the eye

question is PCT equipped with an analyst to give this sort of data to Mickey and Sarfaraz, that how many balls Imam and Asad are comitting to front foot, how many short balls fakhar attempts to play (how difficult it is to get fakhar out - 3 balls outside off stump channel 3 short pitch - this routine for 4 overs and in 12 short pitch deliveries, he will attempt how many pull shots?

they can only fix things if they have the data to identify the problems!

and also have the brains to request the right set of data also in the first place!

 

[Junaids]

You have to decide first which route you want to go - data or logic/circumstances.

I went for the easier one - 2 Tests, ended in 6 days instead of 10 and SAF won by 6 (effectively 9, you know why) & 9 wickets. It was absolute no contest and I don’t disagree with your 5 points.

We can discuss “factors” & what could have beens, but those who can do it, can manage. If he was fit, Ngidi wound have played for Olivier ..... who made maximum use of his opportunities, that’s what better teams do. Hypothetically, had AdV was playing, SAF would have batted twice in this series and instead of 6, it would have been 5 days.

I’ll come back every time as long as you try to give idea that both are closely matched teams & PAK is doing “similar” to IND a year back. Don’t disagree with the “circumstances”, but it doesn’t change the fact that pros are punching novices here & referee should have stopped the fight long back.

Most Tests in South Africa are more one-sided than this, believe it or not.

Had the slip catch been given when South Africa would have been 155-5, then it really would have been Game On.

Similarly, Pakistan was in the First Test both at 100-1 in their Second Innings and even when the Azhar catch wasn’t given in South Aftica’s run chase.

The margins of victory have ended up big, but Pakistan have actually had their chances in a way that, for example, Australia haven’t in their latest two matches.

 

[barah_admi]

Better to pack the third test with allrounders and see what happens. It's a good opportunity to try out some new team combinations, rather than go with the same old strategies which have failed repeatedly.

I agree, I think a lot of people have been saying there might as well be drastic changes. Go all out and lose than try the same tested failures.

Faheem and shadab should play, as should Shah. The legy has been let down by poor captaincy and zero scoreboard pressure.

Remove fakhar and any of imam or azhar.

 

[MMHS]

Most Tests in South Africa are more one-sided than this, believe it or not.

Had the slip catch been given when South Africa would have been 155-5, then it really would have been Game On.

Similarly, Pakistan was in the First Test both at 100-1 in their Second Innings and even when the Azhar catch wasn’t given in South Aftica’s run chase.

The margins of victory have ended up big, but Pakistan have actually had their chances in a way that, for example, Australia haven’t in their latest two matches.

No, it won’t have been game on, rather I would have missed what little cricket I could watch in weekend. PAK batted well 2nd time because the wicket settled down and they started innnings on 3rd afternoon, not morning. Had that catch been taken, SAF could have been all out for 277, agreed; then they would have got 35 overs on Day 2 to ball & another burst on 3rd morning on a fresh track .... target would have been same : 41, only that I would have been sleeping now. And don’t come with old Kookaburra logic - 19 wickets in 2 afternoon sessions with 35+ overs old ball so far.

This is absolutely no contest and I have seen enough Tests in SAF. By your route, I can prove that last year Bangladesh was just about few key moments & a bit of luck away from 0-0 series.

 

[Greenstorm]

Faheem should have played in SA. Our side could have been more balanced with him. Playing only 3 fast bowlers in SA is always risky.