Just because the "superior" team didn’t show up on the day doesn’t mean the "inferior" teams performance is a fluke and not a good win. What if the "inferior" team suppresses the "superior" team so much that they crumble and succumb? Could that be a possibility? No one stopped India from performing to their very best potential. The "skill-gap" isn't a quantitative figure. Many teams have skillful players yet they aren't able to get their teams over the line. Taking that skill and performing at the grandest stage of them all is what matters in these tournaments.
The skills gap
is a quantitative figure, especially when the skill gap is so significant. There is daylight between the current Pakistani and Indian ODI teams, and that gap will be highlighted if these two teams play let's say 10 matches with each other on the trot anywhere in the world in any conditions. India will prevail at least 7/10 times.
Again, you are missing the point or perhaps you are deliberately trying to avoid it. Did Pakistan play better than India on the day? Of course they did. However, it was clearly a one-off situation. We cannot extrapolate anything from that performance and make tall claims about the future because it will backfire, and that is what happened in the NZ series.
Pakistan were better than India on that day but a lot of things went our way as well. Fakhar getting dismissed on a no ball, those inside edges that barely missed the stumps, the numerous run out chances that we presented India early on etc. If Fakhar would have been dismissed early on, the likes of Babar and Hafeez would not have cashed in on the momentum he created.
Secondly, Azhar's runout was very timely as well. He got out at the perfect time for Pakistan because he would have been a liability in the last 15-20 overs. Pretty everything that could have gone right for Pakistan on that day did.
You can call it a fluke or a one-off event or whatever. The fact is that was nothing short of a miracle. We should definitely give credit to the Pakistan team, but we should also respect the external factors that played a significant role in our win.
The only thing that might have definitely helped Pakistan in a profound way is the dropped catch by perera. Even before the rain we were well ahead of SA. England batted on the same pitch as we did, differentiating factor was that our bowling had much more variation than theirs. Kohli deciding to bat first means he had faith they could nullify our bowling attack in the second innings, which they clearly couldn’t and it proved too much for them. Getting Kohli out twice in 2 balls is enough evidence for the class of that spell. If things that weren't in Pakistan's control help them win the game, then nothing should be taken away from them. It’s a competitive sport, not a scientific experiment. You cant control all the variables and the outcome is affected by a lot of the things that happen because of plain luck. Just because Pakistan weren't the favorites to win doesn’t mean all their efforts should be undermined by the assumption that it was a "fluke". One's efforts should not be undermined if the competition can't keep up with them to begin with, no matter how much luck has a part to play in it.
We were heading for a nervous finish against South Africa. We were in a rut and scoring runs was looking difficult. Malik looked good but we know his caliber against quality pace attacks. Without the rain, Pakistan would have probably limped across the finish line, but the rain certainly proved to be a 'get out of jail' moment for us.
As for as the SF is concerned, the sluggish pitch suited our batsmen more than the free flowing English batsmen. They were clearly not prepared for such a surface and it played into our hands. Bowling first also benefited us because we saw how the pitched played out before we came to bat, and it was an ideal one for the likes of Azhar etc.
On the type of wickets that were the norm in that tournament, there is no way England would have lost to us in spite of all the so-called momentum. The final has been discussed to death already, so I don't know what to elaborate on without repeating myself.
The bottom line is that Pakistan played well in the Champions Trophy, but everything fell in the right place as well. Hence, to extrapolate anything from that tournament would be delusional.
It was the same delusional that fooled people into thinking that we will win the ODI series in NZ before they got a massive reality check. However, I do admire the passion and patriotism of people who continue to prove that the Champions Trophy was not an aberration and not a flash in the pan in spite of the massive reality check that they got.
Tournament favorites are generally decided based on who has the most momentum prior to the event.
No. Only in Pakistan do people use these buzzwords like momentum, mercuriality, unpredictability and other such nonsense to hide the deficiencies and weaknesses of the team. Tournament favorites are decided on who the best teams are for certain conditions.
Australia winning the 2015 World Cup was not about momentum; India winning the 2011 World Cup was not about momentum; Australia winning the 2003 and 2007 World Cup was not about momentum; Germany winning the 2014 World Cup and Spain winning the 2010 World Cup was not about momentum.
The reason we are having this conversation is because India has gained enough momentum over the years to be recognized as favorites in an Indo-Pak clash, and people are calling Pakistan's win a fluke since it wasn’t the expected outcome.
India have not gained momentum; they have been a world class unit for nearly two decades now and have left Pakistan cricket in its dust. Leave this momentum rubbish to Pakistan only please.
India improved their domestic system and their overall cricketing culture, and it has paid dividends. Their success is long-term and not because of some so-called momentum.
Too many "had" and "if" statements going around here. We played India in the finals on a batting pitch, and we won that game, so your proposed hypothetical England-Pak semifinal doesn’t apply since India easily rivals the English batting order. As for momentum in the NZ series , we clearly lost it during the first 3 odi games but it definitely started to come back in the remaining games, and peaked in the last 2 t20s.
A mediocre team cannot beat a superior team without certain ifs and buts coming into play. Secondly, only in Pakistan do you gain "momentum" after getting thrashed in the first three ODIs.
The last two ODIs and the two T20s was not about momentum. It is normal for a team to lose a bit of intensity after beating the opposition, and NZ will not play to their maximum potential every game. As far as the T20s are concerned, NZ is not a top T20 side because they are over-reliant on their openers, and one of whom did not play in the decider.
Pakistan have a better chance of beating NZ in T20s than ODIs. It has nothing to do with momentum.
What metric do you use to rate teams as better or worse than each other? If destroying teams in home conditions only is the sole metric you use, then India is the best team on the planet. But as soon as they step out of India a big dark cloud of bad team selection, fragile batting and rifts within the team management hovers over the team.
India have a superior batting unit and their bowling attack is better as well. That is the metric I am using. They lost in South Africa but they competed well. Pitch Pakistan against South Africa in the same conditions and we will be mauled and get dismissed for less than hundred on multiple occasions.
You don't need to focus on any 'metric' to prove that India is far ahead of Pakistan across all formats at the moment, and that is not going to change in the future as well when you look at the spanking that our U-19 got earlier today.
I for one think that when teams play at a neutral venue like the champions trophy (barring the England team of course) and they are forced to play under knockout conditions when the pressure is on is a great way to gauge potential and skill-level of the teams. It shows how proactive the captains are, how deep the batting lineups are, and how well bowlers manage the final overs.
Yes because Pakistan have been winning tournaments all the time. This is its first ODI trophy in 25 years. India on the other hand have done very well in tournaments. Home or not, they have handled the pressure of tournaments better than us, which is they have more World Cups and more Champions Trophies to their name.
Secondly, home advantage is often negated in tournaments. Only two World Cups in history have been won by the home team, and if we play a World Cup in Pakistan/UAE tomorrow, do you think we will win? Absolutely not.
We have been renowned chokers for a number of years now and the Champions Trophy was a one-off event. However, I am happy to revisit my opinion if the same team throws its weight around in the World Cup in the same venue next year. That will prove that we can extrapolate something from the Champions Trophy.
Its been almost 7 months since Pakistan won the trophy. Any momentum they had gained there had been used up in the World11 and SL series and then the players went on to play franchise cricket, which I believe to be one of the reasons for the team to lose by this margin since the players must be exhausted by now. Not to mention the lack of preparation for this tour and the mere fact that it had been a while since all these players had played international cricket together in these conditions. Hopefully the PCB is better and stricter with scheduling tour games before the actual tours start in the future
Your post lost credibility with this statement.
"we had momentum but it got lost because of the x number of months etc." With all due respect, this was embarrassing to read.
Can you please specify the month in which we lost our "momentum"? Can you please tell us the dates on which we would have beaten NZ because we still had our "momentum"?
July, August, September, October, November, December? Because it appears that the "momentum" had fizzled out completely by January.
Yes the players looked complacent and unprepared, but it has played a massive part in the mediocrity and unprofessionalism of Pakistan cricket and it will not change in the future. We have talked about it for the last 10 years and will continue to talk about it for the next 10 years. Nothing is going to happen.
Just because you think that the Indian order was "bound to fail for once" doesn’t provide a logical basis for why you, or anyone else for that matter, think Pakistan's win was a fluke, nor does it justify losing a tournament final. If there batting order is unable to cope with the scoreboard pressure, then they don’t deserve winning, simple as that.
India's batting is more than capable of dealing with scoreboard pressure. They are the best chasers in the game and have proved it under pressure many times. They did it in front of the expectations of the Indian crowd in the 2011 final when there was pin drop silence because Tendulkar had gone cheaply.
Yes different times but the psyche of Indian cricket has not changed. They are the only team in the world that can chase 339 in the final, and Kohli is the only batsman in the world who can pull it off. However, it didn't happen for them on that day. Pakistan deserve credit for it but it also was an off-day for them. This is cricket, these things happen. This was not much different to India restricting WI and Viv Richards in the 1983 final.
We had won matches by batting in the first and second innings. We chased 220 odd very comfortably against England under pressure conditions in the semi-final. Saying that Pakistan wouldn’t be able to chase and we should send Kohli our warm regards for letting us bat first isn't justified. They were undone by one of the best fast bowling spells of the past 2 years, the previous one also being Amir's spell in Asia cup 2016. That spell wasn’t because of any special conditions and neither did "every tom, dick and harry" from the opposition bowl such a spell like Amir's. It was the brilliance of one man that undid the Indians, not the universe's master plan to make their top order collapse at the wrong time.
It is justified because we crap our pants when it comes to chasing totals. We made a mess of the SL chase in spite of having the "momentum" of the SA win, and the SA chase itself was aided by run.
We chased the runs in the SF comfortably because the pitch suited our batsmen who were able to trot at their pace against an English that was clearly demoralized by the way things had panned out in the first innings. Their shoulders had dropped and there was no intensity in their game. They had pretty much accepted their fate after the first innings.
Amir's Asia Cup spell wasn't about special conditions? Seriously?
The pitch resembled the Wimbledon Centre Court and 120 was a match-winning total. It was a dream pitch for a seamer and not only Amir but all bowlers (minus the hack Wahab) took advantage of it. The match would have gone to the wire but Kohli was the only batsman who had the caliber to tackle the conditions. The reason why Amir's got more hype than that of Sami, Pandya or Bumrah because it came in the first over and he dismissed better quality batsmen than the other bowlers.
However, to claim that the conditions did not favor Amir and the other bowlers is the most ridiculous thing I have read today ahead of the statement that Pakistan lost momentum because it played NZ after x number of months, and that we gained momentum after getting thrashed in the first three ODIs.
