What if Babar Azam had played and New Zealand didn't have Williamson & Jamieson?

[mon858]

Trying to understand was the huge gap in performance due to gap in skills and performance of entire team or just couple of players?

What if we had got Williamson and Nichols dismissed when their total was around 150 to 180 in first test? What if we had lasted 4 more overs?

What if we took all our catches in second test?

Was NZ just lucky to have their alltime best batsman and a young emerging fast bowling star playing, while getting multiple catch drops, outs on no balls, no Babar, etc.

Would the results have been any different.

 

[Hasan123]

New Zealand would still beat us. Look at our attack and compare it to NZ attack. New Zealand players know the conditions out of the back of their hands. Don’t forget New Zealand didn’t have Wagner as well.

 

[PakPremi]

Jamieson was the biggest factor and our fielding, we gave many chances to Williamson and even Nicols. Babar inclusion in place of useless Haris would had lifted Pak team tremendously. Our bowling was also clueless and ill discipline,andsis not help selecting a spinners in these condition in place of swing bowlers.

 

[Babbar]

Armies fight with what they have not why they want. Imagine, India had Kohli, Rohit, Ishant, Shami, Bhuvi for all test matches. India probably would have won 3-1 even with Warner or whoever else Aussies could have.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

Would've, could've, should've...

Bottomline is 2-0

/thread

 

[Mamoon]

New Zealand is not a talentless cricket nation like Pakistan. The replacements of Williamson and Jamieson would have done well and Pakistan would still have been whitewashed.

 

[Firebat]

What if we had Sachin and McGrath too

 

[Hyperion66]

Someone else would have risen to the occasion, that is how top teams roll do when they are playing weaker teams.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

Pak probably would have won the first test and lost the second. The margin was a lot smaller in the first test and Babar usually does score at the least 100 runs in two innings.

Would have been a better series to watch ending in 1-1.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

The main difference between the teams is the quality of bowling. Pakistan’s batting averaged 248 per innings without Babar, so if we sub Babar in for Haris Sohail, who averaged 7 per innings, and we assume Babar has a decent series averaging 40 (even though he averaged 48.75 in England and that was considered a relative failure) that becomes 241+40 or 281 per innings by Pakistani batsmen.

Next, let’s factor in Jamieson. He accounted for 16 out of 40 wickets taken by NZ at an average of 11.68.

Let’s say that all 16 of those wickets would have otherwise been taken by Boult, Southee, and Wagner (for the sake of comparison, let’s assume he’s fully fit, rather than using Matt Henry who averages 93).

Together, Boult, Southee, and Wagner have 20 wickets between them at an average of 30.57. That’s shockingly average! I’m not even factoring in the fact that Boult and Southee would not have access to the new ball, or that 6 of these 20 wickets are from Pakistan’s last 5 batsmen (the tail).

Therefore, let’s assume that this average of 30.57 holds consistent, even though a more refined statistical model (which I’m not good enough to compute) would probably increase this average to 35 or more if Jamieson wasn’t in the attack.

Together, 30.57 accounts for a difference of 18.89 with Jamieson’s 11.68 average. That’s 18.89 more runs conceded per wicket, for 16 wickets over 4 innings. Per innings, that’s 4 wickets, which means 18.89*4 = 75.59.

So in addition to the 281, if we add in another 75 runs, we would have mustered an average of 356 per innings with Babar and without Jamieson, instead of 248 per innings (the current average). This is assuming Babar has a mediocre/below par series, and also assuming Boult, Southee, Wagner are just as effective with the old ball as the new ball, and also inflating their average with Pakistan’s tail.

That’s very decent. Contrary to what most people think, I do not think our batting was that bad in NZ, it was simply exposed without Babar (if he had been in the side, the main batsman exposed would only have been Shan, with Abid a distant second).

The difference is mainly in our bowling attack. We conceded 604.7 runs for every 10 wickets. I won’t do a statistical dive for with or without Williamson, there’s really no point.

 

[Hitman]

Pakistan missed Babar big time. And I'm really, really disappointed that Babar missed out of the Test series. Was looking forward to watch him in action.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

All these are "coping mechanisms".

I agree that they are essential otherwise the other assumption is "mediocrity".

And the far safer bridge is to assume it was just "a few incidents or few people which resulted in a loss.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

Question to posters who're doing calculating totals with Babar and without Jamieson - who would have taken 20 New Zealand wickets for us?

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Question to posters who're doing calculating totals with Babar and without Jamieson - who would have taken 20 New Zealand wickets for us?

Like I said in my last paragraph, we conceded 604.87 runs for every 10 wickets, so there’s no point to doing calculations. We simply don’t have the capacity to take 20 wickets.

My calculations were simply to put into context where we failed in this series - our batting was quite decent if not competitive, but our bowling was shambolic.

 

[Manager102]

The main difference between the teams is the quality of bowling. Pakistan’s batting averaged 248 per innings without Babar, so if we sub Babar in for Haris Sohail, who averaged 7 per innings, and we assume Babar has a decent series averaging 40 (even though he averaged 48.75 in England and that was considered a relative failure) that becomes 241+40 or 281 per innings by Pakistani batsmen.

Next, let’s factor in Jamieson. He accounted for 16 out of 40 wickets taken by NZ at an average of 11.68.

Let’s say that all 16 of those wickets would have otherwise been taken by Boult, Southee, and Wagner (for the sake of comparison, let’s assume he’s fully fit, rather than using Matt Henry who averages 93).

Together, Boult, Southee, and Wagner have 20 wickets between them at an average of 30.57. That’s shockingly average! I’m not even factoring in the fact that Boult and Southee would not have access to the new ball, or that 6 of these 20 wickets are from Pakistan’s last 5 batsmen (the tail).

Therefore, let’s assume that this average of 30.57 holds consistent, even though a more refined statistical model (which I’m not good enough to compute) would probably increase this average to 35 or more if Jamieson wasn’t in the attack.

Together, 30.57 accounts for a difference of 18.89 with Jamieson’s 11.68 average. That’s 18.89 more runs conceded per wicket, for 16 wickets over 4 innings. Per innings, that’s 4 wickets, which means 18.89*4 = 75.59.

So in addition to the 281, if we add in another 75 runs, we would have mustered an average of 356 per innings with Babar and without Jamieson, instead of 248 per innings (the current average). This is assuming Babar has a mediocre/below par series, and also assuming Boult, Southee, Wagner are just as effective with the old ball as the new ball, and also inflating their average with Pakistan’s tail.

That’s very decent. Contrary to what most people think, I do not think our batting was that bad in NZ, it was simply exposed without Babar (if he had been in the side, the main batsman exposed would only have been Shan, with Abid a distant second).

The difference is mainly in our bowling attack. We conceded 604.7 runs for every 10 wickets. I won’t do a statistical dive for with or without Williamson, there’s really no point.

Very good post synthesising and summarising the various factors at play, and crucially their relative impacts on Pakistan's total

 

[MMHS]

It would have been 2-0, but may be the margin would have been slightly more humble. I mean innings and 170+ (At the cost of 6 wickets) is too wide a margin.

There are few reasons - first, I like Babar, but out side PP, I don’t know how much weight he carries. Of the Fab Four, Williamson was, is & will always be my most favourite batsman- so, here I have faced the highest objections, while drawing clear level gaps between the two; but I guess it’ll be smoother in future. Babar won’t have changed fortune much to be honest & to argue in PP style, his replacement Fawad (as batsman) & Rizwan (as Captain) actually punched well .... now, PP needs to tell me that Babar’s replacement was either Shan or Haris ... won’t argue.

But, the main reason is the wide gap between the two teams. It suddenly looking like had KJ or Will not played, Kiwis could have struggled to win, but it doesn’t work like that - if not them, someone else would have raised their game. I give an example - before the series, I read from PP’s hired gun that this guy Mitchel makes Hammad Azam like Andrew Flintoff .... that did age well.

Cricket can be dominated by individuals, but still its a team game and it doesn’t happen that in a fluid system, you have 10-12 top players than there is a massive gap - the replacement Kiwi cricketers (next set) are just not there because there could be only 11 to play. Kiwi’s are no 1 for a reason and that not because they have few individuals only, rather their overall bunch of top 20-25 cricketers are much better than PAK.

This is where I don’t agree with PP that poor selection is the cause of PAK’s poor result - the alternatives are just not that good to make a significant difference. One classic example I can give from PAK cricket itself - PAK lost two of its best players a month before 1992 WC, it eventually could be recovered because overall cricket standards of PAK was much better, the alternatives/replacements were good enough cover and there were individuals who raised their game for the cause.

 

[Pakhs]

It would have been 2-0, but may be the margin would have been slightly more humble. I mean innings and 170+ (At the cost of 6 wickets) is too wide a margin.

There are few reasons - first, I like Babar, but out side PP, I don’t know how much weight he carries. Of the Fab Four, Williamson was, is & will always be my most favourite batsman- so, here I have faced the highest objections, while drawing clear level gaps between the two; but I guess it’ll be smoother in future. Babar won’t have changed fortune much to be honest & to argue in PP style, his replacement Fawad (as batsman) & Rizwan (as Captain) actually punched well .... now, PP needs to tell me that Babar’s replacement was either Shan or Haris ... won’t argue.

But, the main reason is the wide gap between the two teams. It suddenly looking like had KJ or Will not played, Kiwis could have struggled to win, but it doesn’t work like that - if not them, someone else would have raised their game. I give an example - before the series, I read from PP’s hired gun that this guy Mitchel makes Hammad Azam like Andrew Flintoff .... that did age well.

Cricket can be dominated by individuals, but still its a team game and it doesn’t happen that in a fluid system, you have 10-12 top players than there is a massive gap - the replacement Kiwi cricketers (next set) are just not there because there could be only 11 to play. Kiwi’s are no 1 for a reason and that not because they have few individuals only, rather their overall bunch of top 20-25 cricketers are much better than PAK.

This is where I don’t agree with PP that poor selection is the cause of PAK’s poor result - the alternatives are just not that good to make a significant difference. One classic example I can give from PAK cricket itself - PAK lost two of its best players a month before 1992 WC, it eventually could be recovered because overall cricket standards of PAK was much better, the alternatives/replacements were good enough cover and there were individuals who raised their game for the cause.

Its reasonable to assume Babar absence cost Pakistan the first match which would have been drawn. Since his Pakistan best batsman by a distance you would expect him to make the difference of 4/5 overs on the wicket which was actually good for batting.

Cant see how he would have made the difference in the 2nd match when the margin was so great. However if Pakistan did manage to draw the first match that would actually be an acceptable series outcome for team like Pakistan remember team like India was whitewashed too.

 

[Khan12]

Would still have been 2-0.

 

[Pakhs]

Someone else would have risen to the occasion, that is how top teams roll do when they are playing weaker teams.

Say if with Babar Pakistan could bat an extra 4/5 overs in the first test match that would be a good outcome for team like Pakistan.

 

[Hasan123]

It would have been 2-0, but may be the margin would have been slightly more humble. I mean innings and 170+ (At the cost of 6 wickets) is too wide a margin.

There are few reasons - first, I like Babar, but out side PP, I don’t know how much weight he carries. Of the Fab Four, Williamson was, is & will always be my most favourite batsman- so, here I have faced the highest objections, while drawing clear level gaps between the two; but I guess it’ll be smoother in future. Babar won’t have changed fortune much to be honest & to argue in PP style, his replacement Fawad (as batsman) & Rizwan (as Captain) actually punched well .... now, PP needs to tell me that Babar’s replacement was either Shan or Haris ... won’t argue.

But, the main reason is the wide gap between the two teams. It suddenly looking like had KJ or Will not played, Kiwis could have struggled to win, but it doesn’t work like that - if not them, someone else would have raised their game. I give an example - before the series, I read from PP’s hired gun that this guy Mitchel makes Hammad Azam like Andrew Flintoff .... that did age well.

Cricket can be dominated by individuals, but still its a team game and it doesn’t happen that in a fluid system, you have 10-12 top players than there is a massive gap - the replacement Kiwi cricketers (next set) are just not there because there could be only 11 to play. Kiwi’s are no 1 for a reason and that not because they have few individuals only, rather their overall bunch of top 20-25 cricketers are much better than PAK.

This is where I don’t agree with PP that poor selection is the cause of PAK’s poor result - the alternatives are just not that good to make a significant difference. One classic example I can give from PAK cricket itself - PAK lost two of its best players a month before 1992 WC, it eventually could be recovered because overall cricket standards of PAK was much better, the alternatives/replacements were good enough cover and there were individuals who raised their game for the cause.

Nasser Hussain says Babar Azam should be in the fab 4 conversation. I think he does have a lot of weight outside of PP but Nasser is the media version of Junaids when it comes to Pakistan cricket.

 

[ShoaibM]

OP is right, difference between the teams was really just Jameison. Without him the result could have been much different and its no something to take lightly. There is hope for this rag tag bunch of lalloos yet!

 

[Sir Alex]

NZ would be challenged by a 12 member Pak team against their own 9 players.

 

[Mamoon]

Its reasonable to assume Babar absence cost Pakistan the first match which would have been drawn. Since his Pakistan best batsman by a distance you would expect him to make the difference of 4/5 overs on the wicket which was actually good for batting.

Cant see how he would have made the difference in the 2nd match when the margin was so great. However if Pakistan did manage to draw the first match that would actually be an acceptable series outcome for team like Pakistan remember team like India was whitewashed too.

Cricket doesn’t work like that. You cannot assume that Babar would have played and everything else would have happened in the same way in the same order.

Had Babar played, Pakistan could have been dismissed even earlier in the second innings. Babar might have gotten out cheaply, and Fawad Alam might have faced a different bowler and a different time and got out for 15 instead of scoring a hundred.

The moral of the story is that you cannot inject a player into a match context and expect the events to play out in the same fashion.

 

[Tabishbeigh]

They were never going to do well while they relied on 1 player. If Babar was playing in Ist test Fawad "bradman" may have scored a golden pair. There is a reason you play with 11 players, not 1. If you look at the First class circuit there is a serious dearth of talent. Hassan Ali was your best bowler , kamran Ghulam was your best batsman, who I'm sure isn't good enough to play test cricket. The problem is not with the team, it was still the best possible combination, the problem is with the mediocre infrastructure. You have unfit fast bowlers ,fraudsters poor pitches and nepotism. Babar isn't any Kohli, he scores more like soft runs of Kallis and this captaincy is only going to weigh him down. He is a good batsman ,not a match winner, not a confident leader.

 

[MMHS]

Nasser Hussain says Babar Azam should be in the fab 4 conversation. I think he does have a lot of weight outside of PP but Nasser is the media version of Junaids when it comes to Pakistan cricket.

There is media mockery of modern day - you have to say things for the gallery. Problem is - when India plays and commis pamper their players, it’s for money & IPL ... when commis pamper PAK players in PAK’s games - it’s for talunt.....

They day, commis talk about PAK players or Babar in reference during a 3rd party game (means say Australia- SAF playing and Shaheen is mentioned when Cummins, Rabada or Hazlewood, Starc are bowling.. or Babar mentioned when Smith, Labus, Kock batting) you should read something in it - otherwise usual rubbish should be taken for granted.

For an example - I have heard someone as arrogant as Ian Chappell to say: (when asked the best fast bowler he played): “the best I have faced was John Snow.... the best I have seen - Dennis Lille. But, this young Pakistani lefti had impressed me as well, kid is damn good”. That was sometimes in Ashes of 1992/3 .....when Poms were playing Aussies.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Cricket doesn’t work like that. You cannot assume that Babar would have played and everything else would have happened in the same way in the same order.

Had Babar played, Pakistan could have been dismissed even earlier in the second innings. Babar might have gotten out cheaply, and Fawad Alam might have faced a different bowler and a different time and got out for 15 instead of scoring a hundred.

The moral of the story is that you cannot inject a player into a match context and expect the events to play out in the same fashion.

So let’s say hypothetically Pakistan played Babar Azam and Hassan Ali, and we beat New Zealand in the series who played without Kane Williamson and Trent Boult.

Would you say the same for New Zealand? Would you say “had Williamson played he could’ve gotten out earlier and instead of scoring a century he could’ve gotten out for 5”.

Or would you have said it was a fluke and we were playing a weakened NZ team etc.

 

[MMHS]

Its reasonable to assume Babar absence cost Pakistan the first match which would have been drawn. Since his Pakistan best batsman by a distance you would expect him to make the difference of 4/5 overs on the wicket which was actually good for batting.

Cant see how he would have made the difference in the 2nd match when the margin was so great. However if Pakistan did manage to draw the first match that would actually be an acceptable series outcome for team like Pakistan remember team like India was whitewashed too.

It would have been 2-0 and PAK would have lost by a bigger margin in first Test - because Babar’s replacement Fawad played a monumental innings, almost snatching a draw ....as I said, I like Babar, but he is not that good to play such innings.

And, when under pressure, he is among the softest player, even among Pakistani standard. I listed about 4/5 Tests, where he had the chance to make a mark- failed measurably.

 

[Pakhs]

Cricket doesn’t work like that. You cannot assume that Babar would have played and everything else would have happened in the same way in the same order.

Had Babar played, Pakistan could have been dismissed even earlier in the second innings. Babar might have gotten out cheaply, and Fawad Alam might have faced a different bowler and a different time and got out for 15 instead of scoring a hundred.

The moral of the story is that you cannot inject a player into a match context and expect the events to play out in the same fashion.

Ofcourse its only ifs and buts we are talking now as the even has passed.

 

[Hasan123]

There is media mockery of modern day - you have to say things for the gallery. Problem is - when India plays and commis pamper their players, it’s for money & IPL ... when commis pamper PAK players in PAK’s games - it’s for talunt.....

They day, commis talk about PAK players or Babar in reference during a 3rd party game (means say Australia- SAF playing and Shaheen is mentioned when Cummins, Rabada or Hazlewood, Starc are bowling.. or Babar mentioned when Smith, Labus, Kock batting) you should read something in it - otherwise usual rubbish should be taken for granted.

For an example - I have heard someone as arrogant as Ian Chappell to say: (when asked the best fast bowler he played): “the best I have faced was John Snow.... the best I have seen - Dennis Lille. But, this young Pakistani lefti had impressed me as well, kid is damn good”. That was sometimes in Ashes of 1992/3 .....when Poms were playing Aussies.

So in your opinion Nas is just playing for the gallery?

 

[saeed5646]

Its reasonable to assume Babar absence cost Pakistan the first match which would have been drawn. Since his Pakistan best batsman by a distance you would expect him to make the difference of 4/5 overs on the wicket which was actually good for batting.

Cant see how he would have made the difference in the 2nd match when the margin was so great. However if Pakistan did manage to draw the first match that would actually be an acceptable series outcome for team like Pakistan remember team like India was whitewashed too.

Jamieson was the biggest factor and our fielding, we gave many chances to Williamson and even Nicols. Babar inclusion in place of useless Haris would had lifted Pak team tremendously. Our bowling was also clueless and ill discipline,andsis not help selecting a spinners in these condition in place of swing bowlers.

you are talking too much sense .it won,t have change the result of first test neither would have rizwan review or drop catches .Pak is finished as cricket nation

 

[MMHS]

So in your opinion Nas is just playing for the gallery?

He has a soft corner for PAK cricket indeed, hence he is the only one ....

 

[Pakhs]

It would have been 2-0 and PAK would have lost by a bigger margin in first Test - because Babar’s replacement Fawad played a monumental innings, almost snatching a draw ....as I said, I like Babar, but he is not that good to play such innings.

And, when under pressure, he is among the softest player, even among Pakistani standard. I listed about 4/5 Tests, where he had the chance to make a mark- failed measurably.

Most knowledgeable cricket fans would know Babar would have a better chance of scoring runs than Fawad and we are talking about a chance here. you may not like babar but simple common sense would tell you that Babar would always have a better chance of out scoring Fawad than the other way around.

Besides not sure what it means by soft player? He has not actually played many big matches in his career due to Pakistan team being so poor. You cant be so poor if you score runs like he did against an Australian attack in Australia. In his only ICC final he scored in 40s and got out trying to further teams cause which were more than Kholi, Rohit and Dhawan out together. He also scored a 100 against NZ WC finalist in a must win game for Pakistan where all seemed lost on a difficult wicket to get Pakistan across the line.

Compare that to say someone like Kholi whose record in must win games is embarrassing.

 

[saeed5646]

whether babar would have save first test or not but his presence in playing 11 would have given huge comfort to players .he is one all the players looks upto

 

[MMHS]

Most knowledgeable cricket fans would know Babar would have a better chance of scoring runs than Fawad and we are talking about a chance here. you may not like babar but simple common sense would tell you that Babar would always have a better chance of out scoring Fawad than the other way around.

Besides not sure what it means by soft player? He has not actually played many big matches in his career due to Pakistan team being so poor. You cant be so poor if you score runs like he did against an Australian attack in Australia. In his only ICC final he scored in 40s and got out trying to further teams cause which were more than Kholi, Rohit and Dhawan out together. He also scored a 100 against NZ WC finalist in a must win game for Pakistan where all seemed lost on a difficult wicket to get Pakistan across the line.

Compare that to say someone like Kholi whose record in must win games is embarrassing.

Ok 1-1 then, chill.

Or I say 2-0 for Pakistan had Babar played & Will/KJ missed .... double chill.

 

[King_Kohli]

Babar would have scored one 100 but series result would still have been 2-0.

 

[Khan12]

Ok 1-1 then, chill.

Or I say 2-0 for Pakistan had Babar played & Will/KJ missed .... double chill.

You are having a field day good to see.

 

[Pakhs]

Ok 1-1 then, chill.

Or I say 2-0 for Pakistan had Babar played & Will/KJ missed .... double chill.

It would not have been 1-1 it would have been 1-0 to NZ. The tread is all about assumptions and one cant assume that Babar would score less than Fawad by any cricket logic.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Please enlighten me, I’m not aware of the reason. In deed Haris was batting at 4, but not that in past he batted at 3 or 5....

Haris was played out of necessity, with lack of batsmen on the bench. He did not even play the side match against NZ A due to being unfit, meanwhile Fawad scored 100.

Even this current incompetent management would have slotted Fawad in at 5 after Babar, rather than Haris, especially if you factor in media pressure of not continuing with Fawad who had finally got his due in England.

Mind you, I don’t like making unquantified assumptions. That’s why I am venturing out on a limb to say this, because I do think it is easily quantified - Fawad would have played, not Haris.

Regarding the overall subject, this thread is relatively pointless as it supposes a “what if” scenario and asks fans to live in a fantastical view of reality. The truth is, any team is made by its top players, and simply saying that the difference was “only” Jamieson or “only” Williamson is simply wishful thinking.

I have posted earlier in this thread about the statistical breakdown. Even with Babar, it is impossible that we would have won these Tests with a bowling attack that concedes 605 runs for 10 wickets. At best, even if we somehow mustered a draw in the first Test by batting out those extra 5 overs, we were still looking at an innings defeat in the second Test... maybe the margin would have been 130 runs, not 176 runs.

 

[Mamoon]

So let’s say hypothetically Pakistan played Babar Azam and Hassan Ali, and we beat New Zealand in the series who played without Kane Williamson and Trent Boult.

Would you say the same for New Zealand? Would you say “had Williamson played he could’ve gotten out earlier and instead of scoring a century he could’ve gotten out for 5”.

Or would you have said it was a fluke and we were playing a weakened NZ team etc.

Pakistan cannot beat current New Zealand in New Zealand no matter what combination they choose. The gulf in quality in these conditions is too big for Pakistan to prevail over 5 days.

 

[MMHS]

Haris was played out of necessity, with lack of batsmen on the bench. He did not even play the side match against NZ A due to being unfit, meanwhile Fawad scored 100.

Even this current incompetent management would have slotted Fawad in at 5 after Babar, rather than Haris, especially if you factor in media pressure of not continuing with Fawad who had finally got his due in England.

Mind you, I don’t like making unquantified assumptions. That’s why I am venturing out on a limb to say this, because I do think it is easily quantified - Fawad would have played, not Haris.

Regarding the overall subject, this thread is relatively pointless as it supposes a “what if” scenario and asks fans to live in a fantastical view of reality. The truth is, any team is made by its top players, and simply saying that the difference was “only” Jamieson or “only” Williamson is simply wishful thinking.

I have posted earlier in this thread about the statistical breakdown. Even with Babar, it is impossible that we would have won these Tests with a bowling attack that concedes 605 runs for 10 wickets. At best, even if we somehow mustered a draw in the first Test by batting out those extra 5 overs, we were still looking at an innings defeat in the second Test... maybe the margin would have been 130 runs, not 176 runs.

I tend to believe that Haris was always first choice - not only in PP but in PCB as well. He declined to tour UK (or tested positive? not sure), and Fawad wasn’t picked in first Test there - PAK made the change after losing first Test and Fawad was picked for next two Tests but didn’t set the wicket on fire to be honest. Haris came back for NZ series and rightly was supposed to keep his place - Fawad replaced injured Babar and took his chances with both hands while Haris failed, so he’ll be (likely to be) dropped against SAF.

My cricket understanding suggests that - but you can keep your thoughts, if it saves a Test... hypothetically, why not?

 

[Thunderbolt14]

I tend to believe that Haris was always first choice - not only in PP but in PCB as well. He declined to tour UK (or tested positive? not sure), and Fawad wasn’t picked in first Test there - PAK made the change after losing first Test and Fawad was picked for next two Tests but didn’t set the wicket on fire to be honest. Haris came back for NZ series and rightly was supposed to keep his place - Fawad replaced injured Babar and took his chances with both hands while Haris failed, so he’ll be (likely to be) dropped against SAF.

My cricket understanding suggests that - but you can keep your thoughts, if it saves a Test... hypothetically, why not?

Again my argument has to do with fitness primarily, considering Haris had no match practice in 1.5 months while his direct competitor was the best batsman in the side match.

It secondly has to do with media pressure, at this point both you and I know Misbah’s most valuable asset is knowing how to deflect scrutiny, and re-debuting Fawad against Anderson and Broad was an absolute master stroke, almost as good as sending Naseem and Gohar to the press conference... No way he drops Fawad after only 2 Tests, that too after entire country was singing praises of his A match performance.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Pakistan cannot beat current New Zealand in New Zealand no matter what combination they choose. The gulf in quality in these conditions is too big for Pakistan to prevail over 5 days.

I‘m not saying Pak can beat them, I said hypothetically speaking, had Pakistan played Babar and Hassan and beat New Zealand without Williamson and Boult, you would’ve said it was the NZ C team that we beat.

You won’t say that NZ beat a Pakistan C team because according to you we can’t assume that Babar and Hassan would’ve made a difference, they could’ve played worse.

But, when NZ are missing their key players then we can assume that Williamson would’ve scored a double hundred and Boult would’ve taken a fifer.

 

[Itachi]

So.... If jamieson wasn't there, all the other bowlers will bowl exactly the same?

I don't think if pak fans realize it, cricket is a team game. You change strategy according to team setup.

For example, back in the days, when sehwag and tendu was batting, sehwag used to be aggressive. But if he was unavailable, tendu used to change his gear and used to take the role. But he wasn't as attacking so the other batsman also had to be aggressive some sort which wouldn't be the case had sehwag was there.

Its like solving X, Y, Z from two equations. There are too many variables and you can't make any assumption.

 

[Fahdi]

Then maybe we would have avoided an innings defeat in the second test and maybe have drawn the first test, I reckon we would have still lost. That's about it to be honest.

 

[Mamoon]

I‘m not saying Pak can beat them, I said hypothetically speaking, had Pakistan played Babar and Hassan and beat New Zealand without Williamson and Boult, you would’ve said it was the NZ C team that we beat.

You won’t say that NZ beat a Pakistan C team because according to you we can’t assume that Babar and Hassan would’ve made a difference, they could’ve played worse.

But, when NZ are missing their key players then we can assume that Williamson would’ve scored a double hundred and Boult would’ve taken a fifer.

Pakistan is a poor team even if all first choice players are available, which is why this B and C team logic doesn’t work in our case.

 

[fasihulhaq94]

Congratulations to all on the hypothetical series win against NZ.

I would suggest a study on PP threads to researchers who deal with coping mechanism. Would make for some interesting reading.

 

[Markhor]

Our chances would've gone from a 2-0 New Zealand win to a 2-0 New Zealand win.

I understand Babar has developed a large following now and I admire like most others his wonderful strokeplay and style. However I do think the praise has gone overboard because of Pakistan's complete dearth of world-class batsmen in the last decade.

Babar went missing in Manchester, missing in those two Abu Dhabi Tests vs New Zealand, missing in the runchase vs Sri Lanka in 2017. He hasn't done anything in pressure situations in Test cricket. And he would not have changed this scoreline.

 

[Markhor]

Pakistan is a poor team even if all first choice players are available, which is why this B and C team logic doesn’t work in our case.

I'm reminded of the HS Suhrawardy quote when asked why the ummah doesn't get together separate of US and USSR that "Zero plus zero plus zero still equals zero."

Frankly that's where we are with this Pakistan team.

 

[Buffet]

Its reasonable to assume Babar absence cost Pakistan the first match which would have been drawn. Since his Pakistan best batsman by a distance you would expect him to make the difference of 4/5 overs on the wicket which was actually good for batting.

Only if we assume events always happen in a linear fashion.

Two batsmen playing out of the skin took the game till the last 4-5 overs. They may or may not have played out of their skin in an alternate scenario where Babar was joining the team.

 

[Buffet]

Cricket doesn’t work like that. You cannot assume that Babar would have played and everything else would have happened in the same way in the same order.

Had Babar played, Pakistan could have been dismissed even earlier in the second innings. Babar might have gotten out cheaply, and Fawad Alam might have faced a different bowler and a different time and got out for 15 instead of scoring a hundred.

The moral of the story is that you cannot inject a player into a match context and expect the events to play out in the same fashion.

+1

Said it better than me.

 

[Buffet]

It would not have been 1-1 it would have been 1-0 to NZ. The tread is all about assumptions and one cant assume that Babar would score less than Fawad by any cricket logic.

One can assume Pakistan would have scored around average score whatever they score in normal circumstances when they have played with Babar. Does it sound logical enough?

That's if you go by probability with a high chance of likelihood. Sure, 90% probable outcome can still end up with other 10% , but you get the point.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Pakistan is a poor team even if all first choice players are available, which is why this B and C team logic doesn’t work in our case.

Any team that isn’t playing there best XI (regardless of how crap they are) can have that B and C team excuse, I’m sure I’ve seen many of your posts where you mentioned Pakistan lost to a Sri Lankan C team. So is Sri Lanka not a poor team?

 

[Buffet]

In the last 3 years,

Pakistan scored avg of 260 runs in the home of oppositions when Babar played.


In NZ, Pakistan scored 250 runs per inning on average when Babar was not present.

 

[Mesozoic]

Yeah still think it'd have been 2-0.

 

[MMHS]

In the last 3 years,

Pakistan scored avg of 260 runs in the home of oppositions when Babar played.


In NZ, Pakistan scored 250 runs per inning on average when Babar was not present.

You are not making any sense mate - what it has with such stats? I can also say that last tour Babar played both Test, result was 2-0 & PAK’s average innings was 187 (133, 171, 216 & 230). ...

That doesn’t mean had he played PAK would have lost by innings & 250 margin!!!!!!!

 

[Mamoon]

Any team that isn’t playing there best XI (regardless of how crap they are) can have that B and C team excuse, I’m sure I’ve seen many of your posts where you mentioned Pakistan lost to a Sri Lankan C team. So is Sri Lanka not a poor team?

But Pakistan has the capacity to beat a full-strength Sri Lanka, and if they lose to Sri Lankan reserves, it will be considered a humiliation

 

[Buffet]

What are some gun away knocks Babar has played?

I am not talking about scoring 80-100 runs when matches are totally done. I mean when things on line, and he scored big. The team can still end up losing, but the knock came at a critical time. I don't really recall examples.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

But Pakistan has the capacity to beat a full-strength Sri Lanka, and if they lose to Sri Lankan reserves, it will be considered a humiliation

Pakistan can beat a full strength Sri Lankan team? Not a chance. We’d struggle to beat Afghanistan in UAE with the spinners they have.

 

[shamaan]

New Zealand would still beat us. Look at our attack and compare it to NZ attack. New Zealand players know the conditions out of the back of their hands. Don’t forget New Zealand didn’t have Wagner as well.

New zealand proberly would have beaten us in tbe second test but the match would defonitely not been so one sided

 

[shamaan]

pakistan would proberly have lost the second test but it wouldn't have been so one sided.The fielding has been awful. 9 dropped catches 50 runs of extras

 

[globalcitizen]

jamieson is a young bloke young in career and upcoming alrounder. And you want him to not play for your experienced players to succeed. Great
Of course if Williamson dint play and Babar played then things would have been just slightly less worse. But you need to understand batters did ok but bowlers were incredibly dud

 

[hk031992]

Their team is much better than ours.

Babar is a terrific player but he isn't quite as good as Williamson. You certainly can't claim that Babar is worth Williamson and Jamieson combined.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Wouldn’t have mattered

 

[Pakhs]

You are not making any sense mate - what it has with such stats? I can also say that last tour Babar played both Test, result was 2-0 & PAK’s average innings was 187 (133, 171, 216 & 230). ...

That doesn’t mean had he played PAK would have lost by innings & 250 margin!!!!!!!

One can assume Pakistan would have scored around average score whatever they score in normal circumstances when they have played with Babar. Does it sound logical enough?

That's if you go by probability with a high chance of likelihood. Sure, 90% probable outcome can still end up with other 10% , but you get the point.

Your probability analysis would be okay for the next match as its more related to predicting outcomes. Which most people here predicted 2-0 anyway but when you generally discuss the addition of one player in the game that has already happened then you narrow down the probability and assume the players however they performed would still perform as that is the only known quantity (actually events) and predict the contribution of the player who may have played by his quality relative to how game panned out flat wicket etc.

The single most logical prediction is that he would have performed better than all other batsmen in Pakistan side as he is better than them by far of course that's a prediction (assumption) reality can be that there is always a chance he would perform worst than anyone else.

 

[Pakhs]

Their team is much better than ours.

Babar is a terrific player but he isn't quite as good as Williamson. You certainly can't claim that Babar is worth Williamson and Jamieson combined.

Babar has done equally good so far in his short career at home (Pakistan).

 

[KoyoAli]

Babar has done equally good so far in his short career at home (Pakistan).

Babar has done better than Williamson away and ge will dominate at home just like Williamson. Let me see how Willamson and Jamieson do outside their backyard.