Which bright spark had the idiotic idea of playing Yasir Shah in the Tests...

[Sherlock]

...and only bowling him for 21 overs throughout the 2nd Test, and then 11.4 overs in the 1st Test?

Why even bother playing him when you should know the stats on fast bowlers over spinners in SA.

Truly embarrassing and unprofessional setup.

You could've easily gone with 4 pacers and dropped Shah, who in my opinion is a passenger away from "home".

 

[Pete Rose]

Dropping Yasir Shah means implicit recognition that we don’t have the batting to take the game in to day 4 or 5. It all goes back to the original sin.
If we
A - has benched hafeez and allowed fakhar to play the full season
B - addresses the misfiring duo of Azhar and Asad
We would by now have the confidence to play 5 batsmen and an all-rounder

 

[Junaids]

From what I’ve heard there was disagreement between Inzamam and Sarfraz, who backed Yasir Shah, and Mickey Arthur, who wanted to play Faheem Ashraf.

And it looks to me as if, surprise surprise, the South African turned out to be correct about South African conditions.

 

[Haroon786]

From what I’ve heard there was disagreement between Inzamam and Sarfraz, who backed Yasir Shah, and Mickey Arthur, who wanted to play Faheem Ashraf.

And it looks to me as if, surprise surprise, the South African turned out to be correct about South African conditions.

Who or what is your source?

 

[SportsWarrior]

Who or what is your source?

Like always, mysterious voices

 

[Markhor]

Dropping Yasir Shah means implicit recognition that we don’t have the batting to take the game in to day 4 or 5. It all goes back to the original sin.
If we
A - has benched hafeez and allowed fakhar to play the full season
B - addresses the misfiring duo of Azhar and Asad
We would by now have the confidence to play 5 batsmen and an all-rounder

Fakhar could not have played the full UAE season due to his ligament injury.

The biggest sin was playing Mohammad Hafeez for all five Tests in the UAE instead of insert young middle-order batsman here.

 

[Pete Rose]

Fakhar could not have played the full UAE season due to his ligament injury.

The biggest sin was playing Mohammad Hafeez for all five Tests in the UAE instead of insert young middle-order batsman here.

Yes. Hafeez continues to troll the test team even after retirement

 

[Nikhil_cric]

In hindsight all this looks bad but many were clamouring for him on PP itself.

 

[Savak]

From what I’ve heard there was disagreement between Inzamam and Sarfraz, who backed Yasir Shah, and Mickey Arthur, who wanted to play Faheem Ashraf.

And it looks to me as if, surprise surprise, the South African turned out to be correct about South African conditions.

So much for the rumours on Sarfaraz not getting the team that he wants. So far he has gotten his way on Asad Shafiq and Yasir Shah

 

[Fahdi]

Fakhar could not have played the full UAE season due to his ligament injury.

The biggest sin was playing Mohammad Hafeez for all five Tests in the UAE instead of insert young middle-order batsman here.

Agreed.

 

[TeamPak95]

Faheem is no Lance Klusener but he seriously should've played, could've provided at least cameos with the bat and a good, tidy seam bowling.

 

[Fahdi]

Well [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] may be right here.

There were reports that Sarfraz and Mickey were having disagreements on selection matters. And with Mickey being the guy who tried to play 3 Fast bowlers and an all-rounder in the UAE I'd say it's a safe bet he would be the one wanting 4 pacers instead of Sarfraz.

Clue number 2 is before the match in his interview Arthus remarked that he has never seen this much grass on this pitch before.

Clue 3 is Sarfraz confidently calling out that South Africa haven't played a world class spinner like Yasir in a long time before the first test.

That is all if there was some truth to those reports. They might have been rubbish.


Though my judgement may be clouded. I have been really laying into Sarfraz these past few days and that's despite the fact that I have mostly been a fan of Sarfraz the captain (though a big critic of his performances with the bat).

 

[Sherlock]

In hindsight all this looks bad but many were clamouring for him on PP itself.

Seeing as though I've created this particular thread, I can honestly say I didn't think picking him for this tour specifically was a good idea at all.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Yasir is the greatest spin bowler of this generation. Dropping him should never even be a discussion point.

Your Bhaijaan does agree that he should have been allowed to bowl more.

 

[TeymurBlake]

Maybe playing Hasan would have been a better idea instead of Yasir.

 

[Abdullah]

He can only play if u know you are going to take the game deep in these conditions. I would always have played shadab faheem and 3 quicks.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Seeing as though I've created this particular thread, I can honestly say I didn't think picking him for this tour specifically was a good idea at all.

Not you specifically but I assume Mickey and sarfraz thought the same and played him assuming he would have the same impact that Ajmal/Lyon/Swann/Harby/Herath/Jadeja had in atleast a couple of matches. But Yasir always struggles to bowl defensively in such conditions and it was usually finger spinners who did well here(exception - Warne) and that cost Pakistan i suppose. Anyway i think he will be dropped next match.

 

[Abid Z]

Yasir is the greatest spin bowler of this generation. Dropping him should never even be a discussion point.

Your Bhaijaan does agree that he should have been allowed to bowl more.

In itself having Yasir in the team is not the worst idea. The real issue is that the top order has hardly fired. In the past we’ve gotten away with bad openers as the middle order of misbah younis azhar and asad is relatively strong but now the middle order is exposed too soon.

It was obvious that fakhar and imam would have been the weak links and therefore reaching 300 always difficult which nullified Yasir’s inclusion. Shan and azhar opening is probably the best bet now.

 

[Junaids]

Who or what is your source?

I don't think I can answer that without opening up a whole new can of worms, but the post by [MENTION=133920]Fahdi[/MENTION] below gives you all the clues that you need.

Mickey Arthur has taken it with good grace, but he must be incensed at being over-ruled about how to play in his own country.

Especially as he's been proved correct.

 

[fitCricFan]

Probably the same person who played Fakhar Zaman in the test match, first asking him to open the innings and then dropping him all the way down.

 

[mastersaan10]

Look I don't know why people are criticizing the decision to put fakhar at six, he looked like a sitting duck as opener and at six he could have counter attacked attest but he failed. That is a concern because he hasn't looked good recently and he is my favorite player from Pakistan at the moment. Yasir has no role in South Africa as our batsmen can't make 300 so I don't blame Yasir bc if our batsmen could take the game to day four he could prove useful. But pakistan would have been better served playing shadab or faheem. Sad to see sarfraz making the same mistakes in test. Not playing 2 spinners in UAE and now not playing four fast bowlers here.

 

[Bewal Express]

The reaction if Yasir hadn't played would have been interesting especially if we lost. Yasir is not a good bowler outside the UAE as he doesn't turn the ball but the decision to play was right because of his record.

 

[talma]

I agree to what you have said. In I and Sarfraz screwed up royally.