What's hurting Pakistan in limited overs cricket?
In last five years, the men in green have fallen behind in ODI runs per over among top nine Test playing nations
PHOTO: AFP
Continuous poor showings in the shorter formats have again raised questions regarding the direction of Pakistan cricket. Many would think there is a lack of talent at the disposal for the Pakistan team management if compared to the past, one of the biggest reasons for the gap between the top teams and the Men in Green. But more than the dearth in talent, what is hurting Pakistan cricket is the way available talent is being used.
Pakistan team’s low ranking and perpetrators
Looking at International Cricket Council (ICC) ODI and T20 rankings, Pakistan find themselves in a more or less the same situation; near the bottom.
In the last five years, Pakistan’s ODI win-loss ratio is better than only England and West Indies in the top-eight Test playing nations, three-and-a-half of those being coached by the former Pakistan captain Waqar Younis.
The Pakistan team head coach, in his second stint, often says that the team is behind in the limited-over formats because players lack the ability to play ‘modern style’ cricket.
Pakistan drop Shehzad for Asia Cup, World Twenty20
Interestingly, counter to the former Pakistan captains claim, teams who have progressed over the last few years have stuck to the old style of cricket, with a lot clearer plan and took the hitting to a whole new level.
The statistics:
In the last five years, in the ODI format, Pakistan average runs scored per wicket is only better than West Indies out of the top 8 (30.36 runs per wicket), nearly eight runs less than the best (India: 37.92 runs).
In the same time period, the Men in Green’s runs per over is the second worst among the top eight teams (4.99).
The problem doesn’t stop there. In T20Is, average runs scored per wicket is worse than all the top eight teams (21.43); eight runs short of the best (India: 29.91).
Five things we learnt from PSL
In the same time period, the Men in Green have the worst average per team dismissal [average number of innings after a team were bowled out] in the ODIs among top nine Test playing nations, and second worst in T20I.
Not only that, the team once hailed as unpredictable show a lot more predictability in the strike-rate department as well, as they are placed in eighth in ODI’s, and ninth in T20I’s.
The famous middle-order
In the last five years, players who have been successful all over the world, even to some extent have defined roles in the team, which is again the basic of playing cricket from 90s, where Pakistan were really successful.
The main success of the Pakistan team in 90s and 2000’s in the 50-over format was mainly down to the middle order, which always provide the platform for the lower middle order to explode in the last 10 overs.
During the 90s, the Pakistan team average was fourth best (30.20) after Australia (32.69), South Africa (31.84) and India (31.74). During the same era, Pakistan’s run per over was third best (4.69) after India (4.73) and Sri Lanka (4.71).
Similarly, in the first decade of the new century, Pakistan’s team average was once again the fourth best (31.07), but this time the margin was far greater between the top three and the fourth number team. Australia led the pack with an average of 38.88, followed by South Africa (36.69) and India (33.78). In the same time period, Pakistan’s run per over came down to fifth best, with New Zealand.
However, in the last five years, Pakistan’s team average slipped down to sixth, with an average of 30.57.
The success in the 90s and 2000s was down to the likes of Javed Miandad along with Imran Khan in the early 90s who did this role, which was later handled by Inzamamul Haq with first Salim Malik and later with Mohammad Yousuf, but now there seems to be no one capable of doing this role.
How other teams approach it
Teams have gone about their business following the footsteps of what Pakistan used to do a decade back, and have identified at least two players, who will play ‘old style’ risk-free cricket.
For instance, New Zealand have Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor or Grant Elliot if he fails. This gives freedom to the likes of Corey Anderson and Luke Ronchi to dismantle the opposition bowling attack, just like it used to give the freedom to the likes of Abdul Razzaq and Azhar Mehmood back in the 2000’s.
Similarly, Australia have George Bailey and Steve Smith that allows the likes of Glen Maxwell and James Faulkner to go after the bowling.
It is pretty evident that other team’s success is down to the coaching staff, who have given players a specific role, and give certain players luxury to play at normal pace, and don’t try something which can cost them their wicket.
The dilema of Pakistan in limited-over cricket
In a team like Pakistan, where batting remains a concern in every second game, there is no role defined for anyone, which means there is absolutely no plan at all.
In Test cricket, where the only plan while batting is to play the next ball, play out the next hour or session, Pakistan have excelled.
Whereas in ODIs and T20s, where batsmen have to plan their innings according to different circumstances, team performance is poor.
What’s more mystifying is that even senior professionals failed to understand or implement the plan that no matter if you are batting first or second, once you take the game nearer to the last overs, you will or you should get the opportunity from the opposing team to capitalize on.
For example
The prime example of how an innings should be played was an innings by Haris Sohail last February, where he showed a glimpse of what team Pakistan is missing in ODIs.
He played a sheet anchor role in the first ODI of the series against New Zealand, and scored a sensible 85 runs off 109 balls, and the result was an unlikely victory.
Two other incidents took place when former Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik, took it upon himself to take it as far as he could, and he was unfortunately denied, once due to bad light, and then because of some breathtaking bowling from Chris Jordan in the super over.
Misbah to blame?
When Misbah was around in the ODI team, he was always the one to be blamed for every debacle in Pakistan cricket. However, since such these things still occur even after Misbah’s departure, it shows that the problem lies somewhere else.
The same old batting collapse happened soon after 41-year-old's left the limited over side, this time in the last ODI of the disastrous Bangladesh tour, where the Pakistan went from 202-2 in the 38th over to 250 all out in the 49th over.
The same thing later happened in the fifth ODI against Sri Lanka at Hambantota, where chasing a mammoth 368 to win on a classical batting track, the Men in Green were nicely placed at 70-1 in the 12th over.
The misery was evident when the players clearly didn’t know that they were only 10 runs behind where the hosts were while batting first at the same time, and they don’t need to try anything extravagant.
The same thing once again happened a few months later, this time in the fourth ODI against England in Dubai Cricket Stadium, where once again, chasing 350+ to win the match, the team was well within control of the game throughout.
At the 25th over mark, the men in green needed half of the required runs on a pitch which was later called a track of ‘glass’ by Eoin Morgan in the post-match talk, and by the 29th over mark, the team already crossed the 200 mark and needed 150 odd in the modern era against an inexperienced bowling attack in more than 20 overs.
But again, no role was given to anyone, and the result was that the whole team got out nearly 10 overs before the full 50-over quota, and lost by only 84 runs.
Once again, in the last match of the New Zealand tour, batsmen ended up committing the same mistake, where the team went from 215 for 3 in the 31st over, to 290 all out in 47 overs.
During Misbah’s tenure, the 41-year-old did the job of a sheet anchor for quite some time, where he stood there alone, but his spell remained relatively unsuccessful, as it was only his role, which was defined, and all others were just there to complete the numbers.
Who is our George Bailey or Kane Wiliamson?
Looking at the current lot of players, and looking at how players play in the domestic arena, it clearly doesn’t require rocket science to know who our Williamson or Bailey should be.
In the current playing 11, it makes so much more sense that Sarfraz Ahmed and Shoaib Malik should be given the responsibility to take the team closer to the 50-over mark, with young Babar Azam to back them up at six, as that’s what they all do in the domestic circuit as well
Sarfaraz and Malik are fit, they are both around for quite some time, they both know how to rotate the strike and they are swift runners between the wicket.
However, Sarfraz is being played lower down the order when he seems to fit that role in the middle along with Shoaib Malik to take Pakistan towards the conclusion.
A player who averages 46 in Test matches, made to play as a hitter, when he is efficient enough to rotate the strike in the middle order.
He averages 39 in seven innings at an healthy strike rate of 91.20 while playing at number four, but the team management is adamant that they want to play him at number 6,7 and 8, where he average only 23.30 with a strike rate of 86 in 27 innings, with only one fifty to his name.
The real debate
Pakistan’s cricket demise is unprecedented in its cricketing history. As much as there is a lack of talent, there is also lack of planning and clear intent.
The argument which is being discussed over and over again is about how we should play fearless cricket, and not defensive cricket.
However, looking at the recent debacles, the real argument should be on how the once upon a time cricketing giants should go about playing normal common sense cricket, which should produce better results than what it did in the past.
Pakistan team’s low ranking and perpetrators
Looking at International Cricket Council (ICC) ODI and T20 rankings, Pakistan find themselves in a more or less the same situation; near the bottom.
In the last five years, Pakistan’s ODI win-loss ratio is better than only England and West Indies in the top-eight Test playing nations, three-and-a-half of those being coached by the former Pakistan captain Waqar Younis.
The Pakistan team head coach, in his second stint, often says that the team is behind in the limited-over formats because players lack the ability to play ‘modern style’ cricket.
Pakistan drop Shehzad for Asia Cup, World Twenty20
Interestingly, counter to the former Pakistan captains claim, teams who have progressed over the last few years have stuck to the old style of cricket, with a lot clearer plan and took the hitting to a whole new level.
The statistics:
In the last five years, in the ODI format, Pakistan average runs scored per wicket is only better than West Indies out of the top 8 (30.36 runs per wicket), nearly eight runs less than the best (India: 37.92 runs).
In the same time period, the Men in Green’s runs per over is the second worst among the top eight teams (4.99).
The problem doesn’t stop there. In T20Is, average runs scored per wicket is worse than all the top eight teams (21.43); eight runs short of the best (India: 29.91).
Five things we learnt from PSL
In the same time period, the Men in Green have the worst average per team dismissal [average number of innings after a team were bowled out] in the ODIs among top nine Test playing nations, and second worst in T20I.
Not only that, the team once hailed as unpredictable show a lot more predictability in the strike-rate department as well, as they are placed in eighth in ODI’s, and ninth in T20I’s.
The famous middle-order
In the last five years, players who have been successful all over the world, even to some extent have defined roles in the team, which is again the basic of playing cricket from 90s, where Pakistan were really successful.
The main success of the Pakistan team in 90s and 2000’s in the 50-over format was mainly down to the middle order, which always provide the platform for the lower middle order to explode in the last 10 overs.
During the 90s, the Pakistan team average was fourth best (30.20) after Australia (32.69), South Africa (31.84) and India (31.74). During the same era, Pakistan’s run per over was third best (4.69) after India (4.73) and Sri Lanka (4.71).
Similarly, in the first decade of the new century, Pakistan’s team average was once again the fourth best (31.07), but this time the margin was far greater between the top three and the fourth number team. Australia led the pack with an average of 38.88, followed by South Africa (36.69) and India (33.78). In the same time period, Pakistan’s run per over came down to fifth best, with New Zealand.
However, in the last five years, Pakistan’s team average slipped down to sixth, with an average of 30.57.
The success in the 90s and 2000s was down to the likes of Javed Miandad along with Imran Khan in the early 90s who did this role, which was later handled by Inzamamul Haq with first Salim Malik and later with Mohammad Yousuf, but now there seems to be no one capable of doing this role.
How other teams approach it
Teams have gone about their business following the footsteps of what Pakistan used to do a decade back, and have identified at least two players, who will play ‘old style’ risk-free cricket.
For instance, New Zealand have Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor or Grant Elliot if he fails. This gives freedom to the likes of Corey Anderson and Luke Ronchi to dismantle the opposition bowling attack, just like it used to give the freedom to the likes of Abdul Razzaq and Azhar Mehmood back in the 2000’s.
Similarly, Australia have George Bailey and Steve Smith that allows the likes of Glen Maxwell and James Faulkner to go after the bowling.
It is pretty evident that other team’s success is down to the coaching staff, who have given players a specific role, and give certain players luxury to play at normal pace, and don’t try something which can cost them their wicket.
The dilema of Pakistan in limited-over cricket
In a team like Pakistan, where batting remains a concern in every second game, there is no role defined for anyone, which means there is absolutely no plan at all.
In Test cricket, where the only plan while batting is to play the next ball, play out the next hour or session, Pakistan have excelled.
Whereas in ODIs and T20s, where batsmen have to plan their innings according to different circumstances, team performance is poor.
What’s more mystifying is that even senior professionals failed to understand or implement the plan that no matter if you are batting first or second, once you take the game nearer to the last overs, you will or you should get the opportunity from the opposing team to capitalize on.
For example
The prime example of how an innings should be played was an innings by Haris Sohail last February, where he showed a glimpse of what team Pakistan is missing in ODIs.
He played a sheet anchor role in the first ODI of the series against New Zealand, and scored a sensible 85 runs off 109 balls, and the result was an unlikely victory.
Two other incidents took place when former Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik, took it upon himself to take it as far as he could, and he was unfortunately denied, once due to bad light, and then because of some breathtaking bowling from Chris Jordan in the super over.
Misbah to blame?
When Misbah was around in the ODI team, he was always the one to be blamed for every debacle in Pakistan cricket. However, since such these things still occur even after Misbah’s departure, it shows that the problem lies somewhere else.
The same old batting collapse happened soon after 41-year-old's left the limited over side, this time in the last ODI of the disastrous Bangladesh tour, where the Pakistan went from 202-2 in the 38th over to 250 all out in the 49th over.
The same thing later happened in the fifth ODI against Sri Lanka at Hambantota, where chasing a mammoth 368 to win on a classical batting track, the Men in Green were nicely placed at 70-1 in the 12th over.
The misery was evident when the players clearly didn’t know that they were only 10 runs behind where the hosts were while batting first at the same time, and they don’t need to try anything extravagant.
The same thing once again happened a few months later, this time in the fourth ODI against England in Dubai Cricket Stadium, where once again, chasing 350+ to win the match, the team was well within control of the game throughout.
At the 25th over mark, the men in green needed half of the required runs on a pitch which was later called a track of ‘glass’ by Eoin Morgan in the post-match talk, and by the 29th over mark, the team already crossed the 200 mark and needed 150 odd in the modern era against an inexperienced bowling attack in more than 20 overs.
But again, no role was given to anyone, and the result was that the whole team got out nearly 10 overs before the full 50-over quota, and lost by only 84 runs.
Once again, in the last match of the New Zealand tour, batsmen ended up committing the same mistake, where the team went from 215 for 3 in the 31st over, to 290 all out in 47 overs.
During Misbah’s tenure, the 41-year-old did the job of a sheet anchor for quite some time, where he stood there alone, but his spell remained relatively unsuccessful, as it was only his role, which was defined, and all others were just there to complete the numbers.
Who is our George Bailey or Kane Wiliamson?
Looking at the current lot of players, and looking at how players play in the domestic arena, it clearly doesn’t require rocket science to know who our Williamson or Bailey should be.
In the current playing 11, it makes so much more sense that Sarfraz Ahmed and Shoaib Malik should be given the responsibility to take the team closer to the 50-over mark, with young Babar Azam to back them up at six, as that’s what they all do in the domestic circuit as well
Sarfaraz and Malik are fit, they are both around for quite some time, they both know how to rotate the strike and they are swift runners between the wicket.
However, Sarfraz is being played lower down the order when he seems to fit that role in the middle along with Shoaib Malik to take Pakistan towards the conclusion.
A player who averages 46 in Test matches, made to play as a hitter, when he is efficient enough to rotate the strike in the middle order.
He averages 39 in seven innings at an healthy strike rate of 91.20 while playing at number four, but the team management is adamant that they want to play him at number 6,7 and 8, where he average only 23.30 with a strike rate of 86 in 27 innings, with only one fifty to his name.
The real debate
Pakistan’s cricket demise is unprecedented in its cricketing history. As much as there is a lack of talent, there is also lack of planning and clear intent.
The argument which is being discussed over and over again is about how we should play fearless cricket, and not defensive cricket.
However, looking at the recent debacles, the real argument should be on how the once upon a time cricketing giants should go about playing normal common sense cricket, which should produce better results than what it did in the past.