
The Pakistan Cricket Board's decision to exclude stalwarts Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan from the national Asia Cup squad comes as a surprise, but not a total shock. While framed as a necessary evolution toward "fearless cricket", the move still risks undermining team stability for uncertain gains.
The selectors' rationale hinges on undeniable statistical realities — Babar's career T20I strike rate of 129.22 and Rizwan's 125.37 lag significantly behind modern powerhouses like England's openers, who regularly exceed 140 in the shortest form of the game. In fact, since 2022, their powerplay strike rates plummeted further to 116 and 117.4 — criminally low in an era where 130 is unexceptional. This conservatism contributed to Pakistan's catastrophic 2024 T20 World Cup group-stage exit, including a historic loss to the USA. This is also why both players have remained sidelined from the T20 squad for several months.
However, discarding proven match-winners demands deeper examination. Babar and Rizwan have amassed 2,522 runs as a partnership — the highest for any Pakistani opening pair — with eight century stands. Their defenders have noted that the pair reliability provided solid starts that the middle order rarely capitalised on. Conversely, their replacements — Saim Ayub and Hasan Nawaz — have higher strike rates, but significantly lower averages, which loosely translates into more shaky starts. Should the top order collapse under pressure — especially during the match against India — the absence of Babar-Rizwan's resilience will haunt the team's legacy.
The uninspiring run of results since head coach Mike Hesson took over in May has done little to inspire confidence in the team. However, Hesson has a track record of success elsewhere, so he may know something we don't. At the end of the day, the decision is defensible, but just barely. Success will make Aqib Javed and the rest of the selectors look like geniuses. Failure, not so much.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ