Play the ball, not the bowler

A cluttered mind cost the defending champions the Asia Cup title.

After surrendering the Asia Cup, Misbahul Haq claimed that his team’s plan was to blunt the threat of Lasith Malinga, the most potent Sri Lanka bowler, by not giving him any wickets. The irony, though, is that Malinga took all five wickets to fall in the Pakistan innings in the final of the tournament. In pure cricketing terms, Misbah’s statement defies logic; it seems that the Pakistan batsmen went into the all-important match with a predetermined mindset, a mindset which conditioned them to play the bowler rather than the ball!

The old cricket logic states that the batsman must always focus on the ball and play a shot in accordance to where it is pitched, etc. A premeditated approach often causes the demise of the batsman. On close examination of the strategy adopted by our batsmen against Malinga, one needs no complex formula to ascertain the shot selection of the willow wielders in the final. If indeed the plan was to play out Malinga without adopting an aggressive intent, the execution was shoddy to say the least.

Openers Sharjeel Khan and Ahmed Shehzad both played attacking shots. The one that dismissed Sharjeel was nothing more than a wretched hoick in the very first over of the day. Sharjeel had already scored two boundaries in the same over by playing correct cricket shots. Clearly, this is not how wickets are preserved. After the match-defining opening spell exploits of Malinga, Misbah himself played a poor shot against him and was dismissed after another back to the wall fifty, that for the umpteenth time, could not be converted into a hundred.

Even in the tournament opener, Malinga made the difference, after Misbah and Umar Akmal were coasting towards an imposing target. In that match, the pacer had run through the lower-order, including Shahid Afridi, who along with the tail imploded against the fiery fast-bowler. Misbah clearly did not practice what he had preached in the opener too, as he perished, attempting a big shot off Malinga two balls after Afridi was sent back.

Let us return to the original idea of this piece: why should a batsman play the bowler rather than the ball, since even good bowlers bowl bad balls. Malinga, who had looked like a million dollars in his first spell in the final, was carted for runs by Akmal and Fawad Alam in the closing stages of the innings. There was a flurry of full-tosses bowled and the two took full advantage of them. This suggests that a quality bowler can dish up boundary-scoring opportunities at any time; keeping a clear, uncluttered mind without any preconceived ideas would clearly help a batsman more!

Perhaps, if Misbah was not double-minded about his approach against Malinga, he would have attacked his poor balls with solid conviction and perhaps, in hindsight, might have cleared the ropes on both occasions he was dismissed by him in the tournament. Interestingly, though even Sri Lanka decided to play out Saeed Ajmal in the final, the off-spinner did manage three wickets nonetheless, but in the final equation, the Lankan approach and plan was executed far better than the one formulated by Misbah and the Pakistan team management. Perhaps, a cluttered mind cost the defending champions their title.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 17^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.