Ranking Pakistan's 14 straight test losses in Australia
Including the ongoing massacre in Adelaide, Pakistan has now lost 14 straight tests in Australia, a record of ineptitude that Afghanistan or Ireland would struggle to match, let alone a top tier side. In this post, I am breaking down each of these losses and placing them in tiers of painfulness. I will start with the least painful and build up.
TIER 5: BOYS PLAYED WELL
In these tests, Pakistan displayed at least a modicum of fight. We still lost, of course, but there was something to latch on to: a brave performance or two, a young upstart showing his potential, a game being dragged into a fifth day, or, as in one case, putting the fear of God in Australia.
14. Brisbane 2016 [scorecard]
Summary: Asad Shafiq almost pulls off the most unlikely heist ever, falling short of a ludicrous victory target of 490 by a measly 40 runs.
Pain index: 0 or negative. If ever there was a loss to be proud of, it was this one.
13. Melbourne 2004 [scorecard]
Summary: a couple nice performances: Yousuf got a sublime hundred while leading the side, since Inzi was out with a back injury not deemed serious enough by medical specialists such as Ian Chappell to warrant missing two tests. Shoaib and Kaneria got 5-fors.
Pain index: 2. Softening the blow was that this was one of two times in this entire 14-test, 20-year run that the first digit of the first innings score (e.g. "2" for 200) was the same for Pakistan and Australia (in this case, it was "3"). Only once has Pakistan's digit been higher (you'll have to scroll down for that one). In the other 11 cases, Australia's has been higher. In addition, the gulf in quality between the two teams -- man for man, the widest in this run -- meant that losing these tests really wasn't a big deal.
12. Brisbane 1999 [scorecard]
Summary: Some good batting (Saeed and Yousuf got runs in both innings, Inzi in one) was not enough to make up for Australia carting around an attack with only two frontline pace bowlers (Wasim opted to drop Waqar and instead played two all-rounders, Razzaq and Azhar).
Pain index: 3. This was our best team, one that was thought to legitimately challenge Australia at the height of their hegemony, and we showed we could actually hang around. We definitely showed that we were not intimidated at all. The only reason this is #12 and not #13 is that it was quite jarring to see Waz and Shoaib, both top-3 pacers at the time and genuinely predicted to trouble Australia with the new and old ball, allow Michael Slater (a very good but not great player) and Greg Blewett (not even a regular opener) put on a 269-run opening stand. Some would argue that this should be in tier 4, but after this test it was still reasonable to believe we could win or draw the series, while such optimism would have been out of place following tier 4 losses.
TIER 4: WE WEREN'T EXPECTING MUCH (FIRST TEST EDITION)
I believe I read somewhere that happiness = reality − expectations. With that in mind, this and the next tier is all about low expectations. In this tier, we are dealing with losses which we try to wave away like a bad loan. "It's not a big deal," we tell ourselves. "We were never going to to win the first test anyway, still plenty of cricket to go."
11. Melbourne 2009 [scorecard]
Summary: A pretty solid performance, taking the game into a fifth day. Notable also for Umar Akmal's introduction to the big leagues -- having gotten runs making his debut in New Zealand just prior to this tour, he kicked off with a very stylish and aggressive 51. It's hard to remember now, but this guy was really deemed the next big thing by everyone, including hard-to-please types like (the late, great) Martin Crowe.
Pain index: 3.5. Pretty low, except for allowing that twat, Shane Watson to make 90-odd in the first innings and a century (not out) in the second. A pretty respectable performance overall and arguably belongs in tier 5: "boys played well".
10. Perth 2004 [scorecard]
Summary: an absolute annihilation, as Australia stomped Pakistan by an unfunny four hundred and ninety one runs. McGrath got 8-24 (lol) as we were skittled out for 72 in the second innings, losing our last nine wickets for 38 (lololol).
Pain index: 5, a twinge of pain. Making Pakistan play the first test of its tour at Perth was just a cruel joke. Nobody expected anything from us. On the other hand, we had them 80-5 on the first day thanks to a brilliant Shoaib spell first up, highlighted with a great send-off to Matthew Hayden; to go from that to losing by 491 runs is a bit much.
9. Brisbane 2019 [scorecard]
Summary: Pakistan throw away a good start (75-0) on a road of a wicket, conceding a 340-first innings lead. Even in this wretched run stretching two decades, it was the first time Pakistan gave up a first innings lead in excess of 300, demonstrating that valuable life lesson that it can indeed always get worse.
Pain index: 5. Yes, there were low expectation. But bumbling the selection, and the weary sense that everyone was left with that things were getting worse, not better, both in the context of this "rivalry" as well as the general direction of the side, meant this hurt more than other 1st test beatings. Without Babar's hundred, this would have been at least a 6 on the pain index.
TIER 3: WE WEREN'T EXPECTING MUCH (CAN WE PLEASE GO HOME EDITION)
Though the tests in this tier are also of the "low expectations" variety, they are more painful than tier 4. The distinguishing characteristic is the "bas kar dey yaar" feeling of these tests.
This represents the point where all Pakistan fans are totally fed up with seeing the sight of particular tormentors, be they predictable (Warne, McGrath, Ponting etc) or not (let's not get started with this list). Fans are also less likely to watch these tests closely -- the series and one's own spirit is lost at this point -- which, in a way, helps dull the pain.
8. Sydney 2005 [scorecard]
Summary: All things considered, a pretty solid performance. For the one and only time in these 14 tests, Pakistan made 300 in both innings. But Australia were just too good: Ponting made a double hundred at a strike rate of 60 and Gilchrist made a hundred at a strike rate of 95.
Pain index: 5. Of all the tests in this tier, this left Pakistan with the most optimism. A 3-0 that you can actually build on is rare, but this was the case here: a young team that showed spunk and talent at various points throughout the tour. Kaneria got wickets, Akmal looked like the best young keeper/batsman in the world (seriously), and Salman Butt looked like our opener for the next 10-15 years. Funny how each of those turned out.
6 (tied). Hobart 2010 [scorecard], Sydney 2017 [scorecard]
Summary: Basically the same match seven years apart. The scorecards are eerily similar.
Pain index: 6. It really was a case of "enough already". I barely remember anything about these tests. I had totally forgotten, for instance, that Younis got 175 not out in 2017 (Azhar's was the only other score higher than 18). These were totally pointless and superfluous matches [spicy idea for the world test championship: if a series is already decided, do not play the redundant tests].
5. Perth 1999 [scorecard]
Summary: Ricky Ponting, whose previous three innings in the series were 0, 0, and 0, smashed 197 at a strike rate of 70. Pakistan's batsmen couldn't cope with the Perth wicket -- Australia's fast bowlers got nineteen wickets in the match, Warne one -- and that was that.
Pain index: 7. A last eff-you from Australia to what many considered the second or even the best team in the world. That 99-00 team was really our best chance to win a series in Australia; that we lost 3-0 was a severe indictment of the difference between a good and great team. Them brushing us off so easily when we had real talent up and down the squad just hurt.
TIER 2: PUMMELINGS
We are now ratcheting up the pain to significant levels. These losses hurt, primarily because Australia are so much better than Pakistan in Australian conditions and are so ruthless about showing it. They make us look like amateurs, like we are playing a different sport, and really should not be allowed on the same field as them. These losses are shameful and embarrassing, the types where if I was a Pakistan player staying in the hotel that the Australian players were staying at, I would bow my head and avoid eye contact every time I crossed them in the lobby.
4. Adelaide 2019 (ongoing) [scorecard]
Summary: well, if you're reading this, presumably you've been watching TV/a stream for the last couple days, so I won't bother summarizing this one.
Pain index: 8.5* I mean, they've just murdered us here. They've bashed our head in. It's like one of those Mexican cartel killing videos that caused the demise of /r/watchpeopledie. Where to even start? One good place might be Yasir Shah, who in the previous test became the first bowler ever to concede 200 runs in an innings three different times. Here, he almost made it a fourth, going for 197 in just 32 overs. In all likelihood, the Aussies have ended his career, at least away from home, reminiscent of how Sehwag ended Saqlain in Multan in 2004. Meanwhile, Misbah's genius idea to take Abbas and a bunch of teenagers to the most punishing place for off-color pace bowlers has, shocker, not turned out well. Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali continue to show that they are good, not great (or even very good) players. Just a total mess all around.
*If Babar makes a hundred in either innings, or 70-plus in both innings, the pain index rating goes to 8.
3. Melbourne 2016 [scorecard]
Summary: an incredible match in which Pakistan actually declared their first innings (the only time that has happened in this 14 test run) at 443 and somehow still lost, that too by an innings. Lol just lol. Australia made 625 at a run rate of four and a half with Warner and Smith combining for more than 300 between them. Pakistan needed to bat two sessions on the last day for a draw and, quite naturally, did not manage it.
Pain index: 9.5. This was a real special, come-from-nowhere loss that Pakistan specializes in. There were one-and-a-half days lost to rain (140 overs to be exact). Pakistan batted till lunch on day 3. At the end of day 4, Australia hadn't yet completed their first innings. They were 465-6 at stumps, replying to Pakistan's 443. Imagine what has to happen -- what has to go wrong, to be more specific -- for you to lose from that position. You have to
(a) not get the tail wrapped up. A normal team would look at that score and think "we can get em for under 500 here". Pakistan, instead, allowed the overnight Mitchell Starc to go from 7 not out to a run-a-ball 84. Steve Smith went from 100 to 165. All this happened in less than a session.
(b) Concede a large lead quickly. On day 5, every over Australia batted was one less over Pakistan needed to. Ergo, the only way Australia could even contemplate winning was scoring quickly. Pakistan knew this. Rather than controlling the game, Australia smashed 160 runs in 28 overs that morning. A good, nay competent, team would have allowed half that.
(c) Collapse like only Pakistan can. This was the easiest part. Everyone and their grandmother knew that we were not going to survive those last two sessions. Sure enough, we did not. And in a wrinkle true to form, it was Nathan Lyon, easily Australia's least threatening bowler, that carved us up on day 5.
TIER 1: THE PTSD-INDUCERS
It is impossible to separate the two matches in this tier. They are both easy 10s. I will make arguments for both, and if someone has strong reasons for thinking one is worse than the other, I won't disagree. It can be safely said that both were responsible for a collective PTSD-like pall that fell over even the most cynical, hardened, and used-to-abuse Pakistan fan.
1 (tied). Hobart 1999 [scorecard], Sydney 2010 [scorecard]
Summary: In both matches, Pakistan lost from not just winning but dominant positions. At Hobart, Australia, thoroughly outplayed for three and a half days, were 126-5 chasing 369 to win, facing an attack of Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Azhar, and Saqlain. They lost one wicket the rest of the way, 5 short of a win, as Langer and Gilchrist counterattacked to the run of a 240 run partnership.
At Sydney, Australia, who were trailing by 200 runs at the start of their second innings, were 257-8. Mike Hussey, bane of Pakistan, found an able partner in Peter Siddle, adding 123 for the 9th wicket. Pakistan, left needing a very achievable 176 to win, got to 139, despite a pretty solid start (50-1).
Pain index: 10. The two most devastating test losses I can remember (I've been following cricket since the early 90s). It's impossible to say which is worse. Both have a lot going for it.
Turned the series factor: Hobart beats Sydney. In 99-00, we had a team good enough to win, or at least draw, the series. In 2009-10, even if we had won at Sydney, we for sure would have lost the series either way.
Turned history factor: Hobart beats Sydney again. Who knows what would have happened to that Pakistan team had it beaten Australia in Australia at their absolute apex. Let's not forget this was the beginnings of Steve Waugh's Aussies, our generation's answer to the 70s/80s Windies squads, the team that won 16 tests in a row (and even that run ended only in crazy circumstances at Calcutta in 2001). We were the only team even close to them in this time, at least in their conditions. Whereas with Sydney, even if we had won, we would have lost the series 2-1, and the same shit that happened in England that summer would have happened regardless.
Horror movie "you can see it coming" factor: Sydney beats Hobart here. The dominant feeling those last couple days in Hobart was "is this really happening?" The dominant feeling in Sydney was "this is really going to happen, isn't it?" There is a subtle but important difference between those positions. The first connotes confusion, the second dread. Dread is worse. You can see the end coming long before it actually does. With Sydney, I vividly recall people on social media saying that if Australia crawls to a lead of 150, it will be enough. Only Pakistan fans have the correct amount of (lack of) confidence in their team.
You lost vs. they won factor: Sydney beats Hobart again. Generally, losses are more acceptable when they come in the form of the other team playing really well, as opposed to when you screw yourself. At Hobart, we were just not ready for the Gilchrist experience, then playing only his second test. We did everything right, and then one partnership just won it for them. At Sydney, we messed up so bad: (1) our first innings should have ended with a 300, not 200, run lead (four of our top five scored between 46 and 71), and (2) their second innings should have been wrapped up way before it was. Kamran Akmal dropped Hussey not once, not twice, but three different times off Kaneria. The chase? Well, that was doomed from the start: 175 for us is like 300 for a normal team.
TIER 5: BOYS PLAYED WELL
In these tests, Pakistan displayed at least a modicum of fight. We still lost, of course, but there was something to latch on to: a brave performance or two, a young upstart showing his potential, a game being dragged into a fifth day, or, as in one case, putting the fear of God in Australia.
14. Brisbane 2016 [scorecard]
Summary: Asad Shafiq almost pulls off the most unlikely heist ever, falling short of a ludicrous victory target of 490 by a measly 40 runs.
Pain index: 0 or negative. If ever there was a loss to be proud of, it was this one.
13. Melbourne 2004 [scorecard]
Summary: a couple nice performances: Yousuf got a sublime hundred while leading the side, since Inzi was out with a back injury not deemed serious enough by medical specialists such as Ian Chappell to warrant missing two tests. Shoaib and Kaneria got 5-fors.
Pain index: 2. Softening the blow was that this was one of two times in this entire 14-test, 20-year run that the first digit of the first innings score (e.g. "2" for 200) was the same for Pakistan and Australia (in this case, it was "3"). Only once has Pakistan's digit been higher (you'll have to scroll down for that one). In the other 11 cases, Australia's has been higher. In addition, the gulf in quality between the two teams -- man for man, the widest in this run -- meant that losing these tests really wasn't a big deal.
12. Brisbane 1999 [scorecard]
Summary: Some good batting (Saeed and Yousuf got runs in both innings, Inzi in one) was not enough to make up for Australia carting around an attack with only two frontline pace bowlers (Wasim opted to drop Waqar and instead played two all-rounders, Razzaq and Azhar).
Pain index: 3. This was our best team, one that was thought to legitimately challenge Australia at the height of their hegemony, and we showed we could actually hang around. We definitely showed that we were not intimidated at all. The only reason this is #12 and not #13 is that it was quite jarring to see Waz and Shoaib, both top-3 pacers at the time and genuinely predicted to trouble Australia with the new and old ball, allow Michael Slater (a very good but not great player) and Greg Blewett (not even a regular opener) put on a 269-run opening stand. Some would argue that this should be in tier 4, but after this test it was still reasonable to believe we could win or draw the series, while such optimism would have been out of place following tier 4 losses.
TIER 4: WE WEREN'T EXPECTING MUCH (FIRST TEST EDITION)
I believe I read somewhere that happiness = reality − expectations. With that in mind, this and the next tier is all about low expectations. In this tier, we are dealing with losses which we try to wave away like a bad loan. "It's not a big deal," we tell ourselves. "We were never going to to win the first test anyway, still plenty of cricket to go."
11. Melbourne 2009 [scorecard]
Summary: A pretty solid performance, taking the game into a fifth day. Notable also for Umar Akmal's introduction to the big leagues -- having gotten runs making his debut in New Zealand just prior to this tour, he kicked off with a very stylish and aggressive 51. It's hard to remember now, but this guy was really deemed the next big thing by everyone, including hard-to-please types like (the late, great) Martin Crowe.
Pain index: 3.5. Pretty low, except for allowing that twat, Shane Watson to make 90-odd in the first innings and a century (not out) in the second. A pretty respectable performance overall and arguably belongs in tier 5: "boys played well".
10. Perth 2004 [scorecard]
Summary: an absolute annihilation, as Australia stomped Pakistan by an unfunny four hundred and ninety one runs. McGrath got 8-24 (lol) as we were skittled out for 72 in the second innings, losing our last nine wickets for 38 (lololol).
Pain index: 5, a twinge of pain. Making Pakistan play the first test of its tour at Perth was just a cruel joke. Nobody expected anything from us. On the other hand, we had them 80-5 on the first day thanks to a brilliant Shoaib spell first up, highlighted with a great send-off to Matthew Hayden; to go from that to losing by 491 runs is a bit much.
9. Brisbane 2019 [scorecard]
Summary: Pakistan throw away a good start (75-0) on a road of a wicket, conceding a 340-first innings lead. Even in this wretched run stretching two decades, it was the first time Pakistan gave up a first innings lead in excess of 300, demonstrating that valuable life lesson that it can indeed always get worse.
Pain index: 5. Yes, there were low expectation. But bumbling the selection, and the weary sense that everyone was left with that things were getting worse, not better, both in the context of this "rivalry" as well as the general direction of the side, meant this hurt more than other 1st test beatings. Without Babar's hundred, this would have been at least a 6 on the pain index.
TIER 3: WE WEREN'T EXPECTING MUCH (CAN WE PLEASE GO HOME EDITION)
Though the tests in this tier are also of the "low expectations" variety, they are more painful than tier 4. The distinguishing characteristic is the "bas kar dey yaar" feeling of these tests.
This represents the point where all Pakistan fans are totally fed up with seeing the sight of particular tormentors, be they predictable (Warne, McGrath, Ponting etc) or not (let's not get started with this list). Fans are also less likely to watch these tests closely -- the series and one's own spirit is lost at this point -- which, in a way, helps dull the pain.
8. Sydney 2005 [scorecard]
Summary: All things considered, a pretty solid performance. For the one and only time in these 14 tests, Pakistan made 300 in both innings. But Australia were just too good: Ponting made a double hundred at a strike rate of 60 and Gilchrist made a hundred at a strike rate of 95.
Pain index: 5. Of all the tests in this tier, this left Pakistan with the most optimism. A 3-0 that you can actually build on is rare, but this was the case here: a young team that showed spunk and talent at various points throughout the tour. Kaneria got wickets, Akmal looked like the best young keeper/batsman in the world (seriously), and Salman Butt looked like our opener for the next 10-15 years. Funny how each of those turned out.
6 (tied). Hobart 2010 [scorecard], Sydney 2017 [scorecard]
Summary: Basically the same match seven years apart. The scorecards are eerily similar.
Pain index: 6. It really was a case of "enough already". I barely remember anything about these tests. I had totally forgotten, for instance, that Younis got 175 not out in 2017 (Azhar's was the only other score higher than 18). These were totally pointless and superfluous matches [spicy idea for the world test championship: if a series is already decided, do not play the redundant tests].
5. Perth 1999 [scorecard]
Summary: Ricky Ponting, whose previous three innings in the series were 0, 0, and 0, smashed 197 at a strike rate of 70. Pakistan's batsmen couldn't cope with the Perth wicket -- Australia's fast bowlers got nineteen wickets in the match, Warne one -- and that was that.
Pain index: 7. A last eff-you from Australia to what many considered the second or even the best team in the world. That 99-00 team was really our best chance to win a series in Australia; that we lost 3-0 was a severe indictment of the difference between a good and great team. Them brushing us off so easily when we had real talent up and down the squad just hurt.
TIER 2: PUMMELINGS
We are now ratcheting up the pain to significant levels. These losses hurt, primarily because Australia are so much better than Pakistan in Australian conditions and are so ruthless about showing it. They make us look like amateurs, like we are playing a different sport, and really should not be allowed on the same field as them. These losses are shameful and embarrassing, the types where if I was a Pakistan player staying in the hotel that the Australian players were staying at, I would bow my head and avoid eye contact every time I crossed them in the lobby.
4. Adelaide 2019 (ongoing) [scorecard]
Summary: well, if you're reading this, presumably you've been watching TV/a stream for the last couple days, so I won't bother summarizing this one.
Pain index: 8.5* I mean, they've just murdered us here. They've bashed our head in. It's like one of those Mexican cartel killing videos that caused the demise of /r/watchpeopledie. Where to even start? One good place might be Yasir Shah, who in the previous test became the first bowler ever to concede 200 runs in an innings three different times. Here, he almost made it a fourth, going for 197 in just 32 overs. In all likelihood, the Aussies have ended his career, at least away from home, reminiscent of how Sehwag ended Saqlain in Multan in 2004. Meanwhile, Misbah's genius idea to take Abbas and a bunch of teenagers to the most punishing place for off-color pace bowlers has, shocker, not turned out well. Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali continue to show that they are good, not great (or even very good) players. Just a total mess all around.
*If Babar makes a hundred in either innings, or 70-plus in both innings, the pain index rating goes to 8.
3. Melbourne 2016 [scorecard]
Summary: an incredible match in which Pakistan actually declared their first innings (the only time that has happened in this 14 test run) at 443 and somehow still lost, that too by an innings. Lol just lol. Australia made 625 at a run rate of four and a half with Warner and Smith combining for more than 300 between them. Pakistan needed to bat two sessions on the last day for a draw and, quite naturally, did not manage it.
Pain index: 9.5. This was a real special, come-from-nowhere loss that Pakistan specializes in. There were one-and-a-half days lost to rain (140 overs to be exact). Pakistan batted till lunch on day 3. At the end of day 4, Australia hadn't yet completed their first innings. They were 465-6 at stumps, replying to Pakistan's 443. Imagine what has to happen -- what has to go wrong, to be more specific -- for you to lose from that position. You have to
(a) not get the tail wrapped up. A normal team would look at that score and think "we can get em for under 500 here". Pakistan, instead, allowed the overnight Mitchell Starc to go from 7 not out to a run-a-ball 84. Steve Smith went from 100 to 165. All this happened in less than a session.
(b) Concede a large lead quickly. On day 5, every over Australia batted was one less over Pakistan needed to. Ergo, the only way Australia could even contemplate winning was scoring quickly. Pakistan knew this. Rather than controlling the game, Australia smashed 160 runs in 28 overs that morning. A good, nay competent, team would have allowed half that.
(c) Collapse like only Pakistan can. This was the easiest part. Everyone and their grandmother knew that we were not going to survive those last two sessions. Sure enough, we did not. And in a wrinkle true to form, it was Nathan Lyon, easily Australia's least threatening bowler, that carved us up on day 5.
TIER 1: THE PTSD-INDUCERS
It is impossible to separate the two matches in this tier. They are both easy 10s. I will make arguments for both, and if someone has strong reasons for thinking one is worse than the other, I won't disagree. It can be safely said that both were responsible for a collective PTSD-like pall that fell over even the most cynical, hardened, and used-to-abuse Pakistan fan.
1 (tied). Hobart 1999 [scorecard], Sydney 2010 [scorecard]
Summary: In both matches, Pakistan lost from not just winning but dominant positions. At Hobart, Australia, thoroughly outplayed for three and a half days, were 126-5 chasing 369 to win, facing an attack of Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Azhar, and Saqlain. They lost one wicket the rest of the way, 5 short of a win, as Langer and Gilchrist counterattacked to the run of a 240 run partnership.
At Sydney, Australia, who were trailing by 200 runs at the start of their second innings, were 257-8. Mike Hussey, bane of Pakistan, found an able partner in Peter Siddle, adding 123 for the 9th wicket. Pakistan, left needing a very achievable 176 to win, got to 139, despite a pretty solid start (50-1).
Pain index: 10. The two most devastating test losses I can remember (I've been following cricket since the early 90s). It's impossible to say which is worse. Both have a lot going for it.
Turned the series factor: Hobart beats Sydney. In 99-00, we had a team good enough to win, or at least draw, the series. In 2009-10, even if we had won at Sydney, we for sure would have lost the series either way.
Turned history factor: Hobart beats Sydney again. Who knows what would have happened to that Pakistan team had it beaten Australia in Australia at their absolute apex. Let's not forget this was the beginnings of Steve Waugh's Aussies, our generation's answer to the 70s/80s Windies squads, the team that won 16 tests in a row (and even that run ended only in crazy circumstances at Calcutta in 2001). We were the only team even close to them in this time, at least in their conditions. Whereas with Sydney, even if we had won, we would have lost the series 2-1, and the same shit that happened in England that summer would have happened regardless.
Horror movie "you can see it coming" factor: Sydney beats Hobart here. The dominant feeling those last couple days in Hobart was "is this really happening?" The dominant feeling in Sydney was "this is really going to happen, isn't it?" There is a subtle but important difference between those positions. The first connotes confusion, the second dread. Dread is worse. You can see the end coming long before it actually does. With Sydney, I vividly recall people on social media saying that if Australia crawls to a lead of 150, it will be enough. Only Pakistan fans have the correct amount of (lack of) confidence in their team.
You lost vs. they won factor: Sydney beats Hobart again. Generally, losses are more acceptable when they come in the form of the other team playing really well, as opposed to when you screw yourself. At Hobart, we were just not ready for the Gilchrist experience, then playing only his second test. We did everything right, and then one partnership just won it for them. At Sydney, we messed up so bad: (1) our first innings should have ended with a 300, not 200, run lead (four of our top five scored between 46 and 71), and (2) their second innings should have been wrapped up way before it was. Kamran Akmal dropped Hussey not once, not twice, but three different times off Kaneria. The chase? Well, that was doomed from the start: 175 for us is like 300 for a normal team.
Injustice factor: Hobart beats Sydney. At Sydney no one beat us but ourselves. In pre-revew era Hobart, however, we were screwed. No one who lived through it will ever forget this moment:
This still makes me seethe. Just awful, and so typically Australian. Thank god for the review system is all I'll say.
At the end of the day, it's really difficult to choose between these two. That's why I'm taking the easy way out and just making it a tie. If absolutely forced to choose, with the proverbial gun to my head, I might go with Sydney, just because it combined so many of Pakistan's patented fuck-ups, from dropped catches to missed runouts to letting the opposition tail wag to a 4th innings collapse precipitated by a lulloo bowler. But it is very, very hard to choose.
SUMMING UP
Overall most painful series ranking (by average pain index rating per test) if Babar does not make a hundred in either innings of this test, or 70-plus in both innings:
1. 2019 (6.8)
2. 1999-2000 (6.7)
3. 2009-2010 (6.5)
4. 2016-2017 (5.2)
5. 2004-05 (4)
Overall most painful series ranking if Babar makes a hundred in either innings of this test, or 70-plus in both innings:
1. 1999-2000 (6.7)
2 (tied) 2019 (6.5)
2 (tied) 2009-10 (6.5)
4. 2016-2017 (5.2)
5. 2004-05 (4)
After the trauma of Sydney 2010 and Melbourne 2016, I have become convinced that it will take an act of God for Pakistan to win in Australia again
ReplyDelete