Three thoughts on Pakistan Australia (1st test)
A Pakistan tour to Australia is the only time diaspora/expat/immigrant Pakistanis in the U.S. are better placed to watch the team than people at home. Test matches, especially, are on at the perfect time: starting at 7 p.m. on the east coast, when most of the east coast comes home from work, or 4 p.m. on the west coast, when most of the west coast comes home from work. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, one would have to wake up at 5 a.m. for all non-Perth tests, which for a country where "morning meeting" means 11:45, is a task that stretches all but the most austere.
The point being: if for no other reason than scheduling, I was really looking forward to this tour. And then, just like 16/17, 09/10, and 04/05, the cricket actually started.
Here are three thoughts from the latest iteration of this at once brutal and hilarious dance between Pakistan and Australia.
Always play 5 bowlers in Australia and South Africa
The pitches in New Zealand and England are friendly enough, generally speaking, to bowlers such that you can afford to play four bowlers and get away with it. In Asia and the Windies you can play two spinners out of four bowlers and be okay. But four bowlers is too risky in SA and especially Australia. There have been way too many times in the 21st century, especially in Australia, where we have four guys bowling for two days. It's just too much.
Given that Pakistan has in its ranks two very serviceable all-rounders capable of batting 7 and/or 8 (Faheem, Shadab, neither of whom is even in the test squad lol), and given past experience, it is absolutely crazy to me that we went in with four bowlers again. Who exactly is of the opinion that Yasir Shah trundling down 45-50 overs regularly is a good idea? And if the answer is "no one" then why does it keep happening? Congrats to Yasir, by the way, for becoming the first bowler to concede 200 in an innings three different times.
There are four basic specifications of the "5 bowlers" combination available to Pakistan, given current resources.
1. Both Shadab and Faheem and 3 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: if at least one of the pacers is a left-armer (which, given Shaheen's stature, is a formality, unless injured), then this ensures the greatest variety of attack. Cons: Two all-rounders in a 5 man bowling attack sometimes doesn't give you enough bite (recall the 99 Gabba test, where we played both Azhar an Razzaq and were carted for another 500-plus score despite having Shoaib, Wasim, and Saqlain).
2. Shadab and Faheem and 2 frontline pace bowlers and Yasir. Pros: probably ensures the correct balance of spin and pace. Cons: two leg spinners might be one too many. Not many sides have pulled it off (even McGill and Warne struggled when playing together).
3. Shadab and 4 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: given I believe Yasir Shah is a bit overrated, and after a long a time we actually seem have fast bowling depth, this is probably the most potent version of the bowling. Cons: a long tail. Do you really trust a batting lineup with Rizwan at 6 and Shadab at 7 and then four no.11s (why was the Umar Gul/Wahab Riaz generation the last set of Pakistani fast bowlers who knew how to bat?).
4. Faheem and Yasir Shah and 3 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: bowling wise, the attack I would feel most comfortable with SENA, without knowing the specifics of a pitch. Cons: really iffy batting. Shadab at 7 and then four no. 11s I could be convinced of, but Faheem at 7 and then four no.11s would just be reckless.
I don't actually care which one of these four you end up going with but please, for the love of god, stop being compelled by your fear of batting collapses into playing only four bowlers.
The Abbas decision was the single worst selection decision I can remember
If you haven't read Osman's column on this shameful, senseless, and idiotic decision, please do. The PIPY guys also discussed this in a foreboding way before it happened. For me, the only things that can compete with this in the 21st century are Imran Farhat and Fawad Alam.
Farhat is an act of commission, not omission as Abbas' case was, so it is tough to compare.
Fawad's case comes closer, because both were unjustified and stupid non-selections. The argument for Abbas' case being worse is that Fawad's case is still grounded in, strictly speaking, conjecture. Anyone with a brain cell knew he would score runs if given the chance, but he never was, so you couldn't point to anything substantive at the test level to make the case. Abbas is literally a top 3 bowler and the best we have produced since Asif and everyone in cricket can see this. The argument for Fawad's case being worse is that it kept happening for a decade concomitant with us displaying increasing innovation and panache in methods of collapse, while Abbas' is (hopefully) a one-off.
Either way, it was so daft. "Imran Khan was bowling well in the nets and took wickets against Australia A"? Are you being serious? Like, is this some sort of sick joke? Abbas averages less than nineteen you dipshits. Saying you're going to correct the mistake in the next match is pretty meaningless in a series that is two tests long. This episode is the reason the phrase "too clever by half" was invented. Which brings me to...
Misbah, dumb dictator
The one thing going well in recent times was the T20 side. Lo and behold, upon Misbah's ascension, that team suddenly sucks, losing to a B side from Sri Lanka at home before losing 2-0 (would've been 3-0 if not for rain) to Australia. Bringing back the stench of Umar Akmal and Ahmed Shehzad, (correctly) deemed radioactive by the Mickey Arthur regime, was just asinine. And now this mishandling of the balance of the test side and Abbas' exclusion.
It's all a bit much for a guy who probably suffers from some savior complex. Obviously I respect the guy a ton for what he did to the test side between 2010 and 2016. But those #misyou hashtags have obviously inflated his ego to the point where he genuinely thinks being coach and chief selector (and chief game planner) at the same time is a sound strategy.
There's a reason democracy is better than authoritarianism: checks and balances, limits on power etc. Misbah reminds me of one of those dictators who arrive in a coup or some other extra constitutional way and goes about undoing everything his predecessor did. Similar to Trump withdrawing from the TPP, the Iran deal, and the Paris climate accords. I can see Misbah now, channeling George Costanza: "Yes...I will do the opposite."
It's pretty pathetic, honestly. Misbah really needs to get over himself.
The point being: if for no other reason than scheduling, I was really looking forward to this tour. And then, just like 16/17, 09/10, and 04/05, the cricket actually started.
Here are three thoughts from the latest iteration of this at once brutal and hilarious dance between Pakistan and Australia.
Always play 5 bowlers in Australia and South Africa
The pitches in New Zealand and England are friendly enough, generally speaking, to bowlers such that you can afford to play four bowlers and get away with it. In Asia and the Windies you can play two spinners out of four bowlers and be okay. But four bowlers is too risky in SA and especially Australia. There have been way too many times in the 21st century, especially in Australia, where we have four guys bowling for two days. It's just too much.
Given that Pakistan has in its ranks two very serviceable all-rounders capable of batting 7 and/or 8 (Faheem, Shadab, neither of whom is even in the test squad lol), and given past experience, it is absolutely crazy to me that we went in with four bowlers again. Who exactly is of the opinion that Yasir Shah trundling down 45-50 overs regularly is a good idea? And if the answer is "no one" then why does it keep happening? Congrats to Yasir, by the way, for becoming the first bowler to concede 200 in an innings three different times.
There are four basic specifications of the "5 bowlers" combination available to Pakistan, given current resources.
1. Both Shadab and Faheem and 3 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: if at least one of the pacers is a left-armer (which, given Shaheen's stature, is a formality, unless injured), then this ensures the greatest variety of attack. Cons: Two all-rounders in a 5 man bowling attack sometimes doesn't give you enough bite (recall the 99 Gabba test, where we played both Azhar an Razzaq and were carted for another 500-plus score despite having Shoaib, Wasim, and Saqlain).
2. Shadab and Faheem and 2 frontline pace bowlers and Yasir. Pros: probably ensures the correct balance of spin and pace. Cons: two leg spinners might be one too many. Not many sides have pulled it off (even McGill and Warne struggled when playing together).
3. Shadab and 4 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: given I believe Yasir Shah is a bit overrated, and after a long a time we actually seem have fast bowling depth, this is probably the most potent version of the bowling. Cons: a long tail. Do you really trust a batting lineup with Rizwan at 6 and Shadab at 7 and then four no.11s (why was the Umar Gul/Wahab Riaz generation the last set of Pakistani fast bowlers who knew how to bat?).
4. Faheem and Yasir Shah and 3 frontline pace bowlers. Pros: bowling wise, the attack I would feel most comfortable with SENA, without knowing the specifics of a pitch. Cons: really iffy batting. Shadab at 7 and then four no. 11s I could be convinced of, but Faheem at 7 and then four no.11s would just be reckless.
I don't actually care which one of these four you end up going with but please, for the love of god, stop being compelled by your fear of batting collapses into playing only four bowlers.
The Abbas decision was the single worst selection decision I can remember
If you haven't read Osman's column on this shameful, senseless, and idiotic decision, please do. The PIPY guys also discussed this in a foreboding way before it happened. For me, the only things that can compete with this in the 21st century are Imran Farhat and Fawad Alam.
Farhat is an act of commission, not omission as Abbas' case was, so it is tough to compare.
Fawad's case comes closer, because both were unjustified and stupid non-selections. The argument for Abbas' case being worse is that Fawad's case is still grounded in, strictly speaking, conjecture. Anyone with a brain cell knew he would score runs if given the chance, but he never was, so you couldn't point to anything substantive at the test level to make the case. Abbas is literally a top 3 bowler and the best we have produced since Asif and everyone in cricket can see this. The argument for Fawad's case being worse is that it kept happening for a decade concomitant with us displaying increasing innovation and panache in methods of collapse, while Abbas' is (hopefully) a one-off.
Either way, it was so daft. "Imran Khan was bowling well in the nets and took wickets against Australia A"? Are you being serious? Like, is this some sort of sick joke? Abbas averages less than nineteen you dipshits. Saying you're going to correct the mistake in the next match is pretty meaningless in a series that is two tests long. This episode is the reason the phrase "too clever by half" was invented. Which brings me to...
Misbah, dumb dictator
The one thing going well in recent times was the T20 side. Lo and behold, upon Misbah's ascension, that team suddenly sucks, losing to a B side from Sri Lanka at home before losing 2-0 (would've been 3-0 if not for rain) to Australia. Bringing back the stench of Umar Akmal and Ahmed Shehzad, (correctly) deemed radioactive by the Mickey Arthur regime, was just asinine. And now this mishandling of the balance of the test side and Abbas' exclusion.
It's all a bit much for a guy who probably suffers from some savior complex. Obviously I respect the guy a ton for what he did to the test side between 2010 and 2016. But those #misyou hashtags have obviously inflated his ego to the point where he genuinely thinks being coach and chief selector (and chief game planner) at the same time is a sound strategy.
There's a reason democracy is better than authoritarianism: checks and balances, limits on power etc. Misbah reminds me of one of those dictators who arrive in a coup or some other extra constitutional way and goes about undoing everything his predecessor did. Similar to Trump withdrawing from the TPP, the Iran deal, and the Paris climate accords. I can see Misbah now, channeling George Costanza: "Yes...I will do the opposite."
It's pretty pathetic, honestly. Misbah really needs to get over himself.
Comments
Post a Comment