The great is back @imVkohli

— Hassan Ali (@RealHa55an) September 8, 2022

You can delay class all you want to, don't even think of denying it.
That ton? Worth it's weight in gold. That smile? Priceless. Shine on, champ. @imVkohli

— Sunil Chhetri (@chetrisunil11) September 8, 2022

Maiden T20 century , so happy for you @imVkohli You totally deserved it Immense respect for such a brilliant innings #INDvAFG pic.twitter.com/H1EVC1N86A

— Suresh Raina (@ImRaina) September 8, 2022

The 71st is finally here, long wait but worth it. What composed and powerful innings and statement from Virat Kohli. Maza aagaya! #INDvsAFG #asiacup2022 @imVkohli pic.twitter.com/4MQWG0zg00

— Rumman Raees (@rummanraees15) September 8, 2022

It has been a wonderful knock @imVkohli. So good to see him in such good form.
Well played #INDvsAFG pic.twitter.com/mYV3zEmPLs

— VVS Laxman (@VVSLaxman281) September 8, 2022

It’s been a while, but happy to see Virat Kohli back in international century scoring mode. First T20i hundred, and hopefully a precursor to bigger tasks ahead.

— Ian Raphael Bishop (@irbishi) September 8, 2022

Take a bow @imVkohli form is temporary class is permanent! Fabulous knock keep shining

— Angelo Mathews (@Angelo69Mathews) September 8, 2022

Cricket looked incomplete without @imVkohli scoring runs. Good to see the Run machine back. Enjoyed the Kohli show#INDvAFG

— Wahab Riaz (@WahabViki) September 8, 2022

so finally wait is over great by king kohli

— Mohammad Amir (@iamamirofficial) September 8, 2022

#Virat

— Kevin Pietersen (@KP24) September 8, 2022

I'd say the gorilla is off the back. What a knock and what an apt celebration after he broke the drought!! Well done @imVkohli. Amazing stuff

— Robin Aiyuda Uthappa (@robbieuthappa) September 8, 2022

Champions always back with a bang.Congrats to @imVkohli the all time in my https://t.co/3hRRxghUWr thing was missing and he did it in style. pic.twitter.com/9UouvXmmEx

— Mushfiqur Rahim (@mushfiqur15) September 8, 2022

<!–#cricinfo_insert
type: iframe
body:

Champions always back with a bang.Congrats to @imVkohli the all time

15Dec

England, India, and the problem with spotlighting 'big matches'

by h716a5.icu Uncategorized

Both have been high-quality teams in limited-overs cricket in recent years, but have few title wins to show for it – and that, by popular opinion, is an issue

Sidharth Monga09-Nov-2022When India face England in a knockout match at a world event, it is inevitable that their record in knockout matches is brought up. Since the two last played a knockout match against each other, in the 2013 Champions Trophy final, India have not won a title despite making it to the knockouts in five of the six limited-overs world events before this year’s T20 World Cup, and England have won just one despite being acknowledged as the thought leaders in limited-overs cricket.This fact has become an asterisk against these teams’ undeniable quality in this period. However there is no empirical study that suggests that good players and teams suddenly become bad in the so-called big matches, or that otherwise ordinary teams or players can raise their game and be “clutch”. The term itself is defined variously by various people depending on when they were at their most anxious watching the contest.The fact is, teams are much more evenly matched these days. In the six world events since 2013, we have had five different champions. In one of them, we couldn’t settle on a clear winner even after the Super Over. Pretty evenly matched teams come up against each other in knockout matches, they both play good cricket, and small events assume great significance.Still, it is the nature of cricket that everything must be decided by a final, making knockouts matter much more than they should. Even the players buy into that. Moeen Ali feels England need to win more trophies to be remembered as well as the team deserves to be remembered. Captain Jos Buttler seems to agree.”Certainly don’t want to be a team that just says we played a great style of cricket,” Buttler says. “You want to have tangible things that you have achieved throughout that as well. Getting to semi-finals and finals, the big prize is obviously standing there with the trophy at the end of the game, and that’s what we all want to achieve.”But we know that the way we play is going to give us the best chance of doing that. We very much stick to that and have full faith and belief that if we play to the best of our abilities with the way we want to play our cricket, that’s how we’re going to get to the point of lifting more trophies.”Winning trophies is good, but how can it take away from how England have completely revolutionised the way they played and have become trendsetters in the both the limited-overs formats. Buttler remembers clearly the day they made a clean break from their orthodox style of play because it happened at the Adelaide Oval in 2015 when they lost to Bangladesh and were knocked out in the group stage.”Yeah, we were actually just talking about that in the dressing room… anytime you go back to certain grounds there’s some moments or memories that were not always good ones, unfortunately. But yeah, absolutely, I think it’s been clear to see the change in mindset in English cricket towards the white-ball game since that game went that way, and especially the way we’ve played. The way we’ve played has given us better results, so that gives us a lot of trust in that process that it works.”I think even going back to the Pakistan tour, some younger guys coming into the group, there seems an engrained way of playing now in English cricket. It’s been a fantastic journey to be involved in.”Can that way of playing be undermined if they lose in a “big match”? What really is a big match? How does it feel different to those playing that match? Buttler says this semi-final is a big match but more so externally.”Externally of course it is a different game. There’s probably more people in the [press] room here for a semi-final than there would be for a different game, so of course a few things feel a bit different in that sense. The game remains the same [though]. We must find a way to accept the noise around the match, but again, come back to exactly your job on the day and playing what’s required from you.”It’s still a game of cricket. There’s a lot of things you can’t control in the game. There will probably still be a misfield, someone will bowl a wide, someone might drop a catch. All these things happen in the game, [whether] it’s a semi-final or not. But we must maintain trying to play with the same level of freedom in T20 cricket. Whether it’s one or two guys, whether it’s a full-team performance coming down to it on the day, we must have huge belief that we can get the job done.”When it comes to India, the record of their top three in knockout matches is considered a qualifier against their quality as batters. What really happens – as it does in other matches – is that they make about the same proportion of mistakes but in these matches the mistakes have tended to bring about their dismissal. Eight matches in nine years is too rare an occurrence to develop any patterns. Rohit Sharma, India’s captain, does acknowledge the extra importance of knockout matches but doesn’t see any reason why good players should become bad in knockout matches.”I think knockout games are important,” Rohit says. “We do understand that. It’s a simple logic to it, knockout games, because you get to play only once and there’s only one opportunity to do well in that knockout game. But for us, I think, not just for me but for the players, what they’ve done in their entire career doesn’t define them by just one knockout game. The entire year you work so hard to get where you want to and to do well in whichever format you play. So that one particular game is not going to decide that.”It’s important we do understand the importance of knockout, but at the same time, it’s also important to realise and understand what sort of effort you put in the entire year to come to that stage. For us, as players, as a team, we can pride ourselves to be here at this point in time because we saw two of the quality teams which were knocked out [in the Super 12s], and anything can happen in this format.”It’s important to understand that if do well in knockout matches, it gives you that immense confidence. But we do not forget what has happened in the past, what the players have done in the past. There’s a lot of effort that goes into putting ourselves and playing for the country and getting those efforts, getting those runs, getting those wickets, so I really don’t believe that one bad game in the knockout can truly define what kind of player you are.”Be that as it may, come Thursday, one of these excellent teams will be called chokers and the other clutch. A status that will be up for debate again on Sunday.

15Dec

Why T20 hitting is not just a more risky version of batting

by n8rngtd.top Uncategorized

And how Pakistan have not quite caught up with the other international teams when it comes to going on the attack

Kartikeya Date02-Oct-2022Batting is the art of accumulating runs safely. Its measures of merit say that a longer innings is better than a shorter innings, a bigger score better than a smaller one, a higher average better than a lower one. In terms of ESPNcricinfo’s control measurement, a higher rate of control is better than a lower rate of control for the batter.Hitting is different. It is the art of plundering each delivery for as many runs as possible. Its measures of merit must be different from those for batting. The hitter’s technique is designed to make it possible for them to consistently hit the ball to the parts of the boundary that are not defended by a fielder. Among batters, if two score at the same speed, the one who averages more is the better batter. Among hitters, if two score at the same speed, the one who averages less is the better hitter, because this player achieves the said speed earlier in their innings.Ruturaj Gaikwad described the distinction between hitting and batting recently: “[In T20] you have to be ready for each and every ball and have three particular options in your mind for each ball. Then, all of a sudden, to come [into] red-ball cricket, where you don’t really have to look for runs, you have to focus on staying on the wicket.”Related

• How to bat and bowl in each of Australia's T20 World Cup venues

• T20 openers are more conservative than they need to be

• Do teams benefit when their batters play long innings in T20s?

• How many boundaries should a T20 team attempt in an innings? More than you might think

• Why aren't T20 teams scoring bigger more often? (2019)

This is why hitters play innovative and unusual shots. Given the point is to score as quickly as possible, the hitter’s orthodox shot is one that evades the fielders. Batters try to defend the top of off stump as well as possible against three slips; the orthodox shot for a batter is one that avoids dismissal.This distinction between hitting and batting lies at the heart of what has been described in several excellent articles in these pages as the Indian T20 squad’s attempts to be “more aggressive” under their new leader, Rohit Sharma. Batters need to survive and are highly selective about the balls they choose to attack. Hitters attempt boundaries as often as possible and consequently are more likely to score a boundary off the average delivery, but they are also more likely to get out on the average delivery.Does this mean that hitting is simply a riskier version of batting? The answer is yes in one trivial sense – hitting results in dismissal far more frequently than batting does. In the last 20 years a Test wicket has fallen, on average, once every 62 balls, while a T20 wicket has fallen once every 18 balls. The average Test innings lasts about 100 overs; a T20 innings lasts only 20 overs.In this article I suggest that something more basic is at play in the distinction between batting and hitting. To consider it in terms of risk is to privilege the batter’s orthodoxy, and to describe what hitters do through the lens of batting.If all batting is about selecting the right delivery to score from so that runs are made safely, then there should be evidence in the record for players trading run-scoring speed for survival at the wicket. This relationship – the more a player prefers to play shots, the more frequently the player is dismissed – should be viable in all forms of cricket, including T20.One way to measure this is to count how often a boundary is attempted, for that is where the risk of dismissal is maximal. Hitting the ball to the boundary typically involves swinging the bat harder, meeting the ball earlier, committing to the shot earlier, playing further away from the body.A measure available for this is the one that describes whether or not an attacking shot has been attempted. But this is distinct from whether a boundary has been attempted. For example, if the bowler has both long-on and long-off positioned relatively straight, and fine leg and third man up in the ring, then hitting the ball hard straight down the ground is an attacking shot but it cannot really be called a boundary attempt. Given this field, an attempt to send the ball behind square is a boundary attempt. To say whether or not a boundary has been attempted requires considering the placement of the field.In the absence of direct measurements, let’s consider two indirect measures. First, look at how often a player scores a boundary by calculating the balls faced per boundary. Second, consider how often a player is dismissed per boundary scored by calculating the boundaries scored per dismissal. Note that a boundary is a four or a six.The chart below shows the relationship between these two measures for all players. (To qualify for a format in this chart, a player must have at least 4000 runs in that format between 2003 and 2022; T20 figures include those from T20Is too.)Kartikeya DateIn Test cricket (blue dots), a greater range of boundary-hitting prowess is viable. Even if one thinks that Kraigg Brathwaite (24.6 balls faced per boundary) and Virender Sehwag (7.9 balls faced per boundary) are not equally good players, consider that Shivnarine Chanderpaul averaged 20.5 balls per boundary, Azhar Ali 24.0 and Cheteshwar Pujara 18.6. At the other end of the spectrum are Chris Gayle, with 9.9 balls per boundary, David Warner (11.1) and Brian Lara (8.2).The less frequent the boundary-hitting, the fewer boundaries per dismissal, and in Tests and ODIs, the longer the player’s average innings in terms of balls. In Tests, Sehwag was dismissed once every 60 balls and Chanderpaul once every 124 balls. In ODIs, Jos Buttler, Adam Gilchrist, Sanath Jayasuriya, Sehwag and Gayle scored boundaries once every six to eight balls, and were dismissed once every 33-42 balls, while at the other end, Joe Root, Ross Taylor, Kane Williamson, Babar Azam and Virat Kohli score boundaries every 10-13 balls and are dismissed once every 56-63 balls. Being more selective in Tests and ODIs produces a longer stay at the crease, because scoring runs in smaller denominations is useful in Test and ODIs (scoring rates are typically slower than a run a ball).In T20, as the chart shows, this relationship between the frequency of boundary-hitting and the frequency of dismissal is weakened. There are only six players in the T20 record who average five or more boundaries per dismissal. Their frequency of boundary-hitting ranges from 4.6 balls per boundary for Gayle to 6.8 balls per boundary for Mohammad Rizwan. At the other end of the spectrum are nine players who achieve fewer than three boundaries per dismissal. Their frequency of boundary-hitting ranges from five balls per boundary (Shahid Afridi, Thisara Pereira) to between seven and eight (Shakib Al Hasan, Mahmudullah, Ravi Bopara). At both ends of the T20 spectrum there are, essentially, players who are better (Gayle, Warner, at the top end) or worse (Rizwan) at scoring boundaries. In T20 the room to attempt alternative approaches to run-scoring simply does not exist. With the result that there are essentially more or less selective boundary hitters, and among these, the better ones manage more boundaries per dismissal and the less able ones manage fewer boundaries per dismissal. The more selective players score slower than the less selective ones. In a fast-scoring format like T20, this is not viable in the same way that it is in Tests and to a lesser extent in ODIs.Readers should note that in T20, the players considered in this article score 60% of their runs in boundaries. The corresponding figure for ODIs is 47%, while for Tests it is 50%. Further, in Tests these players have hit one in every 15.5 balls to the boundary. The corresponding figure for ODIs is one every 10.7 balls, while for T20s and T20Is it is one every 5.8 balls. Brathwaite and Azhar have scored 40% of their Test runs in boundaries, while Sehwag scored 63% of his Test runs in boundaries. Among T20 players this range goes from 48% (Bopara, Steve Smith, Mahmudullah) to 75% (Chris Gayle and Andre Russell).A second way to consider this idea is to look at the modal over for players for each format – that is, the over in the innings in which the player is at the crease most often. In any innings, a batter is at the crease in a specific range of overs. Considering all innings by a batter, we can calculate the over (or overs) in an innings in which the batter is most frequently at the crease. This is the modal over. In Hardik Pandya’s brilliant 71 off 30 balls in Mohali recently, his modal over was the 15th, in which he was on strike for seven balls.For example, in ODIs the modal over for the No. 3 batter is the tenth over. For No. 4 it is the 19th, for No. 5 the 27th, for No. 6 the 37th, for No. 7 the 43rd, for No. 8 the 45th. In T20s, the modal overs are: No. 3, 5th over; No. 4, 10th; No. 5, 14th; No. 6, 16th, No. 7, 18th; and No. 8, 19th.The graph below displays this data for all formats in the ball-by-ball record for players batting in positions three through eight. Note that the T20 and T20I curves are nearly congruent. Openers are ignored because they always start their innings in over 1, and so for them that is the modal over, the one in which they are guaranteed to be at the crease.Kartikeya DateThe horizontal axis plots the over of the innings as a percentile rank. For Test cricket, the first 100 overs are considered, since this is approximately the length of the average Test innings (a Test wicket falls once every 62 balls). When that scale is applied to T20s and T20Is, the 90th percentile over is the 18th over. In ODIs, the 90th percentile over is the 45th over, and in Tests it is the 90th over. The vertical axis shows the frequency with which each over is the modal over.In Tests (and to a large extent in ODIs), the frequencies flatten out. After the first 15 or so overs of the innings, any over is roughly as likely as any other to be the modal over for Nos. 3 to 8. In T20s this is not so. The later in the innings we are, the modal overs are bunched closer together (from the No. 5 position onwards). This is because in T20 batters run out of deliveries faster than they run out of wickets.The essential distinction between Test cricket and T20 is that in Test cricket, wickets are the scarce resource. There is a relative abundance of deliveries, accommodating a range of batting approaches, while in T20, deliveries are the scarce resource, since there is a relative abundance of wickets (ten) over only 120 deliveries. This is not a particularly counterintuitive insight but its implications have been resisted in T20 international cricket and in the way T20Is are discussed.Two recent high-profile games involving Pakistan that featured two of the six players above who managed at least five boundaries per dismissal by being significantly more selective than average about the balls they choose to hit – Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan – show the problems with this approach. In the T20 World Cup semi-final of 2021, Pakistan batted first and made 176 for 4. They got to 47 for 0 in the powerplay but in the next seven overs managed only 45 for 1, despite having ten wickets in hand. In the 2022 Asia Cup final Pakistan, chasing 171 to win, got to 37 for 2 in the powerplay. In the next seven overs they managed 54 for no wicket – less than eight runs an over.From a batter’s point of view, 45 for 1 and 54 for none are both excellent returns in a seven-over period because wickets have been preserved. But under the hitter’s orthodoxy, these scorelines reflect bad play. The hitter’s orthodoxy says that team that had wickets in hand should have scored more runs if they didn’t lose wickets, or lost more wickets if they didn’t score more runs. Forty-five for one (one four, one six) and 54 for none (five fours, zero sixes) in the middle third of a T20 match in which about 170 runs were made in each innings reflect excessively selective attempts at scoring boundaries. The contrast between Pakistan’s approach and that of their opponents in these games is evident in the table below. What marks Pakistan’s play is an unwillingness to take chances; if they had taken chances, it would have manifested itself either in quicker runs or more wickets.

Unlike T20 franchise leagues, which feature teams designed to be more or less equal (due to salary caps), T20 international tournaments, with their lopsided, unequal squads and winner-take-all knockout matches incentivise this conservatism to some extent. Saqlain Mushtaq’s defence of his players after the Asia Cup final reflects this. India and Pakistan are both very successful T20 international sides. In T20 internationals among the nine teams in the table below, India (29-13 win-loss record), and Pakistan (20-12) have the two best records in the 2020s.On the face of it, this calls into question India’s recent efforts at discarding the batter’s orthodoxy in favour of the hitter’s. But this record is deceptive. It is built on a lopsided success rate in chases (12-2 for India, 14-2 for Pakistan). Eleven out of Pakistan’s 16 chases have involved targets under 175, eight have involved targets of 152 or less. India’s median score in their 14 chases has been a similarly modest 165. England’s 14-12 record in chases during this period has involved a median chase of 180. Their head-to-head record against Pakistan (3-2) and India (3-5) during this period does not suggest that India and Pakistan have been better T20I sides than England. Australia’s record tells a similar story.In matches where they bat first, Pakistan’s caution stands out. They lose, on average, only 1.2 wickets in the middle third of the innings, while nearly all other teams lose about two wickets or a little under on average, and yet, Pakistan are mid-table in terms of the number of runs scored. They have lost ten out of 16 matches batting first during this period. Above and below Pakistan in this table are teams that have spent more wickets than them in this period, with greater or lesser success. Pakistan are unique in that they have been unwilling to spend wickets at the same rate.International teams seem to be embracing the hitter’s orthodoxy in T20 to varying degrees. Pakistan seem to be the last holdouts for the old way. What stands out is the number of potential runs they forego because they’re conservative about risking dismissal. While India have declared that they want to attack more, the line-ups and batting order they select suggest an element of caution in their approach.A key element in embracing the hitter’s orthodoxy involves the use of the anchor. India insist on playing Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma and KL Rahul in three of the top four positions in their line-up. To be a genuinely hitting XI, they will need to drop two out of those three down the order and promote their power-hitters – Suryakumar Yadav, Rishabh Pant, Hardik Pandya, and probably Dinesh Karthik – up the order. In a good hitting line-up, the anchor offers insurance in case of a collapse rather than blocking one end from the start. To embrace such a theory fully, India would have to pick the most aggressive T20 opener available to them – Prithvi Shaw. That they haven’t done so, and their line-up positions their hitters below their anchors, suggests that there is a step in the direction of hitting that India are not yet prepared to take.Nevertheless, T20 international cricket is, at long last, moving towards the approach the franchise leagues have already embraced. T20 is a hitter’s game. Hitting is a distinct art and needs to be described on its own terms. It is not a riskier version of batting. Rather, it is a response to the unique circumstances of giving teams ten wickets to use over only 120 balls.

15Dec

The ideal T20 team today looks like Pakistan's 2007 and 2009 World Cup sides

by h716a5.icu Uncategorized

They were ahead of the curve over a decade ago, but haven’t quite followed that blueprint since

Hassan Cheema02-Nov-2022As Pakistan have stumbled their way through the back end of the Asia Cup to two heartbreaking losses in the World Cup, every aspect of the team has been debated over. Yet this World Cup has been defined by a question that is ever more familiar in non-sports discourse in Pakistan: why don’t we have what others do? What does a Pakistani T20 side that’s up with the zeitgeist even look like?If we were to create the ideal, data-driven T20 side, it would have: two to three top-order hitters, two to three middle-overs specialists who are good spin-hitters and bat deep, followed by allrounders who create the depth that allows those above them to play with freedom. For pace, you’d want a powerplay specialist fast bowler, a death-overs specialist, and another fast bowler who can do both. Among these three, you’d want express pace and a left-armer. For spin, you’d want bowlers who turn the ball either way and can bowl across phases, plus additional bowling options to create positive match-ups. Six or more bowling options and batting that lasts till eight.In other words, the ideal T20 team today would look almost identical to Pakistan’s 2007 (runners-up) and 2009 (winners) T20 World Cup sides.The late 2000s are a dark period in Pakistan’s cricket history. They went four years without winning any Test series. They lost ten of their 15 bilateral ODI series, with four of their five wins coming against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies. They dealt with the death of a beloved coach during a World Cup, lost hosting rights, and had their players banned for, variously, using performance-enhancing and recreational drugs, spot-fixing, scuffing up the pitch, and conspiring against their captain. The 2007 World Cup was a forgettable experience, and while they made it to the knockouts in the 2009 Champions Trophy, the semi-final loss led to fixing accusations. Yet in the middle of all this, Pakistan stumbled upon the perfect way to play T20 cricket.The top order: hitters over anchors, please
There are a handful of players from those Pakistan teams who would have had different careers if they had been ten years younger, but no one more so than Imran Nazir, who was the lynchpin of the 2007 T20 World Cup side. He finished with a career strike rate just shy of 150, a figure that would have made him a franchise globetrotter today. A lot of those runs were made in the lower-quality Indian Cricket League and on the Pakistan domestic circuit, but even at the highest level, Nazir’s method was successful. Until 2010, for example, only Yuvraj Singh and Andrew Symonds scored more T20I runs at a higher strike rate than Nazir.

Opening alongside him was Mohammad Hafeez, who had scored over 700 T20 runs at a 30-plus average and a strike rate of 160 ahead of the 2007 World Cup. The Nazir-Hafeez partnership was, statistically, as attacking as any team can hope for, even if it came together through trial and error than through any grand strategic plan.Pakistan began the 2007 World Cup with Salman Butt as opener, but dropped him ahead of the semis. In 2009, they started with Butt and Ahmed Shehzad as openers, but ended it with Kamran Akmal and Shahzaib Hasan at the top, going from two anchors to two hitters in the middle of the tournament, showing a willingness to change their flawed plans when needed. Even though Shahzaib failed to make his mark at the international level, Pakistan had figured out how to construct their team: they preferred failures from the batter who finished his T20 career with a strike rate of 138 (Shahzaib) to one who finished with 113 (Butt).But their inherent conservatism prompted them to switch back to anchors every time a major tournament came around. This trend was best evidenced in Nazir missing the 2009 and 2010 T20 World Cups while Butt, with a strike rate of 83 in the 2007 and 2009 tournaments, started as first-choice opener.As so often with Pakistan, it was less a question of personnel than intent, and no one personified this more than Hafeez. From being a top-order hitter before 2007, he became something entirely different the following decade. He captained Pakistan in two T20 World Cups and his skills improved, but as his poor strike rate shows, intent matters. And he wasn’t the only Pakistani top-order hitter who failed on that count.

Pakistan and Hafeez had the right answers on how to bat up top, even though they refused to learn from their failures or successes. But for two glorious events, they got it right, however brief and accidental it may have been.Batting against spin: get the match-ups right
From 2000 to 2016, the overall average for batters at Nos. 3-5 in ODIs was 34.3 and the strike rate 76.4. This period coincides with the one-day career of Younis Khan (average of 31.2 and strike rate under 76), arguably Pakistan’s greatest batter in Tests, but a below-average one in ODIs.Then there was Misbah-ul-Haq, whose limited-overs batting generated the sort of debates that Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan’s partnership does today. Since the start of 2000, 59 batters have scored over 5000 ODI runs, but only four have done so at a lower strike rate than Misbah.Of those 59 batters, Shoaib Malik stands 51st on average and 34th on strike rate.In an era when T20 was still seen as a shortened ODI rather than a distinct format, Younis, Misbah and Malik were the backbone on which Pakistan built their T20 success, preferred even over better one-day players. None of the three would ever make the best ODI XIs of their era, but Pakistan had understood T20 cricket before the rest of the world did. And that’s not just hindsight speaking; after the 2007 final, Rashid Latif wrote about why Pakistan had been so successful in that tournament, lessons that remain relevant 15 years later.What this trio instinctively grasped was that the format required them to target their positive match-ups. None of them scored at over seven per over against pacers in those two tournaments, but they made up for it with their expertise against spin. Across the 2007 and 2009 World Cups, they scored over 400 runs against spin at an average of 43 and a strike rate just shy of 140.But 2009 was the last T20 World Cup that Younis played in; Misbah was dropped before the 2012 edition; and Malik cratered the way Hafeez and Akmal did, striking at under 90 and averaging under 16 against spin over the three T20 World Cups between 2012 and 2016.As the T20 World Cup went from being a tournament that Younis compared to the WWE to being a marquee event of the international calendar, the added pressure meant a reduction in the intent that had brought Pakistan success. The world caught up to Pakistan, except Pakistan had now regressed. They quickly went from being one of the best batting teams against spin to one of the worst.

A decade on, Pakistan are still struggling to find batters who can attack against spin. The ones they have are considered too old, too unfit, or not recognised as batters at all (like Shadab Khan and Mohammad Nawaz).The worth of the low-value wicket
Much of the aversion that ex-players have towards data-driven T20 has to do with the language it employs. Those scoffing at a low-value wicket would have previously lauded the benefits of pinch-hitters. Both are essentially the same thing, the newer term a more accurate, if corporatised, version of the older.Here too Pakistan were ahead of the game. Shahid Afridi was neither Pakistan’s top run-scorer, nor the highest wicket-taker at the 2009 T20 World Cup, but the tournament was defined by him. Younis’ decision to promote him halfway through the tournament was what led to them winning the title.Afridi’s is an interesting case, the following tables highlighting how miscast he was.

Pakistan had someone who was the best middle-overs hitter in their history, while not even being the best death-overs hitter in his own team. Across his T20I career, excluding death overs, Afridi’s strike rate against pace was 141, and against spin 157. His numbers in ODIs (where ball-by-ball data is available) follow the same pattern. These stats scream of a batter who should be first in towards the end of the powerplay or immediately after it. Sure, Pakistan had those batters who could attack spin, but none of them could hit like Afridi. Few in history have been able to.In the semi-final and final of the 2009 T20 World Cup, Afridi scored 49 off 39 balls against pace (SR 126) and 56 off 35 against spin (SR 160). At the time those innings were seen as uncharacteristically mature, unlike a real Afridi innings, but looking back, that should have been his permanent version. They remain the only fifties he scored across 56 World Cup innings.If Afridi had been born in 2000 rather than 1980, his career arc would have looked entirely different. Across franchise cricket, he would have been routinely utilised at three or four. The 2009 World Cup would not have been the exception, but the rule. He ended up batting at those positions in only 16 of his 91 innings, but thankfully for Pakistan, three of those were in 2009.Eventually Younis’ instinct coincided with what the data would have pointed to. And as with so many things, Pakistan stumbled on the most efficient way to play.Fortunately, Pakistan would learn from this and never miscast an allrounder by playing him too far down the order ever again. Nope, never, especially not Shadab, who didn’t bat at four for Pakistan until his 74th T20I, despite a stellar record for Islamabad United* there.Start with Mohammad Asif, finish with Umar Gul
In an ideal world, a pace unit is built of multiple Jasprit Bumrahs or Shaheen Afridis – bowlers who are exceptional across phases of an innings, and otherworldly in at least one. But most bowlers aren’t that complete a package. Considering those resources, teams aim to maximise every bowler’s 24 balls in the phase their skillset is best suited for (even if the norm is to have pacers who can bowl two up front and two at the death).Thirteen pacers bowled 20 or more overs in the first T20 World Cup. Two of them stand out for how they were used.

No fast bowler bowled a higher percentage of his overs before the halfway stage than Mohammad Asif; none bowled more in the second half than Umar Gul. This too was not a strategy that Pakistan came into the tournament with, but one they struck on halfway through. It made sense to have Asif, the preeminent new-ball bowler in the world, to get through his quota before the tenth over; but six of the first seven overs Gul bowled in that tournament were in the powerplay. After that he wouldn’t bowl a single over in that phase for the rest of the tournament, instead coming only towards the back end of the innings.Across the first two World Cups, Gul bowled 14.1 overs at the death and conceded a scarcely believable 5.85 per over. The game changed a lot in the next decade and no one has those sorts of death numbers anymore, but even in his era, Gul was one of one. His greatest contemporary, Lasith Malinga, went at 6.85 per over at the death in those first two World Cups. Among bowlers who bowled more than six death overs in those two World Cups there was only one other who went at under 7.30.With Asif and Gul as leaders of the two halves, Pakistan could build the rest of the unit around them – spinners in the middle and Sohail Tanvir to plug in the remaining slots and provide the left-arm angle. In 2009, Pakistan no longer had Asif (banned again), but Abdul Razzaq deputised for him exceptionally well (five wickets in 12.3 overs at less than a run a ball), and Mohammad Amir was a sexy upgrade on Tanvir.The irony, looking back at it in 2022, is that the one thing those pace units lacked was extreme speed. It’s not that they didn’t have such bowlers then, but Mohammad Sami was considered too wayward, and Shoaib Akhtar was at the tail end of his peak. Also, Akhtar was sent home from the 2007 World Cup for hitting Asif with a bat, and withdrawn from the 2009 squad because, the PCB claimed, he had genital warts.

The supporting spin act
One of the more interesting aspects of looking back at the first T20 World Cups was how dominant elite spinners were then. Five of the top seven wicket-taking spinners in those tournaments went at under a run a ball, with Afridi barely above it.Neither Afridi nor Saeed Ajmal (12 wickets at 5.82 across 2007 and 2009) was easy to line up and hit with the spin, which made them ideal support acts for Gul and the other fast bowlers.

Ajmal went at six runs an over at the death in those first two World Cups (he bowled only four overs in that period). And as back-up, Pakistan had part-timers in Hafeez, Malik and Fawad Alam, who combined to bowl 35 overs in those first two tournaments – 15 balls per match – while going at under 8.50 runs per over.Pakistan had as complete a T20 attack as any team could hope for. They didn’t have the data but they had experience and intuition. A lifetime later there are still lessons to be learnt from that.*The author is the strategy manager for Islamabad United at the PSL

15Dec

ICC World Cup Super League scenarios – West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Ireland contest for one spot

by h716a5.icu Uncategorized

With Afghanistan securing their place in next year’s World Cup, there’s only one spot left for automatic qualification

Sampath Bandarupalli28-Nov-2022Afghanistan became the seventh team to secure direct qualification for next year’s 50-over World Cup following the rained-off ODI against Sri Lanka on Sunday. Afghanistan, alongside the World Cup hosts India, England, New Zealand, Australia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, will occupy the top seven spots in the Super League, barring points deductions for slow over-rates.That means only one of West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Ireland have a realistic chance for the remaining spot to avoid the qualifiers. The maximum number of points the current six teams in the bottom can achieve is 109, while each of the top six teams have 120 and more. Afghanistan, currently placed seventh with 115 points, still have ten matches to be played. It is unlikely they will slip below 109 with over-rate penalties due to their spin-heavy bowling unit and having not lost a point yet.Related

Steve Waugh: 'The public has almost overdosed on cricket'

Afghanistan effectively seal 2023 World Cup spot after no-result in Pallekele

West Indies

West Indies are the only side to complete their 24 fixtures of the Super League. For West Indies to make it through to the World Cup directly with 88 points, none of Ireland, Sri Lanka and South Africa should win more than two of their remaining matches. West Indies could see themselves tie on 88 points with Ireland (if they win two of their remaining three), but they will be ranked higher based on the number of wins.Ireland

Ireland would need to win their remaining three matches to have any chance of direct qualification for the World Cup. That, however, won’t be enough if either Sri Lanka or South Africa win all their remaining matches. Ireland’s chances will improve only if both Sri Lanka and South Africa don’t win more than three games from hereon.Getty ImagesSri Lanka

Sri Lanka need to win at least three of their remaining matches to have a chance of direct qualification for the World Cup. In the scenario of three wins, they need to hope South Africa don’t win more than three while Ireland don’t win more than two of their remaining games. Even if Sri Lanka win their remaining four games, they still need South Africa to lose a game.It also won’t be easy for Sri Lanka going ahead as their remaining games are New Zealand in New Zealand after the last ODI against Afghanistan. Sri Lanka have not won an ODI series in New Zealand since 2001 and New Zealand not losing an ODI at home since 2019.South Africa

South Africa still have eight matches to be played, but three of those are against Australia, a series for which they will lose points due to forfeiture. South Africa can qualify for the World Cup irrespective of other results if they win the remaining five games. They must, however, win at least three matches to have a chance of a No.8 finish.Three wins will be enough for South Africa if Sri Lanka and Ireland don’t win more than two matches, but they have to win four if any of Sri Lanka and Ireland bag three wins. South Africa will be in a must-win scenario for their remaining five matches if Sri Lanka manage to win their remaining four.South Africa should fancy themselves to win their remaining five matches as all those games will be at home, including two against the Netherlands, placed at the bottom of the Super League. The remaining three are against England, staged between the inaugural SA20 to ensure maximum availability for the home team. But England could miss a few key players who will play in the International T20 League, scheduled in UAE simultaneously.

✖

00:00 / 03:21

Game

Register

Service

Bonus