Misbah didn't really play that bad

[Gooch20]

I know a lot people were critisising Misbah's innings, but if you look at the bowl by bowl commentary, it doesn't really look that bad: 2nd Semi-Final: India v Pakistan at Mohali, Mar 30, 2011 | Cricket Commentary | ESPN Cricinfo


^ the whole problem started when Umar Akmal got out, pakistan were going good at 142 for 4 but then they lost several quick wickets, Misbah was trying to defend, but others kept getting out

 

[smash84]

did you even watch the match?????

I hope you are kidding when you make this thread

 

[indiaholic]

You have no idea how bad it was. Many of my friends were convinced that the he had accepted money to play like that. The lack of intent was astonishing.

 

[Xuhaib]

Misbah is to be blamed but its unfair to call him the main culprit Younis,Afridi and Razzaq were equally responsible. One guy that has escaped criticism is Hafeez he was the one who started the slide.

 

[vcs]

Misbah and Younis's batting put Pakistan in a position where, if Umar Akmal got out, it was pretty much game over for them, bar an unlikely big one by Razzaq/Afridi which hasn't happened in a while. Poor middle order batting from those two.

 

[amyswan]

In my opinion they lost the match due to lack of planning. Misbah definitely played too slow but no other played provided him a strong support so that he could play his natural game. Razzaq couldn't do well either as his batting position isn't suitable at 7,8. I guess it's over now so it's useless to talk about who did what.

 

[smash84]

Misbah and Younis's batting put Pakistan in a position where, if Umar Akmal got out, it was pretty much game over for them, bar an unlikely big one by Razzaq/Afridi which hasn't happened in a while. Poor middle order batting from those two.

This

 

[salman85]

I agree with Gooch20.

Misbah's innings was not all that bad.When you look at the overall result,ofcourse it looks bad,but that wasn't the case.You could see what the plan was - Misbah will occupy one end,and the guys at the other end will attack.Umar,Afridi and Razzaq could not play a big innings,and in the end Misbah saw the tail getting knocked over.The plan was fine,it just didn't pay off.Misbah has never been someone who attacks from the word go.He attacks towards the end,which is why i thought it was OK not to take the PP when Afridi and Razzaq came in.Had even Wahab Riaz stuck around for 3-4 overs,we would have had a shot at a win since he can hit them.But none of that happened.All our big hitters failed on the same day.Misbah did the right thing by making sure that he does not get out,and wait for the final 5 overs to start hitting.That gave us a better chance instead of him starting the assault earlier since our wickets were already falling,and had Misbah lost his,the match would have been over much earlier.He was probably hoping for one decent partnership with a hitter,but that didn't happen after Umar got out,and Misbah really had no choice but to play carefully and make sure that he doesn't lose his wicket too so atleast we could have SOME chance towards the end.

 

[vcs]

Considering that Misbah accelerated quite a bit towards the end when the game was over for all practical purposes, to end up with a SR of 70 odd was pretty poor. The problem was not that he chose to play the anchor role, but that he was culpable (along with some others) in sucking the momentum out of the innings by failing to rotate strike against the likes of Yuvraj.

 

[Blaze 18]

The problem with Misbah is that he's a very limited batsman. He seems incapable of playing any shot other than a forward defensive and an ugly heave. I believe after the match he justified his innings by saying that was the team plan - to be cautious. However, being cautious doesn't mean blocking every single ball. Rotating the strike is a must in ODI cricket and the majority of the current crop of Pakistani batsmen seem incapable of doing that. Even an experienced dude like Younis Khan doesn't seem to know how to pace an innings.That is where the problem lies in my opinion.

 

[jeevan]

Rotate the strike to whom? If you were Misbah, what you saw that day were wickets falling at a steady clip and no one, save Umar Akmal, get the measure of the bowling. (And Umar did get a decent piece of the strike).

 

[Jono]

Misbah played a bad knock, but Younis Khan and Hafeez were the players to blame with regards to the batting. Woeful shots.

 

[Blaze 18]

Rotate the strike to whom? If you were Misbah, what you saw that day were wickets falling at a steady clip and no one, save Umar Akmal, get the measure of the bowling. (And Umar did get a decent piece of the strike).

The counter argument to that is that a few wickets fell because of the undue pressure put on them by Misbah (not talking about brain farts like the one Hafeez had).

Misbah played a bad knock, but Younis Khan and Hafeez were the players to blame with regards to the batting. Woeful shots.

Agree.

 

[jeevan]

The counter argument to that is that a few wickets fell because of the undue pressure put on them by Misbah (not talking about brain farts like the one Hafeez had).

Agree.

Look at the partnerships he had though, Younis, Razzaq were bigger culprits for strike rate. Umar Akmal was doing well - and getting enough of the strike - was just fooled by a variation and certainly Pakistan were very much in the game with little run rate pressure till just before that delivery. Perhaps only Afridi might have felt run rate pressure, but you couldn't tell if that altered his style of batting.

He didn't have a great day for sure. But the main story that innings (except Hafeez) was Indians bowling their opponents out at very regular intervals to good bowling.

If you have th blame Misbah, that catch of Tendulkar was probably a bigger miss on his part

 

[vcs]

Pakistan needed 120 off 100 or something when Umar got out, and that was after he'd slogged 29(24).

 

[Uppercut]

Pakistan needed 120 off 100 or something when Umar got out, and that was after he'd slogged 29(24).

120 off 100 is definitely possible.

But only if, unlike Misbah, you actually bother to try.

 

[Jono]

Agreed. 120 off 100 with Misbah in, and Razzaq and Afridi to come is very very possible.

 

[vcs]

120 off 100 is definitely possible.

But only if, unlike Misbah, you actually bother to try.

It is unnecessary pressure and poor management of an innings, when you started out chasing just 5.2 runs an over. Which was mostly down to Hafeez's silly shot, Younis and Misbah.

The other mistake Pakistan made at that stage was to send in Razzaq instead of Afridi. Razzaq tends to take time to get set, and is much better against pace than spin. Afridi prefers to blast the spinners. Even if Afridi had come in and made his usual 25(18) or something at that stage, it would have given Misbah, Razzaq and the tail a decent chance with most of the overs remaining to come from the quicker bowlers.

 

[Jono]

I don't get why people think Razzaq ahead of Afridi was a mistake.

Razzaq was given time to get in. Even if he couldn't rotate the strike, if he got his eye in it would have been dangerous. In the end he was bowled by a slower ball.

Afridi is better suited to coming in and going from ball one. If Razzaq had paid off it was likely that Afridi would have had to come in with 7-8 rpo needed and had to go from ball one. Razzaq didn't have to go from ball one. He just had to not get out. But he did.

 

[vcs]

I don't get why people think Razzaq ahead of Afridi was a mistake.

Razzaq was given time to get in. Even if he couldn't rotate the strike, if he got his eye in it would have been dangerous. In the end he was bowled by a slower ball.

Afridi is better suited to coming in and going from ball one. If Razzaq had paid off it was likely that Afridi would have had to come in with 7-8 rpo needed and had to go from ball one. Razzaq didn't have to go from ball one. He just had to not get out. But he did.

Mostly hindsight TBH.