Re: Pak Vs SL 2nd test
pathetic dead pitches…
i hate to say this but when i see something below par, i need to point out.
strategically, i take my time to make an opinion in cricket but once i make it i dont change it easily. and i did make my opinion about his idiot mikie arthur in pak-NZ series and no matter what he does now, i wont change it easily. yes, we won CT and yes arthur is good to enforce idiscipline and stuff like that that but strategically, i must say he is bad.
In Pak-NZ series last year, in NZ in the 2nd test match on 5th day, we played too slow in the 4th innings but we were in position of drawing the game but after lunch this idiot arthur ordered the team to chase the score with run rate close to 6. we had all 10 wickets in hand but we then tried to score fast and in the mean process lost all 10 and lost the match. Arthur admitted later on that he wanted the team to keep playing fast and give it a shot even though the new ball was around the corner. if you really wanted to win Arthur, why didnt you try it from beginning so that you dont need to chase 6 RPO fully knowing how bad we are in 4th innings plus the new ball was about to come.
thereafter, we went to aus and arthur along with misbah were a mess strategically with stupid team selections and match strategy. and the list goes on and on. he always selects wahab again and again despite 200 failures. he selected wahab against india in the first match in CT and we were drowned.
and now in this series, how pathetic is the strategy? why would you play only one spinner on spin tracks and then ask him to bowl close 60 overs in every innings? why would you select 3 fast bowlers on these dead tracks again and again? why would you select 3 fast bowlers why your skipper will ask yasir to start bowling in 7 th over non step? Imagine if we have good finger spinner in this series. and why would you select wahab again? and arthur admitted he is the one who is pushing for 3 fast bowlers. i dont know what to say abt this guy. he may be good from discipline standpoint but strategically not good at all man
PD your point is valid but we cannot just blame Arthur. Captains have a major say in team selection in cricket (this is not soccer!) and Sarfraz should have been more proactive. He should have insisted on playing at least two proper finger spinners and results might have been different. He must share equal blame for this debacle. Persisting with 3 seamers on these dead tracks (despite the success of finger spinners Herath and Yasir and despite knowing past history in UAE e.g. series vs England) was pure madness, a grand strategic failure.