ENG beat PAK by 2 wickets, but they made life difficult for themselves. Some slightly defensive bowling let PAK get to a defendable total, and the regular loss of wickets meant ENG were never in total control. But, the skipper stepped up.
But, what happened beyond the headlines?
-
📉 The Babar-Farhan partnership is indicative of PAK’s MO problems.
-
🛑 How Rashid & Dawson strangled PAK’s batting.
-
🐐 How Harry Brook scored 100 (51) when his teammates scored 66-7 (64).
-
🎙️ Tarutr & Shayan debate if Babar Azam is any good for this PAK side.
If you’re reading this online, remember: you can get it via WhatsApp or direct to your email👇!
✍️ Written by Raunak Thakur, who runs Dead Pitch’s Society. Follow him on X.
44 balls, 12 of them in the powerplay – that’s what the rather sedate partnership of Sahibzada Farhan and Babar Azam faced. How much did they score across 36% of the innings? Just 46 runs, at a run rate of 6.27 and a strike rate of 104.55. The rest of the pairs, by contrast, scored 118 off 76 balls, at a more aggressive run rate of 9.31.
The broadcasters have looked to rechristen the middle overs as the ‘consolidation phase’, and these two took a particular liking to the term. They were as circumspect as one can get.
Babar has well-documented struggles playing with intent against spin, particularly left-arm orthodox. Against bowlers of Liam Dawson’s ilk, he strikes at 105.9 but rarely gets dismissed either. His partner Farhan has similar issues, striking at 101.4 against left-arm orthodox. Together, they only allowed Dawson to settle into a metronomic rhythm, as neither had any intention of playing attacking shots against him – simply nudging and nurturing their way to 13 off his 15 balls collectively.
From the other end, Rashid continued to bowl his wily leg-spin and googlies, mixing up his speeds from as low as 68 to quick straighteners at 88, with an average around 76.5. Babar has a particularly poor matchup against him, striking at just 115.7 and having been dismissed four times – all in first innings encounters. The two were content to take just 10 off his two overs, unwilling to put away even his half-trackers for boundaries.
The lack of intent was glaring: the partnership hit a boundary just once every 11 balls, with two of those coming off Jofra in the powerplay via streaky shots. Just one boundary came off Dawson across the entire partnership – a solitary 4. In total, they managed a meek 23 off 27 balls against the two spinners who were turning the ball away from them.
Compounding their sluggish scoring, their running between the wickets was hesitant and iffy – frequently failing to convert singles into twos and at times not even committing to the single. When paired together at this World Cup, Babar has scored at a strike rate of 119.7, while Farhan goes at 29.7. Tonight’s performance was a new low for the pair even by their own mediocre standards.
Their approach of playing out the spinners also highlighted how uncomfortable they were against English pace. Both were ultimately dismissed by Overton, whom they looked to attack with hoicks – a tell-tale sign of the pressure that had built. England read the situation well and were happy to keep their spinners on, and the PAK pair did little to disrupt that plan.
All tournament long, PAK’s phase-wise run rate indicated a problem. 8.27 in the powerplay and 9.65 in the death overs, sandwiching a telling dip to just 7.48 in the middle. It is the lowest of the three phases, and it is no coincidence. The middle overs are where Pakistan consistently surrender their tempo, and today’s partnership of Babar and Farhan was a textbook example of exactly that.
To put the middle-overs phase in perspective: ENG scored 81-2 off 48 balls between overs 4 and 11, while PAK managed just 50-2 off the same phase of the game. When you’re that far behind the required tempo of modern T20I cricket, it has a way of catching up with you – and it definitely did today.
Data from the Jio broadcast.
If you’re reading this online, remember: you can get it via WhatsApp or direct to your email👇!
✍️ Written by Karan Jain, who runs CricNuance. You can follow him on X.
Liam Dawson and Adil Rashid made an impact for England in all three phases, taking 4 wickets in 8 overs with their attacking approach. Both bowlers consistently hit the stumps, & slowed it up to generate turn and grip off the surface.
For the second time in this tournament, Dawson was handed the ball in the powerplay in the 4th over. Dawson delivered his first two deliveries on a good length on the stump line to Salman Ali Agha. The batter replied with two distinct approaches. First, he stepped out to flick the ball to the deep mid-wicket fielder. Then, an attempted sweep went to fine leg.
Understanding the PAK batters’ approach, Dawson realised how he could attack Agha. The bowler marginally pulled back his length as Agha charged him again, only for the mishit to be caught at long-off.
Dawson proceeded to keep things quiet against Pakistan’s third-wicket partnership of Sahibzada Farhan and Babar Azam, but his methods varied. Dawson didn’t pick up either wicket, but his constant variations – on pace, on turn, on lengths, on flight – kept things quiet. Dawson consistently hit the stumps, but the unpredictability of how he did so maximised the batters’ risk of trying to take him on.
In Dawson’s 15 deliveries against Azam and Farhan, he conceded just 13 runs and just one 4. In Dawson’s third over against the pair, it was evident that the pair were happy to rotate the bowler for singles on the on-side in front of square rather than attempting what they deemed a riskier boundary option.
Adil Rashid took the ball in the 8th over, and from his very first over, it was clear that the bowler would be willing to take ample risks with his trajectory to maximise what he could get off the surface. The first five of his legal deliveries were bowled under 81 kmph, going as low as 70kmph, to maximise the turn and grip off the surface.
Rashid’s ability to generate turn in either direction with subtle variations troubled the PAK batters. In between his various flighted deliveries, Rashid bowled a quicker googly to almost castle Babar Azam. In his next over, Rashid beat Fakhar Zaman with a googly outside off stump before following it up with a leg spinner that was inside-edged. Zaman then attempted a reverse sweep to a leg-spinner outside off to no avail before missing a cut off another turning delivery into the left-hander.
In what would become evident as his spell progressed, Rashid’s slower trajectory would not only increase his wicket-taking chances but would also restrict PAK’s boundary options against various batters. The likes of Farhan and Azam attempted to hit 4s in the mid-wicket and square leg pockets, but with the lack of pace on the ball, and longer square boundaries, they only managed to rotate strike.
As such, Rashid started his spell with 17 consecutive non-boundary deliveries, and would only see his economy jump over a run a ball after a slightly expensive – if wicket-taking – final over in the 17th.
A tweak to more high risk, high reward bowling got both spinners important wickets at the death, as they combined for figures of 55-4 in 8 overs. The rest of the ENG bowling unit could only muster 109-4 in their 12 overs. Dawson & Rashid’s strangulation of the early and middle overs killed off PAK’s fight, and left them 10-15 runs too short for their bowlers to defend.
Data from the Jio broadcast.
If you’re reading this online, remember: you can get it via WhatsApp or direct to your email👇!
✍️ Written by Tarutr Malhotra, who runs Best of Cricket.
Harry Brook scored 100 (51) today and the rest of his team scored 66 (64) – while losing 7 wickets. The longest partnership in ENG’s innings lasted 31 balls as Will Jacks (who else!) stuck around long enough to help Brook kill the game.
Brook’s strategy was simple; he tried to put the pressure back on PAK. While most of his top order teammates – Phil Salt, Jos Buttler (in particular!), and Tom Banton – got out to fairly tame shots, Brook aimed for the fences. Promoting himself up the order to No.3, he walked in on the second ball, and immediately walked down the pitch. He didn’t connect well, but on the very next ball, got himself a quick and scrappy 2 to get ENG’s innings kickstarted.
Brook also took on the responsibility of nullifying the PAK powerplay pacers by hogging strike. After 2.1 overs, Brook had scored 14 (10), while Buttler had 0 (1). That one ball had nearly been a nick to the keeper, and by 2.3, Buttler had actually nicked it to the keeper.
Brook learnt his lesson – he couldn’t rely on his teammates, so he had to do it himself. He faced 10 of the remaining 21 powerplay balls, and scored five 4s and two 6s to put up 41 (20) before the field spread out. The rest of the English side combined to score 11 (16) in the powerplay, including just one 4 and 3 wickets. Banton would fall on ball 6.1 to make things worse.
This is where things changed. Brook couldn’t take the chance that ENG’s innings would collapse without him. So, he changed tack. In his last 31 balls, he scored the same number of boundaries as in his first 20 – and yet, his strike rate didn’t really dip. He scored 60 (31) after the powerplay, and he did it by capitalising on opportunities that PAK had ignored in their own MO.
ENG ran an incredible fourteen 2s in tonight’s innings, and nine came off the bat of Brook. It’s the difference between both teams’ innings. ENG lost 8 wickets, PAK lost 9. The game came down to the last 5 balls. ENG scored 92 runs in boundaries, & PAK scored 98 runs in boundaries. Both teams conceded 4 extras each. Both teams dropped a catch each, and gave away an extra 10-odd runs through misfields.
Harry Brook scored 9 twos on his own, and was part of 13 twos for ENG. As a team, PAK scored just 8 twos. Babar Azam in particular was a problem, often caught ball-watching or not ready to quickly turn for the second run. Brook was actively egging his partners on to get that quick second, even though ENG’s required run rate never crept above 9.
In a game decided by scratchy batting, Harry Brook walked in and hammered 40 powerplay runs at a control percentage of 80%. He then changed batting tactics completely, and scored 60 (31) ending with a control percentage of 84%. He hit every single Pakistani bowler at over 180, apart from Usman Tariq (a ‘low’ 145.45), in a chase that had a required SR of just 137.5 (i.e. 165 runs in 20 overs).
At the end of the 17th over, Shaheen Shah Afridi finally bowled the English skipper. Brook had them at the edge of victory – they needed just 11 off 18 – after hitting Afridi around the park for 17 runs in his last over. ENG are through, and PAK are pretty much out after getting 1 point in 2 games.
Afridi’s first reaction was to shake Brook’s hand. Sometimes, you just have to acknowledge greatness. And, we all witnessed greatness tonight.
Data from ESPNcricinfo.
If you’re reading this online, remember: you can get it via WhatsApp or direct to your email👇!
Me & Shayan Khan were having a discussion all game about whether Babar’s innings had been any good. It’s not the most analytical conversation, but it is a pretty good representation of a simple fact that gets ignored in cricket journalism; there’s not always a right answer!
So, I thought you guys could see the debate yourself, and tell me why you think I’m right and Shayan’s wrong!
Tarutr: Babar is their third highest scorer this World Cup. For all the shit he gets (and he deserves it), PAK’s batting is terrible. He’s actually decent for them.
Shayan: That might be true. But Babar at 4 as a spin hitter makes no sense.
Tarutr: You’re assuming Pak lose their 3rd wicket in the middle overs. They do not. They are a very bad batting side propped up by Farhan.
Shayan: But, apart from the USA inns (where he was also 15 off 18), Babar really hasn’t had any impact. They needed him to bat sensibly vs IND, and he got out to a wild slog. Even the Dutch game should have been an easy chase.
Tarutr: He was decent today (for PAK specifically – no other Super 8 team would or should play him).
Shayan: I don’t know if that’s decent man. Near run a ball 25. Shadab and Fakhar surely have more impact.
Tarutr: Did better than England’s no 4. Best No 4 for 48 hours in Sri Lanka! On a serious note, PAK don’t get a chance to have an impact if Babar doesn’t stick around for 6-7 overs. Don’t get me wrong. He’s pretty bad for T20s, but so is almost everyone else in this Pak batting order.
Shayan: I agree with you that they’re a bad batting side. But even in that team I’d argue Shadab and Faheem have had more impact.
Tarutr: Sure, but unless you’re arguing that they should play 4, I don’t really know what that has to do with anything.
Shayan: To be honest, I’d drop Babar and play Fakhar/Nafay at 4. Babar is not adding any value according to me. If he finished the NED chase and scored even 40 off 30 vs IND, I’d have no issues with his SR or any other metrics.
Tarutr: He’s Pak’s third highest scorer this tournament after coming back to the side earlier this year. That kind of tells you all about why he gets picked + how bad Pak’s other options are!
Shayan: Bro, you’re repeating that stat, but you have to break down the impact too. He has been good in one of four PAK innings.
Tarutr: His impact is that he’s delayed their collapses. Today, it meant they made 160 instead of 140 – giving their properly good bowlers something to defend. He’s an anchor. Really that simple.
Shayan: But he’s not a good anchor. If he averages 40, you could argue he’s good at that. If he was a good anchor, he’d have finished the NED chase without any hiccups – it was legit a run a ball equation.
Tarutr: He’s their best anchor! That’s the point. It’s not like Kohli is the alternate option. I actually do think strike rate is super important too. Context is just more important. PAK’s batting sucks. So, a 130 SR guy who plays spin badly and takes 10 balls to get going and refuses to ever get better at his weaknesses is still fine by me for this team.
Shayan: Farhan might be better. I know he smashes boundaries, but in terms of batting time.
Tarutr: Farhan can’t be an opener and an accelerator and an anchor. Might be asking a little much of him!
Shayan: I mean he kind of is based on his performances! Farhan’s basically anchored at a very good clip vs NED, USA, NAM and today.
Tarutr: Yeah fair. Not arguing that Babar is better than him. But hard to say Ayub or Agha or any of the others in the middle order have been better than Babar this WC. Should they have been playing Fakhar from game one? Yeah. Obviously. But they didn’t.
Shayan: Yeah, Agha has been pretty bad. As has Ayub.
Tarutr: Those guys are the bigger problem to me. Babar gets extra hate for being Babar. But he’s been like their 4th worst batter. Shit on the first 3, then we can talk about Babar in my opinion.
Shayan: Last thing on Babar from me. I feel like in my 15 years of watching cricket, he is the worst “hyped” player.
Tarutr: Oh 100% agree with this. He’s a role player that’s got a good PR team.
Shayan: Now, you’re taking it too far! I wouldn’t say he was a role player. He’s either been their main man, or absolutely horrible for some reason. And I’d give Babar his flowers for anchoring if he actually had just a little more impact.
Tarutr: How are you defining impact? To me, his impact today was off the charts even though his innings was shit.
Shayan: 15 off 18 post powerplay is just too slow for me man. I’d say this for anyone unless its like a snake pit where you are chasing 130 and are 5 down.
Tarutr: That’s what I’m saying. You’re not looking at impact. You’re looking at innings. Impact is that he halted the collapse, which gave Shadab and Fakhar the freedom to hit later.
Shayan: Batting first, not for me. Can you not argue that Fakhar could have come in earlier and maximised vs their spinners even more?
Tarutr: Hard to disagree, but that’s a Mike Hesson issue. But, what do you say we just dump this conversation as part of the game analysis today? Let the people decide?
Shayan: Haha why not. Go for it. Everyone having the same opinion is boring. It’s why we have good chats, man.
Tarutr: Agreed. It’s good to also show that shit isn’t always clear in sports. One person’s right can be the other person’s wrong – and that’s fine. There’s no universal truth!
If you’re reading this online, remember: you can get it via WhatsApp or direct to your email👇!