There is a parasite in the Pakistan cricket team. His name is Shoaib Malik.
Picture this: Pakistan lose a match because of its usual batting woes. Who gets blamed? Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf. Now they are the world class batsmen in the team, so one can sensibly say, they should get blamed. Awas was sensible recently when he stated that the reason why both of them get blamed is because they are the stellar batsmen in the team.

However, Younis and Yousuf have a track record of performing in difficult conditions. Countless times both have done amazing things with the bat which has earned our respect. Younis Khan might not be a consistent century-maker, but he makes centuries in desperate times, when they are badly needed. Similarly, Yousuf has been a run machine for Pakistan over the years. His consistency is unmatchable. He scores 50’s and 100’s so often that you don’t care whether they win matches or not.

However, this begs the question- what exactly is Shoaib Malik’s role in the Test team? If one says he is a batting all rounder, then that is surely incorrect because someone like Younis Khan, who hardly even bowls at domestic level, can bowl better than Malik in Tests. If one says he is a batsman, then one must question why Malik can never perform when real “batting skill” is needed. Why can Malik not perform

a) under pressure
b) on fast/seaming pitches
c) when other batsmen have also not performed?

The way Malik got out in both innings against the swinging/fast ball, demonstrates his perennial weakness against genuine pace. Malik’s predators were Kulasekara and Thushara, hardly whom one would call great Test bowlers.

I know why there is this pattern to Malik’s batting. The reason is that Malik was never a proper, skilled batsman at domestic level and as a consequence, he never developed those skills at international level. Simply because he  actually never learned them at domestic first class level, where those skills are learned, which makes batsmen become Younis Khan, Mohammad Yousuf or Misbah.

An analysis of Malik’s potential (or lack of) can not be comprehensively undertaken without reference to how domestic cricket is structured in all Test playing nations and what the purpose of first class cricket is. First class cricket is the domestic equivalent of international Test cricket. It is the format that requires the highest amount of skill, and the format which separates the “nothings” from the “somethings”. The other two popular domestic formats are List A cricket (domestic equivalent of One Day Internationals) and Twenty20 (self explanatory).

Shoaib Malik averages a paltry 29.54 in first class cricket. Compared to his first class performance, he is much better playing List A matches (averaging 39) and T20 matches (averaging 42). Now let us compare Malik’s first class performance with the performance of other batsmen:

Name                                            Average

Shoaib Malik                                 29.54

Younis Khan                                 51.89

Mohammad Yousuf                  51.51

Fawad Alam                                 56.75

Misbah ul Haq                             51.38

Abdul Razzaq                               34.39

Kamran Akmal                            31.62

Sarfraz Ahmed (keeper)          47.38

Salman Butt                                 41.39

Shahid Afridi                               31.80

Faisal Iqbal                                  40.11

Khurram Manzoor                    41.78

I wonder if this will come as a surprise to readers. Our specialist, automatic selection middle order batsman, Shoaib Malik, averages less than all these batsmen. Even Afridi, who at one time when almost dropped by Malik on accounts of his batting, averages more than Malik.

It is crucial to stress here that this is an analysis of Malik’s Test performance. In ODI’s and T20, Malik is much better. However, it is submitted that there are potentially better players than Malik who are waiting to perform. So now we must come to the question that, if there are question marks over Malik’s position in the team, why is he selected?

The answer is a blunt one, and it is a controversial one. Shoaib Malik commands significant support from a sizeable number of Pakistan’s population, who are willing to sideline logic, common sense and justice in order to support their preferred player over someone else, who might be from a “minority group” in Pakistan. English, Australian, West Indian commentators often ask why other players are not selected to play for Pakistan who have shown some promise. They also don’t understand how a batsman with an average of under 30 can be offered so many opportunities to become a Test player, when someone who averages over 50 is treated like a second class citizen and kept on the bench.  It doesn’t make sense to them because they come from backgrounds where merit has some value.

Malik is a waste of space in the Test team. Pakistan must replace him with Fawad Alam in Tests. This  is not to support Fawad Alam per se. Alam is sitting on the bench. At domestic level he has achieved feats which someone like Malik can only dream about. Until Alam is given a few matches to prove himself, we can’t say either way whether he is worthy or not. There are many players all over the country who can perform better in Tests than Malik. I urge everyone to realise what kind of calibre is needed in Tests and to campaign to get Malik sacked from the Test team.

King Yousuf

King Yousuf

Michael Jackson’s tour of the UK scheduled for this year was being hailed as the “Return of the King”. Jackson was the King of Pop and unfortunately, his fans will not see his much-awaited return. But there is another King, and his fans did see his fantastic return where he silenced all critics and cemented his status as a legendary batsman.

If consistency is the criterion, then no Pakistani batsman can match Yousuf. Since 2000, Yousuf has never averaged under 40 in a given year in Tests.  What makes Yousuf different to Inzamam and Younis is that Yousuf has somehow garnered 24 Test centuries without being noticed. That very fact makes Yousuf seem less significant to the team at the same time; indeed, Inzamam and Younis generally made/make centuries to save or win matches for Pakistan.
Yet, that should not make one think less of Yousuf. Tendulkar, probably the greatest batsman of all time also does not have a reputation of being a match winner for India. But he has scored plenty of runs at amazing consistency, something he shares with Mohammad Yousuf.

The century Yousuf made in his comeback Test is more than just an addition to his glorious statistics. It has demonstrated a side of Yousuf we don’t see regularly- or perhaps we don’t notice when we ought to. Such is Yousuf’s meek and introverted personality that as an individual, he often fails to get himself noticed. Yet, his bat has done the talking, and his statistics don’t lie. In this comeback Test we have seen Yousuf’s mental strength, we have seen his “revenge” on certain team mates or PCB officials who thought he was redundant, and most important of all, Yousuf has made us realise how much the team needs him and how much the Pakistan cricket fans need him.

Yousuf fought to get this century. He survived many close LBW appeals. He ran hard and he persisted in humid conditions. The determination was visible on his face and his body language. Only a great player can arrive on the crease with such contrivance, and have the guts, skill and tenacity to see it through. Every run he obtained was through careful, workman-like execution. His trademark lazy and effortless drives were barely seen. However, there is a certain charm and a certain elegance to the way Yousuf makes his many runs, whatever the circumstances and however the execution thereof. So much so that even an innings that features only a handful of boundaries seems like a spectacle.

Pakistans most consistent batsman

Pakistan's most consistent batsman

Consistency has not been the strength of Pakistan’s batsmen. Inzamam was a great player, but he was inconsistent. Similarly, Younis is also very talented, but batting at no 3 has affected his consistency. Yousuf is an anomaly in this regard. It is difficult to recall the last time when Yousuf did not perform in a few consecutive series. That has probably never happened in his career. We give Inzamam the credit for being a matchwinner. We give Younis the credit for making huge centuries and being a fighter. Perhaps we ought to appreciate Mohammad Yousuf for his consistency, which has been a rare trait in Pakistani batsmen. Consistency may not win you many matches, but it makes you a very skilled and professional player. The return of the King has been phenomenal, and now fans hope the King will rule the world once again with aplomb and make plenty of runs for Pakistan.

Lasith Da Malinga

Lasith Da Malinga

Murali Chuckinga

Murali Chuckinga

“Ali da Malinga” is one of the famous songs of Late Nusrat Ali Khan and  “Lasith Malinga” is the second most controversial bowler after Muralitharan both are from Sri Lanka. While Murali spins the balls and the batsmen with his doosra, Malinga makes the batsman shuffle and dance when he swings his so-called “questionable yorkers” especially when he slings his yorkers at the batsmen at 150 kmph not only they jump but, the spectators sitting on the sides also jump and raise their eyebrows to know whether it is a legal delivery? Or, is it someone trying to throw flat stones at a still pond and that bounces and creates ripples in the pond. And in case of Murali whether he is bowling or throwing a javelin?

As children most of us must have experienced throwing flat stones in the water to compete as to who could make more bounces on the surface of the water and who could create more ripples? The flatter the stone, the lower your arm action, the higher the speed, the more ripples you can create. For a few math students on our blog here is a question: “If a stone is thrown into a lake creating a circular ripple that travels outward at a speed of 50 cm per second. What is the rate at which the area within the circle is increasing after 2 seconds?” I am posing this question to our maths whiz kids on the blog like Omer Admani and Theossa. And, I am sure Omer would come up with a theory of hyper-arm-extension which Michael Holding once showed videos by comparing Shoaib Akhtar and RP Singh’s arms.

Coming back to the math question, one may come up with an answer that, the radius increases at one hundred pi r square centimetres per second. Where Area = pi x r^2.   May be, that is the answer. But this is not cricket. Fortunately for Murali & Malinga and for the ICC, it is not maths but, a favour. The bowling action of both these players will always be questionable and people would be asking this question whether it is legitimate bowling?

The irony is some people compare Malinga with Thompson. One can watch their videos and compare them side by side and see that Thompson’s  action was about 20 degrees off vertical whereas; Malinga’s is about 15 degrees off horizontal. So, there is a big difference in the degrees and also in their bowling actions. Therefore, whoever is trying to compare them and conclusively saying they are similar have no idea of what they are talking about.

Malinga Malinga Maling

Besides, comparing the round arm action with low arm slinging action is also like comparing apples with oranges. If low arm slinging action is acceptable then make life more simple: Start bowling under arm. If you are among a group of Sri Lankan supporters and discussing about Murali or Malinga’s bowling action, it is like throwing a stone in a bee-hive or, inviting a bull with a red flag to charge at  you. I believe that instead of avoiding, it is better to take the bull by its horns.

I reckon Murali had to go through the bio-mechanics lab in Southern Australia at least three times. The question is, why three times? Wasn’t the first test conclusive? To me it is not simple, it seems more than what meets the eye. The Australian Prime Minister called Murali a Chucker and that created a big hue and cry and the PM was told that it is politically incorrect, hence they have to compensate it by correcting the words of their Prime Minister by taking Murali into their bio-mechanics lab in their own university and approving the action. That did not suffice the roar of the critics and that lead to another controversy and it was challenged and he had to go through those tests two more times. But, Bhishen Singh Bedi said it in two simple words. He said, “Murali Cheats.”

Malinga Malinga
And, Bedi went on to explain what he means by that, he said: “The reason I think he cheats is because I have seen him bowl perfect leg breaks. But when it comes to his other deliveries, he bends his arm,” he added.

Bedi also hit out at the ICC for using bio-mechanical tests to detect chuckers and said it should go by the assessment of the on-field umpire, who actually watches the bowler. That is true, no umpire uses a slow motion camera on every ball to judge whether it is within the approved parameters or not. “Cricketers don’t play in labs. They play on grounds and chucking is something that can be detected with a naked eye. You don’t need to go to Australia for those fancy tests to decide whether a bowler chucks,” he said. The former spinner said; Muralitharan may go down as the highest wicket-taker in Test history but he can never be put in the same bracket as Australian Shane Warne. “Warne is a genius. His action is just beautiful and he cannot be compared with Muralitharan. He is a league apart. Murali will complete 1000 Test wickets but they would count as mere runouts in my eyes,” he said.

Someone while agreeing with Bedi said, “just because people have a deformity, they should not be allowed to hurl javelins instead of cricket balls.” It is true that Murali is by no means a ‘clean’ spinner, he is just using his wrist and never rolls his arm over. Reportedly the ICC cleared him because of too much politics and money that plays a part in that region.

And Bedi has always said that Shane Warne is the greatest spinner to have graced the game, there is definitely a serious flaw in Murali’s action and when he hurls a ball you instantly know he is chucking ‘this is not cricket’. Someone said, “claiming that a thief did not steal because the police changed the definition of stealing?” This is very apt for the ICC bending and changing rules the rules to accommodate a few and to ridicule a few.

The point is when tested in labs, it is possible that bowlers may have altered their actions for the duration of a test when they know they are being watched very closely. The trick is to catch them in the act. If Murali’s arm straightened 15 degrees in such artificial conditions, it is also possible that it could be straightened by twice or even more in actual bowling. Is it not possible?

Perhaps, Bhishen Singh Bedi is right, the ICC’s greed and willingness to shred the laws on chucking are what have created this situation and leading to more controversial bowlers like Malinga, Akhtar, Shabbir, Harbhajan’s doosra, Shuan Tait’s jerk in his wrist.

Another aspect of seeing this is, if these bowlers have deformity and they are using it to one’s advantage; then they must play in a different league just like there is Olympics for physically challenged people, they must be playing for teams where they are all physically challenged and all alike.and the ICC must organize another tournament for them, then there will be no controversy.

Murali with his “golden” arm may take 1000 wickets in test and ODI both. But, people will have more respect for Shane Warne, Anil Kumble, Saqlain Mushtaq and those who bowled with a clean action. So the question is: Do we want more youngster’s churning their arms like Murali? I guess not.

And most people will agree that chuckers need to play in a different league. So, lets begin this debate and see who succeeds in proving that they are chuckers or not by using math, logic, science and art to defend their opinions. But, don’t forget the on-field umpire doesn’t use slow motion cameras to take a decision.

Next Page »