Twenty20 World Cup 2007 September 14, 2007

Daft end to a gripping drama

In their rush to ape soccer's big tournaments, cricket's administrators have missed one point: there are no penalty shoot-outs in group stages, and they only take place in knock-out matches to ensure a winner and avoid a replay
139

India and Pakistan played out perhaps their most thrilling contest in a world competition. One of the most absorbing situations in cricket is a batsman staving off a rampant bowling attack. First Robin Uthappa and then Misbah-ul-Haq demonstrated cool nerve and steady technique to salvage their colleagues from a batting disaster. Uthappa has been a revelation in England this summer which made Misbah's innings the bigger surprise.

But on a day that proved that Twenty20 cricket can share the thrill factor, a tie was a result both teams had earned. By sharing the points, both India and Pakistan would have qualified for the next round and the pre-tournament seeding ensured that results and standing had no influence over where the two teams would be heading next.

Pakistan, incidentally, will be pleased to be avoiding Durban in the next stage, almost as pleased as they must be with the wrong-footed emergence of Sohail Tanvir.

Yet the ICC has created a rule that sullied the climax of this match. In their rush to ape soccer's big tournaments, cricket's administrators have missed one point: there are no penalty shoot-outs in group stages, and they only take place in knock-out matches to ensure a winner and avoid a replay. India deserved to win the bowl-out because its players were relaxed and nerveless. But the bowl-out was meaningless, a daft end to a gripping drama.

Kamran Abbasi is an editor, writer and broadcaster. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Shifa on September 22, 2007, 4:32 GMT

    Did you people notice that in Pakistan-India match India Lost 9 wickets and Pakistan managed to achieve the target with the loss of 7 Wickets only. I think if the result was necessary then Pakistan's performance was better than India, Pakistan should have declared as winner. You see the objective for Pakistan was to achieve the run target and India's objective was to not let Pakistan achieve it. Pakistan fulfilled its objective India didn't.. So for me Pakistan won!

  • Prasad on September 20, 2007, 6:46 GMT

    This bowl-out is ludicrous. That is no way to decide a cricket match. Having bowlers bowl at empty stumps is as meaningful as having them take real penalty kicks. In fact, we should have decided the match with real penalty kicks - I would have found that more meaningful.

  • Raja on September 18, 2007, 16:22 GMT

    As soon as Razzaq, Inzamam and Yousuf are out of the Pakistan cricket team, we starts winning.

    Inzamam never played a heroic innings against Austrlian. Misbah is betetr than Inzamam. PCB should not consider Inzamam for Test cricket. Many young players are better than him. Important thing is they are clean and not involved with politics or player groups.
    Now we need good openers. Khalid Latif and Khurrum Manzoor are the best openers available in paksitan.
    Raja Pakistani Sialkot

  • Muhammad Asif on September 18, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    Misbah & Malik script Pakistan win. Now its your turn to script! Thanks for entertaining us, Again hats off for all team members.

  • Muhammad Asif on September 18, 2007, 10:46 GMT

    On one side one of the bloggers says, "It is the captain who should have the ability to see and assess the situation by being flexible to utilize his resources to achieve the best results."
    But on the other hand in the same post he says, "The team may win the cup and it may not be due to his captaincy but because of the performance of a few individuals."
    Which shows that how much flexible you are, that even you can contradict your statements in the same post, amazing!

  • JamJar on September 18, 2007, 10:01 GMT

    A superb win for Pak against Sri Lanka. Malik came good with the bat but the openers were poor as usual. Nazir should be the top of the list for the chop and should be replaced with Hafeez or maybe a gamble with Fawad. After all, it can't be much worse than Nazir's scores to date. His approach to batting was summed up brilliantly by Rameez Raja: "you know, he seems to suffer from lack of cricketing intelligence at times, some of the shot selections have been poor quality!"

    Lets hope Pakistan beat the Aussies today!

  • Syed Ijlal Hussain on September 18, 2007, 6:03 GMT

    Bowl outs are a shame for cricket! There really was no need for 'sudden death' in the group matches, but a much better option would have been bowling six balls each to six different batsmen - each bowl bowled by a different bowler, and deciding on the score.

  • Rahul on September 18, 2007, 5:15 GMT

    I must say that this bowl out is not entirely fair. The game was played at a very high competitive level and both the sides deserved a point each. But the way India played the last over they deserved to win the match. All India v/s Pakistan matches are high voltage dramas and this one is also one of them. But to think of it, 20/20 cricket is just a show game where you hit out or get out, so we don't need to really worry about the results over here. The real game is the 50 over and the Test Matches. In 20/20 anyone can win - like Zimbabwe against Australia. So i feel 20/20 is a crowd puller and nothing else. Come on how can you decide a match in 120 balls, and when all the bowlers are going to get hit around the park.

  • WASIM SAQIB on September 18, 2007, 5:00 GMT

    Pakistan played well today the team played like a unit thanks to Shoaib Malik and Younis Khan who provided the team with a solid platform,it was heartening to see both the major batsmen leading from the front however Imran Nazir and Salman butt again disappointed there is a serious flaw in Imran Nazir's batting technique he plays almost every shot with a cross bat,IMO he can never become a consistent and reliable opener so Pakistan should not waste time on developing him as an opener.

    All the bowlers bowled well Asif was mainly on Target in his first three overs but in his fourth over he paid the penalty for over stepping he almost got Jaisuriya in his first over but the newcomer Sohail Tanvir missed a sitter. Sohail Tanvir again proved himself, his height and quick arm action occasionaly reminds me of Wasim Akram however its too early to make such a comparison one thing I have seen missing in his bowling is that so far he hasnt swung the ball back to the right handed batsmen which has been a key weapon of all the great left handed fast bowlers. Afridi bowled exceptionally well today and redeemed himself his performance with the bat was as usual he chipped in a useful 17 of 9 balls.Umar Gul gave his 100% as usual there has been a noteable increase in his speed so far Pakistan has not missed Shoaib Akhtar in this tournament which is a good sign. Pakistan's next match is with Australia,I would suggest again that Pakistan should drop Nazir and include Fawad Alam in his place.

    Ahmer Arif Khan

    Thanks for writing my name correctly, I also have no intention to be confrontational with you or anybody else on this blog and don't worry I will not be abusive as it is not in my personality.

  • Omer Admani on September 17, 2007, 23:38 GMT

    Finally Pakistan put up a good performance, though there is still room for improvement.

    Afridi should be sent up the order, there is no way Misbah should be batting after Akmal. Fawad Alam should be played instead of either Hafeez or Butt. Someone needs to have a word with Nazir. His approach is too haphazard, he needs a batting plan. I don't think he should be dropped because he, along with Afridi, are two players, who, if they stick for a substantial amount of time, should secure Pakistan a good total. He won us a series against Australia and I'd keep him in the team for the next game at least (just because it is 20/20). I hope we, for once, win from Australia. This is where Inzamam's absence will help Pakistan, because I feel he was so mentally hurt by Pakistan constantly losing against Australia (and him personally failing as well most of the times) that he spilled his meekness in the team. There is only one way to win against Australia, and that is by playing aggressive cricket. If Afridi is sent up the order and clicks, than that might just be the boost Pkistan needs. Also, Afridi as a batsman is worthless so down the order and it is a terrible waste of a player for what should be his stage.

    Khansahab, The problem with Malik is that (apart from his stubborness as a captain) he can never bat on bouncy or seaming pitches. He has a good recent record against Sri Lanka, but Sri Lanka is just one team. Also, I'd say that his innings against Sri Lanka is more likely to remain an abberation rather than become something accomplished with reasonable consistency. The fact that he knew no batting when he started speaks for itself. Also, Inzamam and yousof are/were much better batsmen and I don't think Malik is close to either of them. From what I can remember from test matches, he has only one significant hundred against Sri lanka. His record in seaming or swinging conditions is abysmal. I don't see him getting too many centuries/ double centuries like Yousof or Inzamam. Also, remember that he is just a batsman now, not an alrounder. On the other hand, Inzamam was a terrible captain. His decision-making was pathetic and his attitude in the team and meekness had a great spill-over effect. Malik in that sense is better than Inzamam, but can't be judged to be a 'good' captain. He might improve though and lets see. But if he doesn't deserve a place in the team as a batsman, he shouldn't be in the team. It means a lot of improvement on swinging/seaming wickets and against oppositions such as Australia, SA, and England. I think that is rather unlikely because of his inferior technique.

    P.S: What is Butt thinking when he is batting? And what is he accomplishing, except finding the fielders all the time? He claims that his favorite shot is anywhere in the gap... and we can see why because of what a rarity that is.

  • Shifa on September 22, 2007, 4:32 GMT

    Did you people notice that in Pakistan-India match India Lost 9 wickets and Pakistan managed to achieve the target with the loss of 7 Wickets only. I think if the result was necessary then Pakistan's performance was better than India, Pakistan should have declared as winner. You see the objective for Pakistan was to achieve the run target and India's objective was to not let Pakistan achieve it. Pakistan fulfilled its objective India didn't.. So for me Pakistan won!

  • Prasad on September 20, 2007, 6:46 GMT

    This bowl-out is ludicrous. That is no way to decide a cricket match. Having bowlers bowl at empty stumps is as meaningful as having them take real penalty kicks. In fact, we should have decided the match with real penalty kicks - I would have found that more meaningful.

  • Raja on September 18, 2007, 16:22 GMT

    As soon as Razzaq, Inzamam and Yousuf are out of the Pakistan cricket team, we starts winning.

    Inzamam never played a heroic innings against Austrlian. Misbah is betetr than Inzamam. PCB should not consider Inzamam for Test cricket. Many young players are better than him. Important thing is they are clean and not involved with politics or player groups.
    Now we need good openers. Khalid Latif and Khurrum Manzoor are the best openers available in paksitan.
    Raja Pakistani Sialkot

  • Muhammad Asif on September 18, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    Misbah & Malik script Pakistan win. Now its your turn to script! Thanks for entertaining us, Again hats off for all team members.

  • Muhammad Asif on September 18, 2007, 10:46 GMT

    On one side one of the bloggers says, "It is the captain who should have the ability to see and assess the situation by being flexible to utilize his resources to achieve the best results."
    But on the other hand in the same post he says, "The team may win the cup and it may not be due to his captaincy but because of the performance of a few individuals."
    Which shows that how much flexible you are, that even you can contradict your statements in the same post, amazing!

  • JamJar on September 18, 2007, 10:01 GMT

    A superb win for Pak against Sri Lanka. Malik came good with the bat but the openers were poor as usual. Nazir should be the top of the list for the chop and should be replaced with Hafeez or maybe a gamble with Fawad. After all, it can't be much worse than Nazir's scores to date. His approach to batting was summed up brilliantly by Rameez Raja: "you know, he seems to suffer from lack of cricketing intelligence at times, some of the shot selections have been poor quality!"

    Lets hope Pakistan beat the Aussies today!

  • Syed Ijlal Hussain on September 18, 2007, 6:03 GMT

    Bowl outs are a shame for cricket! There really was no need for 'sudden death' in the group matches, but a much better option would have been bowling six balls each to six different batsmen - each bowl bowled by a different bowler, and deciding on the score.

  • Rahul on September 18, 2007, 5:15 GMT

    I must say that this bowl out is not entirely fair. The game was played at a very high competitive level and both the sides deserved a point each. But the way India played the last over they deserved to win the match. All India v/s Pakistan matches are high voltage dramas and this one is also one of them. But to think of it, 20/20 cricket is just a show game where you hit out or get out, so we don't need to really worry about the results over here. The real game is the 50 over and the Test Matches. In 20/20 anyone can win - like Zimbabwe against Australia. So i feel 20/20 is a crowd puller and nothing else. Come on how can you decide a match in 120 balls, and when all the bowlers are going to get hit around the park.

  • WASIM SAQIB on September 18, 2007, 5:00 GMT

    Pakistan played well today the team played like a unit thanks to Shoaib Malik and Younis Khan who provided the team with a solid platform,it was heartening to see both the major batsmen leading from the front however Imran Nazir and Salman butt again disappointed there is a serious flaw in Imran Nazir's batting technique he plays almost every shot with a cross bat,IMO he can never become a consistent and reliable opener so Pakistan should not waste time on developing him as an opener.

    All the bowlers bowled well Asif was mainly on Target in his first three overs but in his fourth over he paid the penalty for over stepping he almost got Jaisuriya in his first over but the newcomer Sohail Tanvir missed a sitter. Sohail Tanvir again proved himself, his height and quick arm action occasionaly reminds me of Wasim Akram however its too early to make such a comparison one thing I have seen missing in his bowling is that so far he hasnt swung the ball back to the right handed batsmen which has been a key weapon of all the great left handed fast bowlers. Afridi bowled exceptionally well today and redeemed himself his performance with the bat was as usual he chipped in a useful 17 of 9 balls.Umar Gul gave his 100% as usual there has been a noteable increase in his speed so far Pakistan has not missed Shoaib Akhtar in this tournament which is a good sign. Pakistan's next match is with Australia,I would suggest again that Pakistan should drop Nazir and include Fawad Alam in his place.

    Ahmer Arif Khan

    Thanks for writing my name correctly, I also have no intention to be confrontational with you or anybody else on this blog and don't worry I will not be abusive as it is not in my personality.

  • Omer Admani on September 17, 2007, 23:38 GMT

    Finally Pakistan put up a good performance, though there is still room for improvement.

    Afridi should be sent up the order, there is no way Misbah should be batting after Akmal. Fawad Alam should be played instead of either Hafeez or Butt. Someone needs to have a word with Nazir. His approach is too haphazard, he needs a batting plan. I don't think he should be dropped because he, along with Afridi, are two players, who, if they stick for a substantial amount of time, should secure Pakistan a good total. He won us a series against Australia and I'd keep him in the team for the next game at least (just because it is 20/20). I hope we, for once, win from Australia. This is where Inzamam's absence will help Pakistan, because I feel he was so mentally hurt by Pakistan constantly losing against Australia (and him personally failing as well most of the times) that he spilled his meekness in the team. There is only one way to win against Australia, and that is by playing aggressive cricket. If Afridi is sent up the order and clicks, than that might just be the boost Pkistan needs. Also, Afridi as a batsman is worthless so down the order and it is a terrible waste of a player for what should be his stage.

    Khansahab, The problem with Malik is that (apart from his stubborness as a captain) he can never bat on bouncy or seaming pitches. He has a good recent record against Sri Lanka, but Sri Lanka is just one team. Also, I'd say that his innings against Sri Lanka is more likely to remain an abberation rather than become something accomplished with reasonable consistency. The fact that he knew no batting when he started speaks for itself. Also, Inzamam and yousof are/were much better batsmen and I don't think Malik is close to either of them. From what I can remember from test matches, he has only one significant hundred against Sri lanka. His record in seaming or swinging conditions is abysmal. I don't see him getting too many centuries/ double centuries like Yousof or Inzamam. Also, remember that he is just a batsman now, not an alrounder. On the other hand, Inzamam was a terrible captain. His decision-making was pathetic and his attitude in the team and meekness had a great spill-over effect. Malik in that sense is better than Inzamam, but can't be judged to be a 'good' captain. He might improve though and lets see. But if he doesn't deserve a place in the team as a batsman, he shouldn't be in the team. It means a lot of improvement on swinging/seaming wickets and against oppositions such as Australia, SA, and England. I think that is rather unlikely because of his inferior technique.

    P.S: What is Butt thinking when he is batting? And what is he accomplishing, except finding the fielders all the time? He claims that his favorite shot is anywhere in the gap... and we can see why because of what a rarity that is.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 17, 2007, 20:08 GMT

    Sanath Jayasuriya - it wasn't his day! Like Ramiz Raja said, he played well for Pakistan. In the end what appeared to be an easy win for Pakistan could have been even better had Asif and Hafiz bowled their last overs sensibly. In a tournament like this you cannot relax at any stage. A win with a bigger margin counts at a time when teams have to advance further for the semis and its decided on better run rate.

    Bringing Umar Gul late proved to be an excellent gamble. Tanvir compensated very well for the dropped catch. He couldn't have asked for a better and quicker reward than this by removing Jayasuriya on his first ball. It was good to see Malik finally playing to his potential along with Younis Khan and it was a key partnership which changed the complexion of the game. Once again Afridi excelled with the ball. But, Butt is still struggling in the opening slot, it would be interesting to see what Malik will do tomorrow against Australia in choosing his side or in changing the batting order. In my opinion he should not make any changes except for shuffling the batting order. Fawad Alam can be tried against Bangladesh but tomorrow against Australia. The kid would be under immense pressure if he plays tomorrow. And Malik should remember that the best defense is aggression and probably the only way to outplay Australia.

    Prior to this match the team batting second at Wanderers had won 6 times and, the team batting first won only 3 times and based on those stats Jayawardene after winning the toss decided to field first. Initially it appeared like it was a good decision. But, when you bat well and put up a daunting score you always put pressure on the team batting second. So, I would reiterate my point that its better to bat first. Also, the stats are always stats and when you play well you can always change those stats.

    A win against Australia by Pakistan tomorrow will definitely put them on the top of the table and that means a lot, not simply that they would be on top of the table but, in the semis they'll play against a team which is second best from the other group. SA is so far leading that group. In a way avoiding SA in the semis would be better option for Pakistan. Because, SA would then be playing against Australia (may be) and they will have to really fight a battle to go through to the final. But, SA are known as chokers for any big event and if the reach the final they will be under tremendous pressure. Good luck to Pakistan for tomorrow's match.

  • Muhammad Asif on September 17, 2007, 19:49 GMT

    Another collective performance! Keep it up. One new aspect, Malik used Gul in an innovative way! Good thinking.

  • Fahad Khan on September 17, 2007, 15:55 GMT

    As the XI to play Sri Lanka has just been finalized, I thought of something (unfortunately, a sad reality) What is the difference between England and Pakistan? England actually play their Karachi born player (Owais Shah)

    I hope Butt and Nazir prove me wrong today, it has been frustrating (to say the least) to watch them play, and as Dougie Brown said during the India Pakistan match, Butt's batting in the first few overs and his strike rate were the reason Pakistan lost.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 17, 2007, 15:47 GMT

    Indeed it was a daft ending to a gripping drama but, after the drama the daftest statement came from the Pakistani skipper which people are still talking about it than the farcical ending to that nail biting thriller. Omer Admani raised a very good point and that is about the reactions of the people and in choosing or retaining a captain. His point about continuing Malik as a captain must be viewed on the basis of his performance as a captain and, not on the basis of the results alone, is a good one. The team may win the cup and it may not be due to his captaincy but because of the performance of a few individuals.

    It is true that emotions run very high in Pakistan and when the team goes back home the public and media reactions are based on the results. Inzamam, like Imran could have retired as a hero, but the results made him zero. Malik has many years of cricket to play and he cannot be axed if Pakistan fails and he should not be retained as a captain only on the basis of a win, especially when you see him making such blunders on and, off the field. He definitely needs more grooming. I don't understand why he is not bowling? When the conditions require, he should bowl, or just because he is the captain now and is afraid to bowl?

    This brings me to Wasim Saqib's question(s) about "Afraidi." I knew you would ask why Harbhajan Singh bowled better? Perhaps you've forgotten that when Pakistan was fielding they had a few interruptions due to rain and when they were batting there wasn't any rain. Even the outfield wasn't that wet, as ropes and mops were used to dry it out. And Asif bowled well because the conditions were favourable for him, the ball was moving in the air and he also got assistance from the pitch. Lets see how he performs at the Wanderers today and trust me whenever I am proved wrong and Pakistan wins I am very happy. I want to see Pakistan win and my skepticism or concern should not be considered as a negative desire. And Afridi's choice of batting down the order was about test matches only and not twenty20. It is the captain who should have the ability to see and assess the situation by being flexible to utilize his resources to achieve the best results. All good plans are flexible and are backed up by plan A and, plan B. Like Inzamam, Malik is also very rigid in team selection and batting order, if he doesn't change his attitude he will regret.

    An example about promoting batting orders and daft rules: Kevin Pietersen was promoted up in the batting order in yesterday's match, its very unfortunate that the third umpire gave him run out in that fashion. IMO he was not out and the umpire Tony Hill should not have even referred it to the third umpire. Because, it was a case of obstruction and in the process he lost his bat, his body was inside the line but his foot was in the air. Its a shame that soccer rules are being implemented in cricket and that too incorrectly. The athletes when they run a race the photo finish determines whose nose is ahead and not whose foot is inside the line! Same is the case in horse racing. So why is it so important in cricket that the bat must be grounded or the foot must touch the ground? This rule needs to be reviewed. Also, if a player is obstructed - doesn't matter intentional or unintentional - the batsman should not be given run out.

    I fail to understand why Collingwood preferred Snape over Mascarenhas? The later has proved to be a big hitter and he wasn't sent in to bat when everyone expected him to come and do some big hitting. Hopefully it remains as Collingwood's one time mistake but, his action appears as a result of conservative thinking/approach to keep the slogger for the last two overs. Just like Malik wants to preserve Afridi and wants him to bat after 12 overs! In twenty20 too little is too late.

  • Hassan Farooqi on September 17, 2007, 14:13 GMT

    I agree the rule is for all teams, but that fact still does not make it any less stupid. First it is not a "versus", I mean there is no batsman to defend like a goalie would defend a penalty shootout. Second, shootouts are not for group matches.

    It is not a matter of who won. Both team had qualified for next round much before the last overs. Every one was just thrilled with the drama. Then they learned about this stupid rule and the thrill was simply robbed from them.

  • Sameer A Malik on September 17, 2007, 14:12 GMT

    I have a few concerns about the role of Shoaib Malik in the Pakistan team, even he doesn't know himself about his role in the team and he admitted it while Rameez Raja was interviewing him, he doesn't look like or act like a captain by any means, i dont know who is setting the field and making bowling changes in the field. I cant understand the decision of sending Kamran Akmal at 3, they are just try to make up for the weak opening pair by sending kamran at 3 while Younis, Shoaib and Afridi are all on bench who i believe are better players than kamran. As far as Bowl-Out is concerned, instead of criticizing the rule we should talk about the approach of Pakistan team. After match being tied, Indians were all on the field making strategy that which bowlers will go for bowl out, and Pakistan team was looking like spectators, a person with the very little sense of cricket can predict that a right arm off-spin bowler has the best chance to hit the stumps, and our captain was hiding behind the bushes, i believe he should had to be the first one to start the bowl out from Pakistan. My post is getting longer but i would like to question the approach of our coach as well, he was also looking like a passenger in the ground when bowl-out was about to take place, he, himself being a bowler was supposed to come up with some suggestions and better selection of bowlers to try bowl-out , if anyone saw closely Indian Bowling coach v. Parasad was giving instructions to the bowlers before the bowl out started, and what did Lawson do except talking to the Camera Lens. I think we need a courageous captain who can lead by example and show some aggression as well. Afridi failed in the India match because he padded up right from start and team management said that we will send afridi earlier but it never happened and he batted rather angrily thats why he was never able to connect properly. From current Pakistan team management, captain and coach;s approach Pakistan's chances of qualifying for the semi-final seam pretty bleak to me, what say?

  • khansahab(A.A.Khan) on September 17, 2007, 11:32 GMT

    Wasim Saqib,

    Pardon me but most people consider me too mature for my age already, I find it amusing you have not been able to see discern that from the many threads in the past. I am not boasting here but I am just curious as to how different you think of me to most people who have praised my “maturity”. I am honoured you have taken precious time to attempt to figure out what my initials stand for. You said that you have thought of “many things”. I really hope they are not abusive or insulting as it is useless and very immature to do that to someone’s name. My name is Ahmer Arif Khan and I would request you and others to not waste any time making fun of it. As for why I occasionally write “Saqab” instead of “Saqib”, is because you write “Yousaf” when the name really is “Yousuf”. That is how it is supposed to be pronounced in Arabic. When “Ijaz” can become “Ajaz”, Asif can become “Asaf”, “Younis” can become “Younas”, “Yasir” can become “Yasar” why can’t “Saqib” become “Saqab”? I am not being confrontational with you, please don’t think like that. I think Yasir Arafat has been fairly okay in this tournament thus far and I think the weak links are Imran Nazir and Salman Butt. When we were discussing who should be in the squad I said that Yasir is a good replacement for the out-of-form Razzaq and he showed that in the match against India. You also stated earlier that Yasir is flat like Sami, that’s true but Yasir has more variation. Anyhow it all depends on current form and I was reasonably pleased with Yasir’s performance in match against India; I feel he has come a long way since his unimpressive debut.

    Jamjar,

    You have asked “for what purpose” I have recommended Rao instead of Asif. I have actually delineated the reasons on this thread earlier; I’m surprised how you missed them. I said amongst other things that, that pitch particularly was unusually favouring the seamers.

    Omer Admani,

    I usually agree with you on most points but I have a lot of respect for Malik. If you consider his background and how he started, as an off break bowler, he has come a long way. Yes occasionally he has shown signs of immaturity, such as reluctance to play Fawad, the player who took five wickets against Malik’s team in the final of the ABN AMRO Twenty20 Cup. But when I compare Malik to people like Butt, Nazir, Hafeez, Razzaq, Inzamam, Yousuf etc I can see he is a class above them as far as common sense and sensibleness is concerned, and he must receive credit for that. He has a good cricketing brain and he is still young. I hope time teaches him to put his rare immaturity, prejudices and stubbornness out of the way because he seems like the only player who can lead Pakistan to a World Cup victory. I can state with reasonable conviction that if Afridi or Younis were captain of the team their tenure would not last for long, for some obvious and not-so-obvious reasons.

  • Avinash on September 17, 2007, 10:43 GMT

    wat a match!!! simply superb it was... thanks to the tree main events which made it very gripping.firstly,the start which saw imran nazir play a reckless shot( i dont think he would hav hit even hit a football with that kind of a blind shot)later pak wickets falling like nine pins and giving india a chance of winning the match(who came on to the field to make pakistan bat atleast 14.5 ovrs) ,secoundly sending afridi to bat so low down the order making him look absolutely ridiculous . thirdly ajith agarkar's great over , once again showing how inconsistant and erratic he is at the slog overs swinging the match in pak's favour again. last but not the least the "BOWL OUT" that followed after the dramatic tie was absolutely hilarious. The "bowl out" having no batsman to bowl at, utthapa bowling and hitting the bulls eye, and couple of pakistans bowlers having to walk, jogg or watever they did and bowl lik bowling for some charity event and afridi sprayin the ball down the legside was comical to say the least.clearly pak had no clue wat they were supposed to do. if the match desparately needed a winner there are better ways of doing it lik going back to the old fashion way where the team that lost lesser no of wickets were declared winners or having 5 batsmen and 5 bowlers and no fielders from opposite teams having to bowl 5 balls and the team clearing the fence more no of times in the 5 balls being winners. But wat happened in the end was comical and the thrill of an ind vs pak game which was set up beautifully was lost.

  • srivathsan on September 17, 2007, 8:19 GMT

    KAMRAN, Now tell me which ENG.&AUS. MATCH would have given more thrill than the IND,PAk. match?Though we can argue plus & minus of both the side relentlesly,the match was a real thriller.I agree with you that Bowl out was not reqd. in this match as both the teams would have qualified for super 8 by sharing points.The positive aspects are wonderful bowling by asif.It is a pleasure to watch his bowling.The new comer tanvir really bowled well ,though his action is not pleasing& he is a good prospect.Iam of the opinion that Rao ifthikar should have played.He will be a very good bowler in this form of game.Similarly india should never have played agarar but for whom india would have won comfortably both against pakistan & more so against NZ.He is a liability & is playing because bombay lobby is powerful.He is rana naveed of india ,even worst than him.unless he is dropped ,india can book their tickets back well in advance.I admire the way srilankans are going about & it appers that 20/20 will be a repetative of WC with AUS.& SL in the final.Bangladesh is an unteresting team & I admire the they are playing.SO LET US WATCH THE PROGRESS.

  • WASIM SAQIB on September 17, 2007, 5:18 GMT

    JAVED A KHAN In defence of Afridi’s performance you stated that the out field was wet and it was difficult to grip the ball, that’s a lame defense as Harbajan bowled under the same conditions and bowled beautifully he strangulated Afridi and gave him no room to hit him over the ropes. As far as your argument regarding promoting Afridii up the order I completely agree with EMIRAN in this regard when he says that “Let Afridi play the last two overs of the match (5 overs is an eternity for this man). Afridi himself is afraid to bat up the order he already had an altercation with Younis Khan when he asked him to open the innings and that is on record. When he comes down the order he knows even if he fails he will not have to face the music. AFRAIDI himself prefers to bat at this number and has been consistently doing so over the past 2 years, God forbid if Shoaib promotes him up the order and he fails then again all the criticism will be hurled at Shoaib that he made a mistake and he is poor captain.

    I have read your most recent post in which you praised Asif, but anybody can become wise after watching the results. This is what you wrote before the Scotland match.

    “I do agree with khansahab about Asif's performance in shorter version of the game where most batsmen try to play on the front foot and Asif's length deliveries can be pulled away or tossed over long on and long off during the power play. In the previous ODI's and even in the recent twenty20 matches Asif was unable to contain the batsmen. Umar Gul is definitely better in this format and so is Rao and Yasir Arafat.”

    This is what you wrote after the match.

    “Like I have said before Asif is not that effective and Umar Gul is far superior than him in this shorter version of the game, once again he has proved me right. Gul's yorkers were deadly and right on spot. Whereas, Asif was struggling to get wickets mainly because of his length balls and as expected he also gave away too many runs. I think Rao Ifti should be included in the team, either in place of Asif or Arafat, but Arafat is still handy with his bat as compared to Asif.” As I said before we cannot discount our main players after one bad performance.

    Anyways Pakistan should opt for Hafeez in place of Imran Nazir and Yasir Arafat should be replaced by Fawad Alam in the match against Srilanka. Yasir’s bowling is flat and not suitable for this format. Pakistan should not get complacent in the match against Srilanka as their main batsmen are in supreme form, Pakistan will have to be at the top of their game if they want to fancy their chances against Srilanka. IMO if the team plays like a unit then they do stand a chance.

    Finally AA KHAN Congratulations on turning 21, I hope pretty soon your wisdom tooth will also grow and you will become more mature eventually. I understand your first initial and middle initial are both A I keep on wondering what they stand for I thought of many things if you want I can share some of them with you, but I don’t understand why you add an additional A in my last name.

  • Omer Admani on September 17, 2007, 4:49 GMT

    I agree with Javed Khan. Malik has constantly proven it that he is a terrible choice for captain. Not because he not is a great thinker of the game, but because of his stubborness to stick with 'his' initial plan and his inability to learn from mistakes or accept them in the first place. Why send Afridi at number 7 when there is only one way he will play either way? Firstly, there won't be pressure up the order. And, secondly, captains seek to maximize performance of such a player in such a game. That is, the more time Afridi spends on the crease, the better. People say he won't stick there anyway, but he won't stick there, then, also when he plays at number 7. Rather play him more overs than less should he stick on the crease. Also, Malik's justification above that Javed Khan presents is absolutely nonsensical. It is like ends justify the means, or there is no room for improvemtnt. It wasn't 'because' Afridi was sent at 7 that Pakistan tied two balls early, but it was 'because' Misbah played a good knock. His reasoning goes on to show his immaturity, slong with his plead to ignorance of the bowl-out rule. He has to understand that he is the captain of an international team, not throwing away matches because of arrogance and personal tiff at the local level. It is not about him, it is about the team. Also, he shouldn't be sending Akmal up the order in one game and down the order in another. Players play in pairs and they need time to get used to each other. They also need to get used to the role they will be playing. This constant reshuffling to 'prove flexibility' can only be detrimental to the team. Besides, Malik doesn't deserve to be selected in the team in any form of the game. I don't think Bangladesh would select him as a batsman alone (which is what he is now) in their playing 11. When the ball is moving, he is good for nothing. Neither is he a matchwinner (like Razzaq or Afidi) nor a graft player who can play long innings and bring stability (like Inzamam, Yousof, or Younis). Afridi has shown all the qualities to be a limited overs captain and Younis could be the test captain. It is still time once this temporary contract expires. Even if Pakistan do well, we need to judge Malik on his captaincy and his performance and judgments rather than the results only. And the simple fact is that if he is not a good player, than he can't lead the team by example. Fawad Alam deserves a chance and maybe Arafat should make way for him. Spinners have won many matches untill now and (especially against Australia) Abdul Rehman should also be played.

  • Jason K. on September 17, 2007, 2:05 GMT

    I have only one thing to ask. Where is Azhar Mahmood? Now I know he might not be the first that comes to mind in rescuing Pakistani cricket from its current slump, however he seems to have been head and shoulders ahead of the rest in the domestic trophy (his batting/bowling averages, strike rate, wickets, runs, etc). Curious as to why he only played 4 matches in the tournament? Injury, perhaps? Statistics aside, he seems to be a mature cricketer adept at handling pressure as shown from his previous stints with Pakistan and Surrey.

    Many people have already voiced the opinion of promoting Shahid Afridi up the batting order, and with his hit or miss nature atleast when he comes off he can provide a flyer, a concept entirely lost with the current openers. If he misses, he won't take up as many deliveries as Butt, for example. Perhaps, the Pakistani openers have the illusionary coushion of having big hitters down the order. Maybe they haven't realized that with Razzaq gone (and even Yousuf, test cricket of the year as he may be, he scores rather quickly in the one day format; a good cricketer can adapt to any format) and bar any more miraculous one night stands from the youth, you only have Afridi left.

    Maybe I'm being selfish like the rest and want another boom boom performance but I am still slightly surprised as to how stubborn the Pakistani team and Afridi can be in terms of the batting order, when even veterans of the game have voiced similar opinions.

    Hell, at this point and time I am favoring the Bangladeshi batting lineup to Pakistan's, in terms of talent and a positive approach to this new format.

    Though not a native, I am a fan of Pakistani cricket; not the current brand of cricket but the entertaining brand of cricket Pakistan is well known for. I really hope they get their act together and if anything I would rather not have them lose chasing a low total, where they merely ran out of deliveries (credit to India but it was Pakistan's match to lose).

  • Raja Pakistani on September 16, 2007, 23:01 GMT

    Misbah-ul-Haq played innings for himself not for the team. We do not want 34 years old cricketer to be start career in the team. He could probably play three more years. And ALLAH knows in his three years of period how much he will score.

    PCB should bring young blood. All greats start career in thier teens or early 20s.

    Mohd Yousuf is younger than him and do not need to prove his ability.

    Raja Pakistani Sialkot

  • Muhammad Asif on September 16, 2007, 22:15 GMT

    One can visit the format section of ICC Twenty20 World Championship on cricinfo

    http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/story/306294.html

    As per the format, the groups E & F were predecided. From the format "The first two teams in each group are placed 1 or 2. They will retain this position for the Super Eights stage, irrespective of whether they finish first or second in their group, unless they are knocked out by team in their group. In this instance, team 3 replaces the position of the team they knocked out".

    Twenty20 has also clearly exposed our bloggers inconsistancy within a couple of days. 1)Their is no consistancy in their comments for which they are so vocal 2)They are hesitating to accept their fav's below power perf & at the same time are hesitating to apperciate others' fav good perf.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 16, 2007, 20:30 GMT

    "We were unaware of the bowl-out rule," says Shoaib Malik and he has also dismissed the idea that, "Pakistan would have been better served using the big-hitting Shahid Afridi higher up in the order," he said: “We needed one off the last two balls. Anyway he's more useful to us after 12 overs." Here is a link from today's daily DAWN.

    http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/16/spt4.htm

    This shows how immature the Pakistani captain is and, how can he say that he or his entire team were unaware of the rule? Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about this rule, the Indians practiced bowl-out sessions in the nets for one full day and Malik prefers to stick a label of ignorance on his forehead and look like a fool. Well, ignorance is bliss but, in this case its a blister on the wrong spot. Also, he is constantly dismissing the idea of making any changes in the batting order, this is a sense of complacency. Rejecting suggestions for improvement and being happy with what you have is being complacent. As the expression goes, 'one can be as happy as a pig in his poop' is the height of complacency or should I say, the depth?

    I don't understand what he means by 'we needed one off the last two balls'? And hoping Afridi to slog after 12 overs is just his imagination. Because, when Afridi comes to bat at number 7 it may not be 12th, but 17th or 18th over. I am not suggesting Afridi must open the innings but, he can bat at number three or four at the most but not at number seven. Also, I am not in favour of batting second after winning the toss. Twenty20 is about adding pressure on the opposition and if you can put up a big total then you can put pressure on the team batting second.

    Someone on this blog wrote that it was a deliberate ruse on part of the Pakistani team to loose on a bowl-out so that they go into the Group F where they have Australia and the two weaker teams i.e., Bangladesh and Sri Lanka! That is wishful thinking and an absurd idea. Because, Sri Lanka is not a weak team at all and beating them in the warm up matches means nothing. Their 3J's are on a roll i.e., Jayasuriya, Jayawardene and Jehan Mubarak. Jehan was close to create a world record of fastest fifty in 14 balls he scored 46 n.o. in 13 balls with 3 x 4 and 5 huge sixes. Pakistan can hope for a win if Asif and Gul can rip their top order apart within the first 6-8 overs. And then, they bat well, seems very highly unlikely but, not impossible.

    And on Tuesday if Pakistan beats Australia, then they'll walk in to the semifinals. But, for Pakistan, Australia is unsurmountable and with Malik's defensive approach in batting, Pakistan can never beat Australia. The giant has woken up and it won't be easy for Pakistan to emulate Zimbabwe. Malik has to realize that aggression against Australia is the best weapon and their openers must go on a rampage and get off with a flying start and the team must score more than 200 runs or score at an average of above 10 runs per over when batting second. Can they do it? With the current approach, NO. But, by making some changes in the batting order, perhaps!

  • yousuf naqvi on September 16, 2007, 16:54 GMT

    I absolutely agree with kamran. The bad day for pakistan cricket had passed. Now we should look for the positives. I am waiting for the Pakistan , australia encounter . Just want to see the australian hitting batsman against the brilliance of asif. Cat wait to see the match. As far as sri lanka is concerned , Pakistan have a good record against them overall and in ICC tournaments. Best of Luck Pakistan.... U rocck....

  • EAMIRAN on September 16, 2007, 14:07 GMT

    I think Afridi's current batting position is correct, despite the common notion that he should be sent higher up the order. Since he does not last more than an over or two, it does not make sense to send him higher up the order. He is, afterall, a self-proclaimed "bowling all-rounder" who can slog a bit. Infact, the way Yasir Arafat has batted (and not bowled) he should be promoted ahead of Afridi. Let Afridi play the last two overs of the match (5 overs is an eternity for this man). The India game, in that case, might have either ended in Pakistan losing in "normal" fashion or winning in emphatic style.

  • jamjar on September 16, 2007, 13:41 GMT

    Dear All,

    What a sorry end to a superb match! It truelly lived up to its billing of a contest between arch-rivals and did so with such passion it makes the Aus-England rivalry look lame.

    The bowl-out was a farce and totally unncessary at this stage of the tournament. Why not make it more exciting by playing an extra over for each team and the team which earns the most runs wins it (to be used in knock out situations only).

    But lets be honest guys, after Pak's performance with the ball in the match (especially the early overs) this game was there for Pakistan to lose as we could have easily had it in the bag. Our batting let us down again.

    Wasim Saqib - Completey agree with your comments on Nazir and Misbah. The former should be dropped and the latter praised.

    Asif bowled a superb spell in this pressure situation and i think nobody can dispute that. Credit where credit due. I still find it strange though that on the back of Asif's performance Khansahab (A.A Khan) is advocating playing Rao Iftikhar instead. For what purpose?!

    Butt looks to be stuggling in this form of the game (despite his performance in the warm ups). His strike rate is appalling for Twenty20. Maybe he needs to be pushed down the order and Afridi asked to open instead. Nazir the looney also needs to be replaced. I'm in favour of Hafeez taking up the opener's spot.

    Arafat has proved handy with the bat and Tanvir looks like a promising one for the future. Its difficult to judge over 4 overs but i think he did enough to warrant selection in another format of the game.

    It was an improved performance from Pak after their shaky start with inferior competition (Scotland). Lets hope they can build on this and get to the semi's.

  • khansahab(A.A.Khan) on September 16, 2007, 12:43 GMT

    Pakistan will really have to wonder now what they want to do with Imran Nazir in the long run. The top openers in the country have been identified as Butt, Nazir, Hafeez, Taufeeq, Farhat and Yasir Hameed. We will probably and hopefully never see Farhat play again. But if Nazir and Farhat are out of the equation, who will take their position as Butt’s opening partner? It might be Hafeez but not too long ago Hafeez was demoted with Nazir replacing him. Yasir is the best of the lot but he is never given as many chances as the others. I doubt Khalid Latif and Khurran Manzoor will be given chances any time soon. Yesterday Moin Khan was talking about Pakistan’s disappointing openers and that he believes the future for Pakistan’s openers in pessimistic because they keep repeating the same mistakes. Malik does not want to open now that he has more responsibility as captain. Malik from the outset should have been harnessed as Pakistan’s long-term opening solution. Now he is the captain and it makes sense for him to remain in the middle order to rescue the team from a potential opening crisis. He is one of the few genuinely talented and mentally strong players in the team. I know briefly he suffered from poor opening form and hence was demoted. But they should have carried on with him because of the inherent qualities in him like mental strength and talent which are not present in such profusion in Butt, Nazir or Farhat.

    Now Pakistan have to battle two very strong teams, SL and Aus. They will face stiff competition from Bangladesh too. I think Malik should revamp the batting order now because the batting did not click in the two previous games. I would remove Nazir, promote Afridi at no 2 and use Fawad in Afridi’s position. That would arguably be the strongest team on paper.

  • khansahab(A.A.Khan) on September 16, 2007, 12:43 GMT

    I would support Javed Bhai as regards his statement to the non Pakistanis who opined that Pakistanis are only cursing the bowl-out because they lost. That is untrue. I had a slight idea that in Twenty20 games if I tie is registered the match is decided by this bowl-out but I could not believe it when this stupid contest was being arranged after the tie. Whether you knew it was going to happen or not, it is a farcical way to end a game.

    NZ have just beaten India in a good match. One thing I would say about NZ is that they are not giving their 100%. Their fielding is lacking and their bowlers seem disinterested; only Vettori looks like he wants to contribute effectively. Even today the NZ fielders attempted some unsuccessful dives with the ball going to the boundary while passing under their arm. That standard of fielding is expected from Pakistan, not NZ. The Indian selection committee is often as daft as its Pakistani counterpart. In Twenty20 you need to have more batsmen than bowlers and if you want to play an abundance of all-rounders, than you need to have those all-rounders who have a reputation for making big scores quickly. India are playing five specialist bowlers- Pathan, Agarkar, Sreesanth, Harbhajan and RP. They are playing Pathan, Agarkar and Harbhajan as bowling all-rounders but the fact is that neither of these are prolific batsmen. In one of my earlier posts I stated that Pakistan should play a maximum of three specialist bowlers. Part of the problem is that India do not have renowned all-rounders but they can still improve their situation by playing more batting all-rounders or pure batsmen. If Dhoni wants he can use Sehwag and Yuvraj as bowlers because in Twenty20 anyone can bring you wickets and anyone can see his bowling being demolished at the same time.

    Wasim Saqab, I know you have your own standards of what is fair, just like how Javed Bhai and I do. But if you feel that Javed Bhai is being unfair or biased you should not respond by being unfair yourself. Younis Khan’s form has been better than any other player in Tweny20 warm-up matches and as far as Salman Butt is concerned he has not established himself as a consistent, reliable opener. You will retort by thinking that Butt’s form has also been good but that is really no news for us because he always performs well in practice matches and subcontinental pitches and nearly always fails in the proper international matches. I stopped being a fan of Younis when he adopted an irresponsible attitude a few times in the past two years. But I think his experience will help Pakistan now that Yousuf is not in the squad. As far as Afridi is concerned I think it is criminal not to support him as far as this format of Twenty20 is concerned. I have been a harsh critic of Afridi all the way through his career but even I know he is a key player in this format. As far as his bowling against India is concerned, you can expect him to be hit for shots because he does not spin the ball that much. Also, what about his bowling against Scotland? And I do agree with Javed Bhai that the ball and the pitch were unusually wet because of the rain.

  • shabz on September 16, 2007, 12:38 GMT

    sorry has to be said what is the point of giving afridi more overs by coming in early when he only bats approximately 2!!!! gt nazir out hafeez in and i think fawad alam can do a better job than arafat...i wished my name was GEOFF lawson or is it henry..hmm

  • Shabz on September 16, 2007, 12:27 GMT

    His name is GEOFF LAWSON and despite losing in the bowl out it was an entertaining game well done to india for keeping their nerve...Fawad Alam should be given a chance and lets leave Nazir out of the next few cos we no he's gonna make 100 odd against Bangladesh and get to keep his place.. but of course by then pakistan would e on their way out of the tournament

  • hamza yasin_uk on September 16, 2007, 4:42 GMT

    if they really want to suck up to football,,, then why dont they follow the extra time/golden goal rule which applies in footy?? the shoot out is there only as a last resort for a result..before i would personally play two extra overs each and wichever team makes the most runs wins and if they tie after that then they should have the so called bowl out!! what do you think people??

  • Junaid on September 16, 2007, 2:38 GMT

    Yes it is a stupid rule but it was for both the teams. What the hell Arafat, Gul and Afridi were upto? All 3 performed like losers and Pakistan lost the match. Well played Asif and Misbah. Pakistan is really missings M Yousaf and Razzaq in 20/20. Run out of Akmal was also a turning point bcoz he was looking really good. Pakistan has a great opening pair in Imran and Salman and we really need them to fire in super 8.

  • inqlabi on September 16, 2007, 1:18 GMT

    Very intresting.May be pakistan choose the group it want in super8.They didnot miss the stumps without any reason.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 16, 2007, 1:18 GMT

    After reading this thread again, I realized that Mr. Abbassi has raised a very important point which I missed earlier, that is about the aping of this silly bowl-out rule from soccer into cricket. I concur that I have never seen any penalty shoot outs in the group stages or the preliminary rounds, it is only done during the knock-out games. So, the rule making chimps should take a note of it rather than simply aping it.

    Some non-Pakistani blokes on this blog are asking a question: what would be the reaction of Pakistanis if the result was in their favour 3-0? The answer is, the reaction would have been just the same as it is now - its a farcical ending and the rule is silly. Besides, if you look at it from the cricketing point of view, technically Pakistan has won that match for loosing fewer wickets than India.

    Mr. Abbassi seems to be optimistic that Pakistan would be pleased to be avoiding Durban and moving on to Johannesburg. Their record in Johannesburg is not so good. In fact the solo ODI they've won in their previous tour with a massive margin was at Kingsmead Durban. Therefore, I am not sure how Asif & Co will perform at the Wanderers!. Wasim Saqib, I DID acknowledge Asif's brilliant bowling, just scroll back and read my post in the previous thread. If you think I am always hoping to see Asif perform badly, then you are utterly wrong. In fact I was as happy as anyone else to see him bowl like a hero. When I quoted those stats on Asif's performance during the past 12 months, I said its an abysmal performance from a hero. Do you understand why I called him a hero? Never mind.

    You and others never leave any opportunity in criticizing Afridi. Yes he was expensive in this match, because it was raining and when it rains, the ball slips and its very hard for any spinner to be effective, in fact he shouldn't have been used at that stage. He was introduced to replace Yasir Arafat just when Uthappa was thrashing Yasir and his (Uthappa's) confidence was high and he gave no respite in thrashing a leg spinner as well. Pathan too joined the band wagon, but Afridi got him, he also got the turbonator clean bowled. And your verdict is, the match was lost because of his giving away too many runs? Thats not true, Pakistan lost because of poor batting and not because of bowling. The over all batting performance was "disgustipatingly" pathetic. From Salman Butt to Imran Nazir or Younis Khan to Shoaib Malik were all below par. Even (the so called match tier) Misbah is also responsible for this debacle because, when Misbah was supposed to hit, he missed and not once but twice. He should have run on the 5th ball, even if he had gotten himself run out, Yasir Arafat wouldn't have missed a single on the last ball, in fact he would have tossed it over the circle. Did you notice his strike rate? 12 runs of 5 balls a strike rate of 240 so he had a better chance than Misbah.

    The other thing is Malik's captaincy, after the first match when he was cornered at the podium and asked why he is not playing Afridi in the top order? He was dillydallying his reply and mumbled something with a yes and butt and no, etc., and we all thought that he will change the batting order in the next match and promote Afridi at number 3. But he didn't. It has been noted that Afridi is always sent in to bat at a time when the team is under pressure. I think Malik does not want to risk Afridi opening the innings or coming at number three, because he knows that there aren't any big hitters in the team at the lower order especially without Abdul Razzaq hence he does not want to loose Afridi early at the top. But, that is the gamble he has to take. After all Imran Nazir is frequently getting out cheaply and Salman Butt is scoring at snail pace so swap Imran Nazir's place with Afridi and see.

    Never mind that, the other brighter side after this India / Pak match is the emergence of the wrong footed razmataz, Sohail Tanvir. He dazzled the ball in front of Dhoni and Uthappa and they were clueless at his wrong footed action and his swing bowling and he got the prized wicket of Uthappa. He has a long way to prove his mettle but, he seems like a very good prospect for Pakistan. Shoaib Akhtar must be jealous of his performance, because he is a decade younger than him and with a performance like that he will stay in all formats of the game for sure. But, he has a lot to learn from his seniors and the early fame and praise should not get in to his head. The wanderers is not the ground for Pakistani bowlers. But again, you never know about cricket especially in a twenty20 game everything is possible, so good luck to him.

    A word about the Bangladesh outfit: It is good to see a team so full of fiery, energy, enthusiasm and the whole team is so full of youth, exuberance and they play vibrant cricket from the word go. They lost to SA today, but they scored 50 in 4.2 overs and 102 in 10 overs, with wickets tumbling all over they never lowered their run rate till the end of the tenth over i.e., till they finally ran out of batsmen. But, they are a side to reckon when Pakistan play against them in Capetown on Sept.20th they cannot take them lightly.

  • Omer Admani on September 15, 2007, 23:11 GMT

    An alternative to the farcial bowl-out could be something that involves both the team. An endng fitting for a 20/20 tie could be: Selecting 5 bowlers and 5 batsmen from the other team. Each bowler bowls a ball and each batsmen plays a ball. Whichever team hits more sixes wins. If none do, it may continue in football style until one team gains an edge over the other. Or something similar....that would have driven the spectators crazy. Pakistan's batting has been sorry so far, and despite Asif's performance early on, it is a piy Pakistan couldn't win. They have only themselves to blame and Indi deserved to win after seeing some of the shots our batsman played. Malik is stubborn, he won't send Afridi earlier (like he said, he is not Ponting--- or any smart captain by implication). Te problem also lies in shuffling the batting order time and again, and it seems to me that the batsmen are confused as to what role they have to play thus. Was Akmal send to consolidate or to hit? It is unfortunate that the team seems so unprepared when the significant matches start now. They should make a strategy and stick with 90 percent of it. Malik keeps on saying we have a lot of versatility in our team, but it is only one or two good innings that win a match, not 9 half-batsmen. He needs to seiously reconsider the batting order. Maybe Fawad Alam needs to replace Yasser Arafat.

  • N on September 15, 2007, 22:58 GMT

    stupid or not, i think people are losing face of the simple fact That is, under pressure..none of the pakistan bowlers(the team that argubly held the wordl's best bowling attack for a long time) were able to hit the stumps from 22 yards with no batsman covering the stumps... That is a shame to the bolwers and pakistan...Remember Waqar, Akram, Imran Khan or Akthar would have toppled all 3 stumps

  • James Smith on September 15, 2007, 22:16 GMT

    Hi, I can't help but notice that mostly Pakistani "sounding" n ames are saying that the bowl out was a bad idea. I wonder if their opinion would change if the scorecard said 3-0 to pakistan

  • Qasim Zeeshan on September 15, 2007, 22:04 GMT

    Dear Kamran,

    I am inept to recognize the intellect of the visionaries in ICC, but the awkward invention left me in a state of disarray. What is 20-20 about? First of all what is cricket all about? For the spectators; it is a close game (like yesterday) which they want to see every time they go to the ground or sit in their TV lounges to watch the game. For the ICC it is drawing more and more money through sponsors and advertisements (At least this is what seems apparent from their policies.), for this they need spectators, for spectators they have started 20-20. ICC thinks this is a crowd grabbing move; they are surely mistaken. Ask any cricket enthusiast and his answer would be that this is surely not cricket and they do not want to see such obnoxious climax.

    Perhaps the ICC is promoting betting and offering the bookies something more to bet on. Their intentions might be good but their execution is always poor. First they introduced the 12th Man rule, then the fanciful format of 2007 World Cup which lost billions of Indian and Pakistani spectators, now this “Bowl-Out”. Surely they have not learned from their mistakes. Let us see what is up next? Even the multinational companies today carry out a thorough consumer survey before launching any new product. Cricket today is an industry, and the ICC before introducing their whimsical innovations should first understand the likes and dislikes of the viewers of this game.

    Cricket is unlike football, that you end a tied match with shoot outs. Cricket is unique game which congregates the cleverness of Chess to the robustness of Rugby. S. Rajesh rightly said in his column “The game could do without such gimmicks” that “cricket - in any form - is better off without it”. And I would like to add that “The game itself has much more to offer” and we do not need any bizarre invention to attract crowds.

    I have a simple proposal which should suit everybody; the ICC, the spectators, the betting fraternity and last but not the least would help the game of cricket as well, which the ICC seems least concerned about.

    My idea is no innovation; it is already part and parcel of the game since its advent. It is “Direct Throw”.

    Instead of the bowlers trying to bowl and hit the wickets, let the fielders do it. Five fielders from every team should try to hit the wickets; from the same or different positions on the 15 yard circle.

    This will help improve the direct throwing capabilities of the players, and help them in regular part of the game as well. Above all, they will not have to do out the way drills for any “Bowl-Outs”, as throwing is a regular practice in any team workout.

    Cricket should get rid of this “Bowl-Out”, as soon as possible. I request you to please make this a point through your editorials and columns. Let us preserve cricket. The game itself has much more to offer. Thank you!

    Best Regards, Qasim Zeeshan Ardent Cricket Fan

  • Badar Siddiqi on September 15, 2007, 21:13 GMT

    Why are we all arguing about the bowl out here? Is it gonna change the rules? I think not. Rules are made to be followed so just do it. Didn't we all know about the rules of the game before it actually start? Don't complain afterwards when you fail to get the desired result. If you have the guts then go on and ask the ICC to change it. But before you do that, make sure you have a better alternative to the bowl out. Get the feed back from the players, the boards, the public etc and then act accordingly. In my view, whenever the ICC comes up with any new rules, they must be applied on an experimental basis for few months, and if any rule isn't gaining support then it must be revoked. Just take the example of the Super Subs in ODIs not long ago; the idea didn't gain much support among the players and the ICC gladly took the rule back. If the bowl out idea isn't workable then same can be done with that, too. C'on, do we have this rule applied in Tests or ODIs that we have to have it in Twenty20? Keep the match results as tie in the earlier stages of a tournament and where a definite result is sought, keep it simple by going for fewer wickets lost or better run rate at a certain stage of the innings. Just how ignorant our leadership/management is when it comes to this? Lack of knowledge and then lack of practice. How in the world can one go into a big tournament without knowing the rules and planning for it? Yes, the bowl outs don't happen in every match but that shouldn't keep you from knowing about it and practicing for it. Our lack of focus was quite evident from the bowl out results. India won only because they're a better team that competed with a focus, planning, and took the game seriously while the Pakistanis took it too lightly thinking they would get the required runs easily. They started off their run chase without planning and ended it the same way. Don't our stupid openers know that if they don't give a solid start then the rest of the team will automatically come under pressure. Can't they give us a good start like the Australians or the Sri Lankans do that takes off the pressure from their middle order batsmen? Don't expect a miracle from the likes of Afridi everytime your daft openers waste too many balls earlier in the innings. Butt and Nazir make a mess and then expect other batsmen to clean it. Both our openers must be held repsonsible for the pressure they create; while Nazir tends to lose his wicket early on, Butt plays too many dot balls, plays even fewer scoring shots and lack aggressiveness. Kick both of them out immediately. Bring Hafeez and Akmal at the top. Even Shoaib himself can do better. Utilize Afridi to the max by bringing him up the order so that he can play max overs. He may be suited for # 6 or 7 in the ODIs but here he must come in early on. Follow better teams to get better results.

  • Osman Ali Khairi on September 15, 2007, 20:47 GMT

    I think all of us are forgetting the role Yasir Arafat played. Frankly, when he walked out into the middle, the game was all but lost. Salman butt, Shoaib Malik and even Misbah with their defensive tendencies (taking singles when the required rate was hovering around 10-11) and their reluctance to go for the big hits, mucked up our chances of winning the game in a comprehensive and emphatic fashion. It was Arafat who by smashing a couple of boundaries down the midwicket region provided the run chase with some much needed impetus! Also, the result testifies that this is what you get when you drop Yousuf and Razzaq. Other than Afridi, there is hardly a player who can hit some big shots. That is primarily the reason why we found it so tough to overhaul a score of 140! Of course, if the players lose, they will be subjected to an incredible deal of criticism. The selectors on the other hand, will go away unscathed… And I can’t believe the Pakistani players were smiling away and fooling around while the Indians were practicing hitting the stumps, after the match had been tied. What an unprofessional and farcical attitude! The implications of this result mean that Pakistan will carry no points whatsoever in the next round and to rub salt on the wounds, will be playing the mighty Australians next week! I can bet the players aren’t smiling anymore. And lastly, Salman Butt and Shoaib Malik are the weakest links in the team and yet, the only players whose places in the team are certain. Welcome to the wacky world of Pakistan cricket.

  • Aslam Ahmd on September 15, 2007, 19:19 GMT

    A GOOD BATSMAN IS A GOOD BATSMAN IS A GOOD BATSMAN , Please bring back Mo Yousef and Inzi back for ALL forms of the game . Its a fact that Pakistan do not have very few TECHNICALLY CORRECT batsmen and therefore has to persist with the few around . (Where is Taufiq Umar, who has a century against SA in South Africa ) . However , when it comes to bowling its an embarrassment of riches , with some of the best around .

    Dr. Abbassi , pl. speak ( or BEG )the powers that be to include Inzi , Mo. Yousuf and Taufiq Umar UNTIL the academies throw up TECHNICALLY CORRECT batters .

  • Dawar on September 15, 2007, 18:42 GMT

    Khalit Latif and Khurrum Manzoor are the best available openers in the team. They should be in the team. Imran Nazir scores in one inning out of his 15 inninngs. He did score well in SA b4 WC. In WC he scored well in his last inning against when we already lost WC. Firts matches he was out cheaply. Now he is again. Salman Butt do not desrver spot in even Pakistan A team. I do not why he is natianol team.

    Bring Khalid and Khurrum. They are from same club as like past great opener Saeed Anwar.

    Misba played inning for himself not a team inning at all. Replace Misba by Yasir Hamid. He is doing very well in domestic cricket.

    Dawar LA USA

  • ruzzy on September 15, 2007, 18:26 GMT

    i don't get it, what did the bowl out achieve? the match is still a tie, isn't it? what was the point of doing that stunt? sheesh, ICC wakeup!

  • Ali Asim - Saginaw, Michigan USA on September 15, 2007, 18:09 GMT

    Plenty has been said already regarding the farcical end of the last Indo-Pak match. Our batting lineup has failed AGAIN. Unfortunately, we are stuck with these batsmen for the whole tournament.

  • Abbas Khan on September 15, 2007, 18:09 GMT

    Yep, agreed with GOJJO. Kamran Akmal standing slightly more to the off-stump was a shocker - school-boy error there in my opinion. Also quite ironic that Pakistan's pro bowlers who are known world wide for their bowling can't bowl straight AFTER just coming out of a game. All in all, great game and, I, for one, am in favour of bowl outs. After all, both teams started the bowl out on equal terms. It's not like India had a slight advantage, it's more of a case of them using their brain and bowling slower bowlers first (WITH their normal run-ups).

    Quite shocked with Abassi's title to this blog entry, I am pretty sure that the term 'daft' to describe a bowl-out wouldn't have emerged if Pakistan won. And I am almost 100% sure that my fellow Pakistani posters wouldn't be posting negative remarks on the bowl-out if Pakistan won. Time to grow up and accept it :)

  • Saleem on September 15, 2007, 17:51 GMT

    hello, I am not only mad but i feel like shot those who selected Mohd Yunis. Why the hell someone would like to pick him up. He didnt score a sinlge run in a world cup. He has never been a good one day player so how come he is choosen for the 20/20. Even though Razak is out of form but still he would be the better choice Just ask anyone else in the world who is better even Muhammed Yousuf is there. This crook pakistanis offical, they want to just do what they think it is right. What r they trying to prove, wishfully thcy can prove they are idiots and don't know what are they doing. I don't care how sincere they are with the team and pakistani cricket. They just don't know what to do. They could be sincere but still be dum. And we don't need dum ass. Hello it is international cricket, the arena which the whole world watches.

  • Captain Swing on September 15, 2007, 17:39 GMT

    I'm neutral, but I didn't think either side deserved to lose, and one point each would be fair. The worst thing about the bowl out is that it was actually embarassing: three international bowlers couldn't hit the stumps.

    I can't think of any alternative method to decide the final, but there must be something better.

    On the subject of nonsensical rules, my bugbear is the leg bye. Why on earth should the batting side get rewarded when the batsman fails to make contact? If the batsman isn't playing a shot the leg byes don't count, so why do they count when the clown misses it?

    Anyway, yesterday saw a sad end to a thrilling game.

  • Samad on September 15, 2007, 17:38 GMT

    The crazy bowl-out made a mockery of a fantastic, hard fought game of cricket. Cricket is supposed to have batsmen and fielders besides bowlers !! If it is so important to have a result, why not have a selected batsman from each team play an extra over against a selected bowler and decide on the basis of net runs scored - super sixes style ?

  • Shahid on September 15, 2007, 17:26 GMT

    Sorry Saf, not much hope for us fans as long as the PCB remains headed by a bunch of incompetant lawyers who have no interest in cricket.

    And yes, despite being an Pakistani fan, I think the game was won by the better team India (***ouch***) as they reached 141 and we could not get past that wall. Lawson and Asif got it all wrong for Pakistan (again).

  • raja on September 15, 2007, 17:22 GMT

    im a pakistani, pakistan are just not good enough wake up people pressure or no pressure they are on par with bangladesh at the moment ( gud luk bangladesh improving team)bowl out is a stupid idea less wickets loss wins, draw share out the points 1 each or play another 5 overs (extra Time)

  • Anum on September 15, 2007, 16:05 GMT

    stupid, really, this bowl out...

  • Soul on September 15, 2007, 15:56 GMT

    Guys, I agree this bowl-out end is nothing less than a mockery of this wonderful game. But if the teams have no other choice but to play per the format, I have couple of things to mention here about the intellegence of our beloved Captain "Shoaib Malik". 1- The toss wining captain should always strike first in such cases. This will keep the pressure on apponents if you score. If you allow your apponents to go first and they score than there will be load amount of pressure on your striker and he is bound to fail.Malik failed to understand this simple concept.

    2- In a cricket bowl out, you should always nominate spinners to hit wickets, because it is difficult for fast bowlers to aim wickets with their run up. Malik appointed atleast 3 fast bowler and they started this bowl out.

    3 - Above all, Malik was naive to accept that he did not knew about this bowl-out format. Which in my opinion is enough to fire his ass. I am sure he is the only captain who did not paid any attention to the rules / format of this 20-20 Cup. 4- Also this stupid captian is persisting with Imran nazir and Butt, who are failures in any event. I think this is time to include Khalid Latif and Khurram Manzor in this pakistani team and appoint a new captain (may be afridi).

  • NASIR DAR on September 15, 2007, 15:43 GMT

    Well folks given the historic antics of this team , I did not bother to watch it. Now the results indicate one thing ..this team is a bunch of losers..specially when it comes to batting ...very pathetic indeed. Need I remind Gulli Danda is a viable option ....

    Regards

    Nasir

  • Raz on September 15, 2007, 15:25 GMT

    Rules are rules. You have to accept it. Imagine if Pakisthan won it. Would you still hate this rule. I don't think so.. This is like grape is SOUR when can't take a bite. India were better than Pakisthan and all pakisthani should accept that.

  • ashu on September 15, 2007, 15:19 GMT

    We are all forgetting that at the end of the day. These RULES ARE KNOWN to EVERYBODY and it is upto the teams to practice it

  • Piyush on September 15, 2007, 15:15 GMT

    It was fantastic, really beautiful, and of course the right result and well deserved. India taught another cricket lesson to Pakistan.

  • GOJJO on September 15, 2007, 14:49 GMT

    did anyone notice the position of the respective wicketkeepers during the bowl out? here lies the secret - Dhoni was right behind the stumps and poor Kamran is outside the off stick and our bowlers are aiming at him rather than the stumps!

  • IB on September 15, 2007, 14:23 GMT

    Today I am preparing my resume to apply a crucial post in ICC where I can contribute and make much more logical and rationale decisions. If somebody like (Mr. Decision Maker) can come up with this childish rule (Bowl out)and even applied it practicle, I can well imagine the intelligent and creative working in ICC. I mean just give it a break guys, Cricket is Cricket not hockey or football and if you really want to be creative and leave some impact of your decisions then come up with something differnet. I can never imagin of cricket being spoiled by these so called decision makers who are working incompetently to worsen the beauty of this game. Match decision should have been made based on the number of wickets felled which India 141/9 and Pak 141/7 and in that context Pak won the game. In a nutshell both teams played a very good cricket and put a really good fight on and that was very much clear by their body language. P.S>>> Imran Nazir --- When do you think you can learn from your past experiences.

  • AMIN S on September 15, 2007, 14:20 GMT

    Such a stupid way of ending the game. Pakistan and India both played very tough and hard Cricket. A draw was acceptable for both teams but making any team loose in a stupid way is unbelievable. ICC has lost thier mind as usual. They made lots of errors in the World Cup and their stupid thinking just started in 20/20. Even in the knockout session making any team loose in the bowlout is not fair. They should think of some other ideas like each team should play 2-5 more overs and whoever scored more runs should win. ICC is supposed to keep the dignity of this game not to destroy the image of the game.

  • Farhan Aziz on September 15, 2007, 13:53 GMT

    India completely out-thunk Pakistan during the bowl out. They opted for slowers bowlers we opted for 3 fast bowlers and a leg spinner!!! Ok, even if you opt for fast bowlers, please don't change your style... Yasir was an embarrassment. I mean when it comes down to thinking, we don't have a chance... what was Lawson doing?

    Needless to say that a bowl out is part of a competition so you prepare for it (irrespective of what you think).

  • Milind Rajput on September 15, 2007, 13:43 GMT

    Some guy called ALEX Philbin in the previous was complaining/moaning that India-Pak clashes do not have quality equal to Aus-Eng clashes . Well we had Indo-Pak and Eng-Aus match the same day and I guess the English-Aussie clash was an absorbing,scintillating and classic quality clash where Australia trounced England AS USUAL for the last decade or more. As Alex said- Compare that to the boring lack of quality clash India-Pakistan has and Mr Alex was so CORRECT. Werent you MR Alex;)

  • Srikant on September 15, 2007, 13:36 GMT

    A silly format and a silly competition deserved the end it got. Wake upu, Mr.Abbasi...this is what you will be writing about from now on.

  • Majeed Aslam. on September 15, 2007, 13:31 GMT

    Indians were intelligent .They used slow bowlers even if thet looed not so glamorous or stylisih or heoric. Pakistan tried all that and left intellectualness to the dustbin as in 1948,1971 ,1965,1999.

  • Jawad on September 15, 2007, 13:19 GMT

    Bowl out or no bowl out,the bottom line is that Pakistan should not have lost this match considering the situation they were in.One run required off the last two balls and the most set batsman taking strike should have been a no contest. Yet again Pakistani batting let the team down and ruined Asif and Co.'s hard work.Full marks to India for defending such a meagre total with a mediocre balling line up.Losing to Pakistan in a world cup match dosent seem to be their game plan. Very well done. On the contrary Pakistan should pull up their socks as they face much stiffer competition in the next few days.

  • EAMIRAN on September 15, 2007, 13:04 GMT

    Daft end, Daft format, Daft tournament, and with all due respect to Pakistan, Daft batting.

  • Anam Ahmed on September 15, 2007, 12:48 GMT

    Bowl out is utterly ridiculous...Its like your only testing the bowlers but what about the batsmen?? In every other sport i know like in football they extend the time, in baseball they extend the overs and in soccer there are penalty shots where the goli is there to stop em...but in cricket there is nothing like that just a bowler trying to knockout the stumps...i must say it was a thriller as both the teams went from bad to good but in the end very disappointing!

  • zeb on September 15, 2007, 12:43 GMT

    Salman but is useless, this isn't a test match he has 6 over of powerplay aswell and he is blocking the ball and afridi should be at 3 or 4. Lawson needs to grow some balls and drop salman butt

  • taimoor on September 15, 2007, 12:42 GMT

    i think bowl out is total nonsense. it spoils the game.anti climax man.the icc is bringin total nonsense to the game.the free hit rule also in odis is also rubbish

  • Awas on September 15, 2007, 12:40 GMT

    Now that was an amazing match, best of the lot. Before last two overs, Pakistan were looking like loosing it. But when it got to one run in the last two balls, they really should have got it.

    All those who had been criticising “UNCLE” Misbah should now eat their words. If it wasn’t for him Pakistan would have faced a heavy defeat instead of a tie before sudden death. Selectors should get some credit as he obviously got picked because of his recent form and his record of 20:20. It is ludicrous to say age should be automatic barrier for getting picked, and that at 33, without looking at the current form. Remember Paul Nixon, he was picked by England at 36 just a while ago and did very well.

    If new faces don’t get picked sometimes or for at least a completely different format of the game then what is the point of playing cricket for such hopefuls. The regular players shouldn’t consider that they have a complete monopoly for every game and expect to be picked. It would become very disheartening for every other cricketer if they know they would be unlikely to get a chance to play for Pakistan.

    Yousaf instead of getting the hump should have done the honourable thing like his contemporaries such as Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly as he should have seen it coming. The great batsman that he surly is, he is not so suitable for this particular format mainly because of his fielding. By getting moody and choosing ICL over Pakistan shows you the real character of the person. Such honour and esteem that he has earned with his ability was also because of playing for his country. What a shame that he forgets this.

  • Muhammad Asif on September 15, 2007, 12:40 GMT

    PCB will also begin T20 league oct 2008.

    http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/sep2007-daily/15-09-2007/update.htm#29

    The selection of teams is also good Pak, Ind, Aus & SA. I would hope that its financial structure should be viable. It never too late. A begining in the right direction.......

  • Abid Siddiqui on September 15, 2007, 12:28 GMT

    All of us should watch the replay of last ball carefully.

    Last Run out was acyually not out as Sreesanth broke the stumps by his Boot.

  • Dr Shahzad on September 15, 2007, 12:27 GMT

    Bowl-out rule is strange. I think there should have been one criteria from played match to decide the result of match in case of tie, for instance a team who has less batsmen out could be declared winner in case of tie. If both have equal wickets then this type of secon criteria should be applied. Any way, the most important point is from the post-match interviews of two captains. Pakistan captain had not known this rule, not to speak of any practice for this type of situations during long training camps. While according indial captain some of their players had been selected who extensively practiced before the start of tournament to prepare thm for this type of situation. My point here is: what is the role of foreign caoch, and a beauracratic manager in the team, who is manager because of being close friend of Saleem Altaf, one of PCB directors. They probably themselves did not know this rule, how they could manage the selection of few palyers for this purpose and made them practiced during training camp?. How indians got more professional with the upto date knowledge?

  • Fareed Nasir on September 15, 2007, 12:19 GMT

    The Bowl out would not have been required if Pakistani Selectors had not been daft enough to leave Yousuf and Razzaq out. This Paki team is a bit like WI team of last decade. There is a genius (ASif Lara in their case) and ten other players.Teams will fancy their chances against this line up even if we get them for 70 or 80. So far 20/20 matches have shown that only batsmen with good technique and good mind are going to succeed. Salman Butt unfortunately has none. Akmal never had the technique but lost his mind about 2 years ago and has never found it since. Younis is obviously not comfortable in this line up. Only him and perhaps Shoaib could have played pakistan to what would have been an easy victory for a normal batting line up. Misbah has been a surprise well so far so good, I dont think fun is going to continue for long though. Imaran nazir has to be told he is no longer a teenager and has to grow up. Hafeez, younis (keeps wickets too)Afridi, Yousuf, Malik,Razzaq, Imran Nazir, Arafat, Tanveer, Gul, Asif was what we should have been playing. If a regular keeper is required replace Imrn nazir with Akmal (and please find a replacemnet for him in meanwhile). All said it was a gr8 match and yes I agree Bowl out is as stupid as it gets.

  • Milan Jain on September 15, 2007, 12:07 GMT

    Interesting to see how most of the Indians seemed to support the bowl-out while most of the Pakistani writers hate it :-)

    One has to admit that it is not the cleanest way to decide a result. Every one of the 11 Indian and Pakistani players gave their heart out in a cracker of a contest and for the result to be decided in a bowl-out certainly is tough. The only merit I see is that you are asking professional crickets to perform a task under a lot of pressure and that in itself, is a test. Innocuous it may seem, but as yesterday showed, its all about coping with the pressure and perhaps for that alone, the bowl-out is worth persisting with.

  • puneet on September 15, 2007, 12:04 GMT

    the bowl-out does seem meaningless but rules are rules it was known to both teams and i was surprised at the lack of planning from the pak team..their regular seam bowlers are not wasim or waqar to hit the stumps...also the idea of keeping afridi till the end was stupid to say the least for a player of his capacity he should be in top 4 atleast for 20-20 india played relly well at the end and the thing that stood out was their planning of the game right from when they lost wickets early to the last ball tie and all thru the bowl-out

  • Mark on September 15, 2007, 11:57 GMT

    Better still, have a single stump (wicket) as opposes to 3 of 'em for bowlers to aim at !

  • John on September 15, 2007, 11:38 GMT

    Bowl outs are quite common here in England, I remember being involved in one for my local town game. It's a fun way to end a game in my opinion and adds a lot of fun and suspense to a cricket game. Which can only be good for the sport...

  • sid on September 15, 2007, 11:31 GMT

    I just think the fact is that the bowl out is a rule..however much criticised..still a rule..which should have been prepared for.

    what i dont get is why salman butt was played instead of mohammed hafeez who has shown better performances in this form of the game. excellent performance by suhail tanvir! anyways goodluck to pakistan for the next matches

  • Owais on September 15, 2007, 11:18 GMT

    Pakistan diserved to lose that bowl out. Having said that I dont know who is running ICC and how could they come up with such a stupid way to end a match. Imagine final being decided on a bowl out ???? Free hit rule is also far too batsmen-centric. I think its about time that pitches are more like the one used for this match and the umpires should give bowlers some leeway in terms of leg side wides. The game has turned into all batsmen affair.

  • Shaheer - future cricketer on September 15, 2007, 11:01 GMT

    They should only have this bowl-out rule in knockout stages, just like soccer/football tournaments. NOT IN GROUP STAGES. Such a beautiful game spoilt by a stupid rule. It's only good for knockout stages.

  • Dr. Mustafa Kamal on September 15, 2007, 10:51 GMT

    Bowl Out! A total rubbish! Instead, it should be an extra over affair and the team getting more runs in that extra over should be declared winner! My idea is that each team gets one over to bat with only 1 wicket in hand. If and when one of the two batsmen is out, that's all over for that team and the other team then takes its turn.If the first team scored 14 on its turn, other team has to score 15 without losing the wicket in order to win. That would be much better than so called Bowl - Out!

  • Shobhit on September 15, 2007, 10:25 GMT

    I think the bowl out was a ingenuous way to finish the match. The 3-0 result showed clearly that India were far more prepared for the situation and so the argument that 'both teams deserved to share the points' is not valid. Imagine if we had a bowl out in Edgbaston in 1999 !

  • khansahab(A.A.Khan) on September 15, 2007, 10:24 GMT

    A silly finish to an otherwise enthralling game. Despite the result I think Pakistan was the winner owing to losing fewer wickets in the end and levelling scores with two balls to spare. I was however impressed with the last two deliveries bowled by Sreesanth; he have Misbah no room to free his arms. The Indians are not damning this bowl out as much as Pakistanis because their team prevailed in the stupid contest. The point is, the batsman’s forced dominance in Twenty20 is ridiculous to “cricket snobs” like me, but the daftness of this bowl-out concept is beyond my comprehension. When a tie is registered, the result should be decided on run rate or fall of wickets, even in a format as wild and unorthodox as Twenty20.

    This encounter established a few important points. I have repeatedly stated that Salman Butt and Imran Nazir may have some standing in domestic cricket but they lack mental strength to perform consistently in international cricket. Butt just could not play the Indian seamers and if he can’t play the likes of RP Singh, Pathan and Sreesanth how can he be expected to handle Pollock, Lee, or Bond? Many individuals are raising their eyebrows now over his appointment as vice-captain, not least because he actually did not deserve the promotion. Salman Butt’s position is tantamount to Mohammad Sami’s. Both are hugely talented and have been provided with ample opportunities. Both are inconsistent and both are fluent in English. The difference is one is the vice-captain being touted as future captain, while the other is not even in the squad.

    Imran Nazir was never a consistent scorer and simply does not possess the brainpower to keep his cool and play the ball on its merit. My advice to Shoaib Malik is that, if he really wants to keep Butt, Nazir and Hafeez in the same squad, he might as well make Hafeez open because even if the latter fails with the bat, he can make it up with good bowling and fielding. It makes no sense to play Nazir. That 160 odd he scored against Zimbabwe was due to the Zimbabweans dropping four easy catches; normally even a minnow team will not be expected to drop one player four times. Even in the recent practice matches Nazir’s performance has been uninspiring save one meagre innings where he performed admirably.

    Asif is a class bowler but I still think Pakistan is better off playing Rao instead of him in this tournament. Asif was everything in yesterday’s encounter that he was not in the match against Scotland. Like Afridi, Younis and Butt, Asif also performs extraordinarily well against India. So that was one factor. The second was obviously the pitch unusually hinged towards favouring the seamers. And the third was that the Indians were scared of Asif not only because of his statement to the press that he would dismiss Sehwag in the first over, but also because he has single-handedly demolished their top order on a few occasions in the recent past. It is because of these reasons that I always recommend playing Butt, Afridi, Younis and Asif in all matches against India.

    Tanvir was impressive and so was Misbah. As regards Tanvir it is standard for a Pakistani debutant to impress in his first match or series. If he is not consistent he is no good. Misbah with this performance has probably secured a place in the Test side for the series against South Africa and India. I would still go for Asim Kamal over Misbah if there is competition between them, on accounts of the former being left handed and having a reputation for excellent pressure-absorbing skills in international cricket.

  • Abhay on September 15, 2007, 10:21 GMT

    I still think a bowl out is stupid. What if a team has a good bowling side and a bad batting side? It is supposed to be that the 2 points go to the team that plays better cricket. Not to the team that aims at the stump better.

  • usman paracha on September 15, 2007, 10:12 GMT

    I do not understand who are the brains behind making cricket rules ? first of all there is no need for anything like a bowl out to decide results secondly incase they want to see a result let it be through proper cricket , let both the teams choose their best two batsmen and one best bowler , both teams field the whole team and play one over each , in which very ball is a free hit , so there cannot be any one out , and who ever scores more in one over wins the match atleast it would be proper cricket , i hope all of you would like the idea

  • Saurabh on September 15, 2007, 9:42 GMT

    Why is everyone ignoring that Twenty20 is all a big gimmick anyway? Bowl-outs just suit this form of the game. Picking a winner by run-rate over a specific period is unfair because the other team performed as well during the rest of the overs. Picking a winner by number of wickets is unfair to the team having more all-rounders than the team with specialist batsmen and bowlers. More importantly these two methods use performance before the match has ended in a tie as the criterion. An ideal tie-breaker shouldn't account for performance before the tie actually happened. Having a batsman at the other end to complete the football analogy will make the tie-breaker too lengthy.

    I wonder how many Pakistani fans would hate this system if their side had won.

  • Asad on September 15, 2007, 9:37 GMT

    That's not a soccer match. If they want to implement such things, than there has to be a batsman to defend his wickets like a keeper in a soccer match. But this bowl-out destroyed my motivation for Twenty20. Also the freehit idea is not that good, because a bowler is already punished by the no ball, having added an extra ball and an extra run. I believe with that we are completely changing the game, cricket is a different game compared to soccer and there is no need for these changes!!!

  • Surya Narayanan on September 15, 2007, 9:33 GMT

    "Daft" is perhaps an understatement. As rightly pointed out, Tie is a perfectly acceptable result, except in case of 'finals' of major tournaments. And if there is a need for a tie-breaker, there is no need to cheaply imitate football or other similar field games, sans the essentialities of cricket. It ain't cricket if there is no batsman. I'm sure a tie-breaker, where each side bowls one over (could even be two balls each by three players) , with all basic aspects of cricket intact, with the team scoing more runs declared the winner, would be considered fair by most people, if not all.

    Something is not always better than Nothing. Nothing is better than Nonsense.

  • Adarsh Darapaneni on September 15, 2007, 9:32 GMT

    I agree with Kamran's point that penalty shootouts are only used in knock-out soccer matches. Moreover, in the long run, a tie in a T20 cricket match would be a much rarer occurrence compared to a draw in a soccer match. So there really is no need for a tie-breaking mechanism like a bowl-out or anything else, unless its semis or final. But in recent times, ICC has reviewed new rules within a year of introduction and has taken good decisions like removing Supersubs and modifying Powerplays. So, we can hope the same happens with the Bowlout too and common sense prevails soon

  • salman saifi on September 15, 2007, 9:22 GMT

    It was a cracker of a game..but in the end Bowl out took thye centre stage, I know it might look stupid but everyone is ignoring one important aspect here the Bowl out was necessary to get the team's rankings D1 or D2...It becomes all the important now because India by winning now has D1 position & they have assured atleast one easy game against Bangladesh (After WC exit of india in march it sounds joke but the fact remains B'desh is a lesser side). So in that sense Bowl out was not all that nonsense! For god sake someone please shout loudly that we need to play "AFRIDI" on top of the order....If he comes at number 7 pakistan are shooting themselve in the foot!

  • Omar Ansari on September 15, 2007, 9:21 GMT

    Completely agree with you here Mr Abbasi, not only is this rule nonsensical but it had no purpose in the group stage match.

    Tell me this, why wasn't a bowl out played in Scotlands match against India? That game ended up in a draw too right? They could have played a 15 min bowl out regardless of the weather conditions..

    Its funny how the big guns up there manage to find ways to ruin the fun and intensity of epic matches....

  • omar hussain on September 15, 2007, 9:11 GMT

    An even contest was reduced to a farce in the end for the sake of a result.This is wrong and stupid because the result was a TIE.Regulations shoud be made to give both sides equal points.Both sides did well and neither deserves to lose.I am pleased that Asif has geared up and two unlikely heros in Tanvir and Misbah have shone.Lets hope Yasir Arfat also fulfills his undoubted talent and our Great Hope Afridi gets going.Good luck to our team and well done!!

  • Xen from Karachi on September 15, 2007, 9:11 GMT

    A pathetic end to a sensational match. The winner of this contest was Cricket itself.

    This match will be remembered as the most thrilling contest b/w the two sides in the recent history. And I will remember this match where India had to tie the match with the help of at least two Pakistani players, the-nonsense-openers aka Butt the turtle-batsman and Nazir the baseball-twaddle.

    There was no better way for them to dig a hole for the team to fall, by batting dead slow at one end & mocking street-cricket-insanity at the other. Mind you, it was not the first time we saw this classic act of lunacy in such an important match.

    I don’t want to repeat the praises for super talent of Asif, the new Indian sensation Robin Uthappa or the unexpected batting genius of Misbah ul Haq who silenced all his critics including my own self.

    The expression on M. Asif’s face in the ball-out daft drama presented the feelings of Pakistani nation.

    The whole Pakistani Nation needs an answer from the selectors to this ONE Big Question!

    What the hell those two mediocre guys doing at the top of pakistani batting order?

    Does any one have the courage to answer!!!

  • Mian Gul Muhammed on September 15, 2007, 8:51 GMT

    What a cracking match but a sad end to a climax that had no affect on team being out of the competition. Anyway, lets up hope and pray these two teams do well in rest of the tournament.

    I want Salman Butt out of this team, he has let the side down twice and has put them under pressure that could have easily be avoided. Pakistan needs to promote Afridi to number three or four if they want to do well. I can bet with anyone, he will deliver the goods. Someone also needs to have a word with Imran Nazir, he is such a talented player, all he got to do is play some good cricketing shots. I know Twenty20 is about hitting every ball out of the park but what we have seen so far in the matches that slogging has not helped any player. Australia has lost a game against Zimbawae becuase they did not want to play any cricketing shots. Good cricket shots and off you go.

  • Jaat Yamla on September 15, 2007, 8:49 GMT

    Yes, it was a daft end to an amazing match. I hate this rule and make no sense at all. If they want result, simple would be a tie or like old times, team with more wickets left wins the match.

  • Shahid on September 15, 2007, 8:48 GMT

    I agree entirely. If at all there had to be a winner, then it could have been chosen by a number of conventional methods, like the team loosing the lesser number of wickets, or the run rate in the first 10 overs etc.

    Anyway it was clear from the match that Salman Butt is not suited for 20/20 as you just cannot afford to waste deliveries. Imran Nazir's world cup knock against lowly-rated Zimbabwe will be enough to give him a life line for another 10-15 matches. The rest seems okay. Misbah indeed was a surprise, but the biggest gain for Pakistan from the match was Shoaib Akhtar's replacement Sohail Tanvir. He had good control and displayed cool nerves. A good prospect for Pakistan.

  • CP on September 15, 2007, 8:42 GMT

    The bowl out is a rule of the Twenty20. We have to accept it. This is to ensure all matches have a result.

  • pingo on September 15, 2007, 8:40 GMT

    I think Jawad Arshad made the most sensible comment. One EXTRA over each at the end of a TIE would make it a very fair proposition for both sides. No bitter taste and acrimony.

  • Mabsoos Ahmad on September 15, 2007, 8:38 GMT

    The bowl out system reminds me, my cricketing career in a village and honestly speaking still we play such kind of cricket. In schooling time when we return from school, we had been playing cricket but due to scarcity of time, we had been playing like 10 overs game each side and if time permits 15 or 20 or 25 overs. There were tournaments being played in such a fashion.

    I have played bowl-out system with only one stump. It was because at least we can judge the talent of the bowler, but at international level, it is just nonsense and I am afraid we will loose an amusement of this funny game "cricket".

    If the game has been tied in a round robin league, it is not necessary to play bowl out. It is is gimmick. The players deserve that both the team have played superb cricket and the match has been tied. At least there will be no morale demoralization that after playing hard cricket,we lost match. Let us raise our voice against this rule.

  • ishu on September 15, 2007, 8:36 GMT

    if pakistan won then rules is good, but india win so rule is bad for every pakistani .

    come face the truth pakistan loss tha match n this is the fact guys

  • Syed Akif Shoaib on September 15, 2007, 8:35 GMT

    It was a great match but what was not so great was the way it ended. There shouldn't have been a victor.
    Teamwork brought India back into the game, while Pakistan lacked this very thing which made them tie an easy to win match. Still the last few hours when Yasir and Misbah did some power hitting reminded of ol' times.

    I don't understand why Pakistan batsmen are holding back their natural aggressive instincts. The very factor which brought them back into the game through Misbah and Arafat. They need to cut out on the defensive techniques.

  • Shaikh on September 15, 2007, 8:05 GMT

    If they have to have a winner, it makes more sense to me that if the scores are tied, the team that has lost the least wickets to reach the total should be declared winner. How absurd is it that a game that is touted to be completely dominated by batsmen, and designed specifically for batsmen has to be decided by bowlers lobbing balls at unguarded stumps!

  • Pratik on September 15, 2007, 8:02 GMT

    The bowl out was a bad rule.No one deserved to lose the game. Pakistan kept Afridi in the dugout while Butt, Malik etc. were apparently oblivious of the fact that this wasn't a test match. Kudos to Misbah, Robin and the 'real' Pathan :) Asif was without doubt the best player on view.

  • Shafiq on September 15, 2007, 8:01 GMT

    A silly end of the greatest Twenty20 match of all time.

  • Ravi on September 15, 2007, 7:59 GMT

    Yes, a bowl-out is ok when we MUST have a winner, like in knock-out stages. But in a group game? Daft. Very daft. Even football doesn't have that. Trust the ICC to ruin such a good match.

    And this Misbah fellow has got ba||s. You guys should get him into your ODI side if you haven't already.

  • Kamran Rehmat on September 15, 2007, 7:35 GMT

    I think most of my compatriots are going to blast the "bowl-out" rule until the next encounter but we're missing the point that as long as we had little choice but to play within the rules, it was an embarrassing cop out. I think India managed to upstage Pakistan because they were more relaxed and chose the basic intelligence required for the dart: slow bowlers, who didn't try to spin the ball like Richard Boucher or John Negroponte, keeping it straight and simple. any wonder they hit the bull's eye. On the other hand, Pakistanis were clumsy -- choosing the fatser bowlers, whose body language betrayed extreme nerves. Worse still, they tried to pitch in faster from a shortened run-up, which was always likely to cross the stumps than hit them. If they had to bowl faster, they would have been better off taking a full run-up and attempting a yorker (if it is allowed). When a slow bowler (Afridi)did come up to try his luck, he was embarrasingly so wide off the mark that it would have been better for him not to have taken a punt. The "bowl-out" is something that net bowlers do all the time to get their line and length right. Pakistanis were just so poor in something that did not really require Einstein's genius. And if they choose to stay the course of trying to pitch in the faster bowlers, they ought to know that, at sudden death, it is preferrable to first use your spearhead (Mohammad Asif) and then move on to the lesser bowlers given how failure to hit the mark at the instant brunt is likely to increasing the pressure manifold besides adversely affecting the chance to win. Removed from the "bowl-out" shenanigans, the Pakistani thinktank was pretty dumb not to have sent in Shahid Afridi earlier, when it is obvious to even the lay person that in a T20 format, you have virtually killed the chase, even if you've faltered slightly. It is nto a matter of overs, but balls (literally, too). Because Misbah and Yasir struck like thunder and lightning near the end and eventually snared a tie, it should not be forgotten how Misbah had wasted precious time in the middle overs, when he appeared to go in a cocoon as if following General Musharraf's doctrine for self-preservation. Contrast this with Younis Khan, who I think, is not cut out for the T20 kind but cannot be faulted for not trying. Finally, Pakistan can rightfully watch the performance of Sohail Tanvir with glee. T20 will do funny things to the bowlers, but for now, let's raise a toast to the new kid on the block.

  • Dr M Shareef Ud Dowla on September 15, 2007, 7:30 GMT

    While ICC-T20 has been a great visionary start of new brand of cricket,the "bowl out" has been the biggest joke in the history of cricket. I do not know how this peculiar idea of "bowl out" came out in the mind of the ICC management. What purpose does it serve? Remember bowl out is only necessary after a stormy 20 over play equalizing with the opponents. After such an event you need to put an equally stormy breathtaking challenge in front of both teams and that is to play only two overs each against each other. This may take 5 minutes more than the unimpressive "bowl out" but the cricket fan will warmly welcome that challenge and the team who lost will accept defeat. The ICC management/official should be reprimanded for taking a foolish decision of "BOWL OUT" for a tied match.

  • Usman Tahir on September 15, 2007, 7:22 GMT

    I wonder if Kamran Sb would have gone with the same line if pakistan had won ! Pakistan deserved to loose, Lunatic Imran nazir should be axed, unfortunately he will score a big one against bangladesh to keep his place. Misbah Ul haq might have gotten them in a good position in the end but he was the one who got them there in the first place with his snail pace initial part of the inning. Afridi is only good against mediocre attacks or on placid wickets, however he does have a place in 20/20 as an "opener", as most of the field is in , he stands a better chance of surviving a mistimed skier, which he does more often then not !

    India Won because they kept their cool, there was no thinking head in pakistan side in the bowl out, india went with three of spinner , surprise surprise pakistan went with a leg spinner !!!! not to mention to fast bowlers, plus point though is that poor sohail wasnt put in a position where he was last one to bowl with score tied, could have ruined his career like Baggio.

  • Suhaib Jalis Ahmed on September 15, 2007, 7:17 GMT

    In soccer, we have penalty shoot-outs only in the KNOCK-OUT stages, e.g. Quarterfinals, Semifinals and Finals. THe group stages NEVER have shoot-outs,

    I would be ok with the bowl-out if it had taken place in a similar situation. As far as I am concerned, there is no need to have a winner in a group stage (that includes the Super 8).

    However, I must say... the reason we got into the bowl-out was another pathetic display by the top order... Imran Nazir hardly sticks around for an over... and although I always supported Salman Butt, he really seems to struggle when it comes to scoring... in the end he justhelped the run rate climb...

    I have to take my words back as far as Misbah goes, he showed his worth yesterday

  • Johnny Smith on September 15, 2007, 7:16 GMT

    yup, true that, no penalty's in group stages- own goal by the organisers i'd say.

    in saying that, what a game mate.....where has this misbah character been all these years...he is fitter and quicker between the wickets than most guys ten years his junior. so verstrile in his approach, amazing temprament too- on this evidence he could have a good season with pakisatn first XI. yasir did not fair too badly either, he can give the ball a decent pelt and is rapid beetween the wicket. An the 'Fan Man'-sohail tanveer, he's different and effective, his selection is a cool move.

    i reckon the enforced defeat is a blessing in disguise. my reason being

    which group would u prefer pakistan to be in,we play aus, B'desh and SriL...we have an outstanding chance to qualify for the semi's we have already beaten SriL in practice game and should start as fav's against BangD. it is a better deal then being in a group with NZ, ENG and SA!!!!!!!!

    semi's beckon i reckon God bless Pakistan.

  • Akshay on September 15, 2007, 7:13 GMT

    I perfectly agree with all the people who shared views before me, there was no need for bowl out. it was just a great game one of the bext you will ever see and tie was just the apt result. Bowl out was just sort of anti-climax even though initially Indians would have felt that they have won but inside they would know that Tie was the apt result. Pakistan missed a trick. thye should have sent afridi as opener or at 1 down, sending home at 7 defies any sense.

  • Saurabh on September 15, 2007, 7:08 GMT

    Even though a bowl-out was unnecessary in this game, I like the overall idea. I think footballers would have thought the penalty shoot-outs unnatural when it was first introduced, just as some cricket fans are finding bowl-outs absurd. I can't think of a better (or fairer) way to get a result. Also, it makes for instant heroes and villains, which suits this version of cricket. Gradually teams will come to have what would be known as bowl-out specialists (a la Uthappa) and the bowl-out contests would become very exciting. In this match Malik erred in his choice of bowlers.

    Also, what a comeback by Irfan Pathan. Although Asif was lethal with the ball, I feel Pathan should have got the MoM award for his all-round performance. It was his first over that was the turning point of the match.

  • Aly Abid on September 15, 2007, 7:06 GMT

    Indeed, Cricket was the winner, but what a drastic end to such a nail biting contest. If cricket is going to be played on such Bowl Out Rules, I really wonder if there will be a time when we see "Red Cards" and "Yellow Cards" in the game. BTW if that happens Bucknor will be quite happy....

  • Arif Hussain on September 15, 2007, 6:59 GMT

    ...Even in football, you have a goal keeper defending the goal.... In cricket, the contest is between bat and ball, so if you want a shootout, have the batsman playing at the other end. Make it a mini overtime and see who gets more runs... C'mon ICC, be progressive but get it right.

    That apart, it was a great game. India did seem the superior outfit barring Asif's excellent spell. They are fresh out of playing in seaming conditions in England, whilst Pakistan feasted their practice matches againts Minnows.

    We need to face it, our batting is weak, but more importantly, without careful planning. Butt wastes too many deliveries, Nazir should try and not go all out everyball but value his wicket. He is a decent batsman but his shot selection needs to be... well selective.

    Lastly the day the Pakistani players stop thinking themselves as Gds, perhaps will play a little better. As happy as I was watching Asif get wickets, it was very unclassy to see his demeanor once he got a wicket...

  • Rameen on September 15, 2007, 6:04 GMT

    The bowl out seemed like a joke to me.......it was an absurd end to a great contest, really we dont want to make such blunders by which a team which has played well to tie the match, looks silly when bowling to stumps, and not to batsman.

  • Jawad Arshad on September 15, 2007, 5:39 GMT

    I am in total agreement with Kamran Abbasi. What is the need of this baseless bowl out. Cricket should not be made like football or hockey.Tie is a tie. And if the authorities are so much concerned about the result a rule should have been both side given an over each to play. The side that scored that the most be declared the winner.

  • Atif Khan - Dubai on September 15, 2007, 5:31 GMT

    I think we should learn from Aussies that how they came back and outclassed England. They started the game with the plan and ended up victorious. World cup jinx continue with Pakistan as they never won any match against India in the world cup. Now we will have to face Srilanka and Newzeland. My suggestion is to Afridi should bat at number 4 and I really hope that Pakistan would also get a chance to play these two matched in a batting track wicket.

  • Aditya Mookerjee on September 15, 2007, 5:30 GMT

    The creation of T20 cricket, perhaps made it imperative, that there emerge a victor. I am convinced, that the frenetic pace, of this form of cricket, will refine cricket skills, yet further. But, I must add, that the pool of cricketers, must be enlarged in all the playing countries, who want to take the sport seriously, or the spate of injuries, and breakdowns, will increase, along with the increase in skill levels, arising out of this version, of the game.

  • zohair on September 15, 2007, 5:29 GMT

    i totally agree about the bowl out.. at first i was excited about it but when it happened, it was just an anti-climax.. though i do think the icc is goign along the right lines with the rule..

    the bowlout right now is more like a footballer shooting into a goal without a goalkeeper... the bowlout should have 5 bowlers bowling 1 delivery each - with 3 or 4 fielders - to a batsman who should hit a six or a 4, getting one or 2 points for it..

    the bowlout has a potential to be exciting but right now its more of an anticlimax... with practice, the icc should be able to perfect it..

  • Nadeem Khan on September 15, 2007, 5:21 GMT

    You are absolutly spot on here, Kamran bhai. If every match is to be decided like this, then Why not the match between INDIA and SCOTLAND. That could/should have been decided like that. For me this match is a TIE match, bowl out has just spoiled the taste of this perpetual drama.

    For me, Sohail Tanvir is a find of the day, he is a faster version of South African's Paul Adams. He should play every match, its hard to hit him in any case, so deceptive he is. To give him edge over Hafeez, v need to know about his batting ability.

    Misbah and Malik spoiled an easy match, I dont know why were they hanging out when it could be won easily?

    Another wrong entry of BOOM-BOOM???? I feel this situation just like not selecting Razzak and cutting your own feathers. Playing Afridi and not allowing him for ample time at crease, this is criminal....

    Regards... Comments are welcomed

  • Rishi on September 15, 2007, 5:10 GMT

    I agree that the teams deserved to share points after such a gripping contest. But the players should have been cognizant of the tournament rules, and it was clear that the Pakistanis hadn't practiced. I'm not defending the idea of a bowl-out to determine a winner when there is really no need to; all I'm saying is that given the rules, the Pakistanis should have prepared for it. Otherwise, what a match!

  • Amit on September 15, 2007, 5:07 GMT

    Bowl out is mockery to cricket gentleman game. Cricket won today but bowl-out made cricket bow down. Pakistan needs Hafeez and India needs Sehwag.

  • A Desi Fan on September 15, 2007, 4:58 GMT

    Well said.. in my view, the T20 officials might have thought of having a result in every game that has been played and not ruined by weather, hence copied the soccer rule. It didn't make sense though. I felt it's odd. The end result didn't matter much to me as the game itself was nail-biting entertaining which I wanted.

  • Majeed Aslam on September 15, 2007, 4:58 GMT

    India played fantastic to come back in the match. Their never give up atitude in the end should have deserved a victory ....but agarkar the only weak link in the team spoilt that chance by gving 17 runs in penultimate over...This Indian team looks good.Imagine sehwag,yuvraj did not fire...dhoni had to play restricted cos of sitation...but they still tied Pakistan.....Only weak link in Indian team is Agarkar and if Zaheer khan is in brought his place they get a striker as well as good bowler. Well played india. Same for Pakistan...they managed to make a fightof it

  • Hassan on September 15, 2007, 4:50 GMT

    In football, you have goalkeeper stopping the penalty shot. Where was the batsman in this picture? As S.Rajesh said, next thing you know, they would ask batsman to play golf shots on the ball. This the most stupidest rule I ever seen. Toss is better than this.

    Pakistan used fast bowlers out of rhythm (short starts) to bowl, they would never hit wickets. Indians were intelligent and kept it very simple.

  • Krissh on September 15, 2007, 4:22 GMT

    I think Mr Abbassi is complaining beacause Pakistan lost the match.Had his team won the match he wuld have been singin different tones. Anyways it was a real thriller!! India rightfully won it!!!

  • nikhil on September 15, 2007, 4:00 GMT

    Pakistan choked. And what is Afridi doing buried at No. 7? Ridiculous. Pathan should play at 3, drop Gambhir, play Chawla. Oh yes, drop Agarkar. Anyone but him.

  • Justin on September 15, 2007, 3:58 GMT

    I agree... it was such a joke. Why end such a game in that manner? Both teams earned that tie. To have it taken away from either is ridiculous.

  • Jefferey on September 15, 2007, 3:57 GMT

    Daft, absolutely! The scores were tied, 1 point each, leave it at that. But a Bowl Out? Why not a Field Out? Have 5 fielders marshall a 10 metre length of the boundary and then let members of the opposing team try to throw a ball past them from a distance of say, 20 metres. Sounds crazy? Not as crazy as a Bowl Out!!!

  • Mukesh on September 15, 2007, 3:16 GMT

    It is cricket not football, and rule is same for all Teams.

  • Muhammad Asif on September 15, 2007, 3:15 GMT

    Protesting at this time shows our lack of sportsmanship. The rule was already there, why you don't protested at that time? Please let us enjoy the entertaining cricket instead of ruining its beauty by going into unnecessary details at the wrong time. Hats off to all members of the team for providing us entertaning cricket, especially Misbah whose batting reminded us the great Javed Miandad. Once again thanks alot.

  • Mohsin Habib on September 15, 2007, 3:06 GMT

    What about team selection ?? Salman Butt, Ball Faced=48, Runs Scored=29, Strike Rate=60.41 Dont you think that if Muhammad Hafeez would played in place of Salman Butt, result would be different???? I think Salman Butt is misplaced for T20 matches, he is much better off as a test player.... Selection team should reconsider their selection atleast when selecting 11 players for the match.....

  • Azfar on September 15, 2007, 3:05 GMT

    This was a mockery of the cricket. I can give all credit to India to save the "facing" defeat and can claim that Pakistan was once again spineless where they also once again THE MOST unpredictable side in the cricket world and repeating these scenarios on every trip. But to give away the "win" by the most ridiculous way of bowling without a batsmen at the batting end is... what? I do not have the word to describe this!!! Any body?? Anything that would have meant at all was maybe 3 overs each once again but to bowl to naked stumps shows how immature ICC and is panel of advisors are. I do not think that Pakistan lost at all. I do not thinnk India won at all as they were with their tails up and their emotions well settled to reflect rejuvenation. Pakistan's were not. The loser was the game of Cricket and unarguably the idiots who made such a rule!

  • WASIM SAQIB on September 15, 2007, 2:28 GMT

    Indeed it was one of the most thrilling match between India and Pakistan, Pakistan could have easily won the match but thanks to Younis Khan first he ran out Kamran Akmal who was well set and was looking good and then threw away his wicket to a nothing shot amazingly when his first attempt failed to ran out kamran he repeated the same mistake/attempt immediately and succeded, In one of my earlier post I said that the weak links in the team are Younis and Imran Nazir. I hope that Hafeez should be included in the team in place of Nazir in the next match.

    Javed A khan now do you have to say any thing:

    You completely discounted Asif after one match where his performance was not that bad, and I am surprised in your latest post you haven't mentioned anything about Afridi's dismal performance if he had not been thrashed for 37 runs Pakistan would have easily won the match and I dont want to say any thing about his batting he was as poor as Imran Nazir maybe even worse as he got several chances but could not capitalize on them.I am not surprised at all on your remarks about Misbah and Salman Butt as I seldom find fairness in your remarks.

    Misbah played the innings of his life and he should get all the credit for it as he completely justified his selection.

    Pakistan team can only advance further in this tournament if they enter into the field with the right combination.Pakistan should replace Imran Nazir with Hafeez.

  • shahmeer on September 15, 2007, 1:32 GMT

    Bowl-outs are also senseless because it really isnt a "versus" game... like in a penalty shoot-out, in a single shoot a player from each of the two teams is involved (shooter from one and goalkeper from the other), and the 'chemistry' of the two decides the outcome. A bowl-out isn't a true sport because there is no interaction of the 2 teams. In theory, we could have a bowl-out game with one team playing in a certain country and the other in a different country, and then compare the hits in 5 attempts to decide the winner. You wouldn't call that a true sport. A bowl-out with both teams in the same ground is no different.

  • Bilal on September 15, 2007, 1:18 GMT

    Could not agree with you anymore Mr Abbasi. The bowl out was rather pathetic within the group stages and took the gloss of Misbahs innings.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 15, 2007, 0:30 GMT

    I think I was a yard faster than Mr. Kamran Abbassi in airing my "post match comments" in the previous thread. Because, a few minutes later Mr. Abbassi's new thread appeared on cricinfo with more or less the same substance as my last post. I think I have covered more points in detail than him. Yet I am taking this opportunity to add a few more points here to keep my ranting and raving alive and also to irk and to bore a few naths & bolts. :-)

    Like I've said the match is over and a win is a win and there shouldn't be any lamenting or brooding about the lost match. But what has Pakistan team learned from their mistakes after loosing this match? I am not sure if Henry Lawson had ever discussed this bowl-out possibility with the boys prior to this game? When he was interviewed today during the match was on, and was reminded about the fact that Pakistan has never won a match against India in the world cup, he snubbed the guy by saying, "we are aware of that and the team is aware of that." Had Pakistan won this match that comment would have gone unnoticed but now in the light of the defeat it is being viewed differently and a question arises: Henry, what have you done about it and what has the team done about it? It is not a matter of putting Lawson under the sword now but, as a matter of fact and as mere suggestion that something has to be done in this respect, a question is to be asked from the team, why does this happen in every world cup encounter with India? IF & only IF they meet again in the semis, the Pakistan team must be able to sort out this anomaly or deficiency! It is highly unlikely that India and Pakistan will meet in the semi's or in the final, but it is a possibility, therefore, they must be prepared to encounter it.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • JAVED A. KHAN, MONTREAL, CANADA on September 15, 2007, 0:30 GMT

    I think I was a yard faster than Mr. Kamran Abbassi in airing my "post match comments" in the previous thread. Because, a few minutes later Mr. Abbassi's new thread appeared on cricinfo with more or less the same substance as my last post. I think I have covered more points in detail than him. Yet I am taking this opportunity to add a few more points here to keep my ranting and raving alive and also to irk and to bore a few naths & bolts. :-)

    Like I've said the match is over and a win is a win and there shouldn't be any lamenting or brooding about the lost match. But what has Pakistan team learned from their mistakes after loosing this match? I am not sure if Henry Lawson had ever discussed this bowl-out possibility with the boys prior to this game? When he was interviewed today during the match was on, and was reminded about the fact that Pakistan has never won a match against India in the world cup, he snubbed the guy by saying, "we are aware of that and the team is aware of that." Had Pakistan won this match that comment would have gone unnoticed but now in the light of the defeat it is being viewed differently and a question arises: Henry, what have you done about it and what has the team done about it? It is not a matter of putting Lawson under the sword now but, as a matter of fact and as mere suggestion that something has to be done in this respect, a question is to be asked from the team, why does this happen in every world cup encounter with India? IF & only IF they meet again in the semis, the Pakistan team must be able to sort out this anomaly or deficiency! It is highly unlikely that India and Pakistan will meet in the semi's or in the final, but it is a possibility, therefore, they must be prepared to encounter it.

  • Bilal on September 15, 2007, 1:18 GMT

    Could not agree with you anymore Mr Abbasi. The bowl out was rather pathetic within the group stages and took the gloss of Misbahs innings.

  • shahmeer on September 15, 2007, 1:32 GMT

    Bowl-outs are also senseless because it really isnt a "versus" game... like in a penalty shoot-out, in a single shoot a player from each of the two teams is involved (shooter from one and goalkeper from the other), and the 'chemistry' of the two decides the outcome. A bowl-out isn't a true sport because there is no interaction of the 2 teams. In theory, we could have a bowl-out game with one team playing in a certain country and the other in a different country, and then compare the hits in 5 attempts to decide the winner. You wouldn't call that a true sport. A bowl-out with both teams in the same ground is no different.

  • WASIM SAQIB on September 15, 2007, 2:28 GMT

    Indeed it was one of the most thrilling match between India and Pakistan, Pakistan could have easily won the match but thanks to Younis Khan first he ran out Kamran Akmal who was well set and was looking good and then threw away his wicket to a nothing shot amazingly when his first attempt failed to ran out kamran he repeated the same mistake/attempt immediately and succeded, In one of my earlier post I said that the weak links in the team are Younis and Imran Nazir. I hope that Hafeez should be included in the team in place of Nazir in the next match.

    Javed A khan now do you have to say any thing:

    You completely discounted Asif after one match where his performance was not that bad, and I am surprised in your latest post you haven't mentioned anything about Afridi's dismal performance if he had not been thrashed for 37 runs Pakistan would have easily won the match and I dont want to say any thing about his batting he was as poor as Imran Nazir maybe even worse as he got several chances but could not capitalize on them.I am not surprised at all on your remarks about Misbah and Salman Butt as I seldom find fairness in your remarks.

    Misbah played the innings of his life and he should get all the credit for it as he completely justified his selection.

    Pakistan team can only advance further in this tournament if they enter into the field with the right combination.Pakistan should replace Imran Nazir with Hafeez.

  • Azfar on September 15, 2007, 3:05 GMT

    This was a mockery of the cricket. I can give all credit to India to save the "facing" defeat and can claim that Pakistan was once again spineless where they also once again THE MOST unpredictable side in the cricket world and repeating these scenarios on every trip. But to give away the "win" by the most ridiculous way of bowling without a batsmen at the batting end is... what? I do not have the word to describe this!!! Any body?? Anything that would have meant at all was maybe 3 overs each once again but to bowl to naked stumps shows how immature ICC and is panel of advisors are. I do not think that Pakistan lost at all. I do not thinnk India won at all as they were with their tails up and their emotions well settled to reflect rejuvenation. Pakistan's were not. The loser was the game of Cricket and unarguably the idiots who made such a rule!

  • Mohsin Habib on September 15, 2007, 3:06 GMT

    What about team selection ?? Salman Butt, Ball Faced=48, Runs Scored=29, Strike Rate=60.41 Dont you think that if Muhammad Hafeez would played in place of Salman Butt, result would be different???? I think Salman Butt is misplaced for T20 matches, he is much better off as a test player.... Selection team should reconsider their selection atleast when selecting 11 players for the match.....

  • Muhammad Asif on September 15, 2007, 3:15 GMT

    Protesting at this time shows our lack of sportsmanship. The rule was already there, why you don't protested at that time? Please let us enjoy the entertaining cricket instead of ruining its beauty by going into unnecessary details at the wrong time. Hats off to all members of the team for providing us entertaning cricket, especially Misbah whose batting reminded us the great Javed Miandad. Once again thanks alot.

  • Mukesh on September 15, 2007, 3:16 GMT

    It is cricket not football, and rule is same for all Teams.

  • Jefferey on September 15, 2007, 3:57 GMT

    Daft, absolutely! The scores were tied, 1 point each, leave it at that. But a Bowl Out? Why not a Field Out? Have 5 fielders marshall a 10 metre length of the boundary and then let members of the opposing team try to throw a ball past them from a distance of say, 20 metres. Sounds crazy? Not as crazy as a Bowl Out!!!

  • Justin on September 15, 2007, 3:58 GMT

    I agree... it was such a joke. Why end such a game in that manner? Both teams earned that tie. To have it taken away from either is ridiculous.