What has changed for Pakistan under Azhar?

It doesn't take long to flip the narrative.

At the end of April, Pakistan ended up on the wrong side of a whitewash in Bangladesh. This was seen in the local press as the nadir, a "national embarrassment", the "lowest point". A decrepit system that had produced a generation that wasn't good enough - added to Pakistan's role as a pariah in cricket's accelerated evolution - had meant that they had been left behind by the rest of the world as far as the ODI game was concerned. Azhar Ali was just mini-Misbah, another of the establishment's cronies, leading Pakistan further into the depths.

Now, though, we know the truth. The only problem with Pakistan was the negative attitude of Misbah-ul-Haq / the disruptive influence of Shahid Afridi (delete as per your biases). All Pakistan needed was a middle order that could bat briskly / a lower order that could bat responsibly (delete as per your biases). And this is proved by how well Pakistan are batting now, led by Azhar - who is the captain that Misbah should have been: conservative yet still allowing his batsmen enough freedom to express themselves.

It really doesn't take long to flip the narrative.

But the trouble with all-encompassing narratives is that they risk relying on small sample sizes. Perhaps it really is the dawn of a new age for Pakistani batting, but basing that on what we have seen so far seems reductive. The question to be asked is: what has really changed?

One unprecedented change has been to Pakistan's fielding. Despite the presence of Rahat Ali and Mohammad Irfan - men who make Bambi on ice look like a Roger Federer forehand - Pakistan now have a fielding unit that can no longer be described as something more suited to being watched on a black-and-white TV. But that doesn't affect the batting or the narrative.

The other change - and the stat that is being fingered repeatedly - has been in the scores Pakistan are putting up now. Whereas 250 was widely seen as the limit of Pakistan's ambitions under Misbah, it is now par for the course. Proof, if ever it was needed that the batsmen were being held back. Pakistan are putting up big scores, the batsmen are batting faster, all is right with the world.

Yet deconstructing the numbers reveals a different picture. In Bangladesh, Pakistan scored 239 and 250 in their two ODIs batting first, in comparison to the 253 they averaged under Misbah there with the same parameters.

What followed was a home series against Zimbabwe - which really doesn't have an equivalent in the Misbah or Afridi eras; while the UAE served as a pretty decent alternative, there is no place like your actual home, as Dorothy so nearly said. Playing on pitches that you grew up on, where your performances resulted in selection for the national team, is something that is taken for granted elsewhere, but that's not the case in Pakistan (it's something Ahmer Naqvi and I have previously covered). On the odd occasion, the tracks in the Emirates were carbon copies of List A tracks in Pakistan (for instance, on the Sri Lanka tour of 2013-14, when the scoreline was 3-2 in Pakistan's favour). Thus the "change" has really been based on the four ODIs in Sri Lanka, it would seem.

Perhaps a more accurate reflection of Pakistan under Misbah, and what has actually changed, can be gathered from Pakistan's record in the UAE over the past four years. Pakistan's average score batting first under Misbah there was 246, which is neither here nor there. But delve into it a bit more and a clearer picture emerges - Pakistan's average score when they played their full quota of overs was 287; when they didn't, it was 221.

This really was the story of Pakistan under Misbah. You can sort of understand the argument that Misbah's tuk-tuk led to Pakistan's failures while chasing (an argument worth dissecting too, but on another day), but without the pressure of having to chase, Pakistan were still pretty abject with the bat. They were bowled out in 19 of their 44 matches batting first under him - their average score when they did bat 50 overs was 264, and they lost only a quarter of these matches.

In the era of capitalising on solid starts Pakistan have rarely had starts to capitalise on. When Misbah batted at four, more than a third of the time he came in with the score under 40; when he batted at five, he came in with the score under 50 nearly a third of the time. In 2013, in ODIs Pakistan had the second worst opening partnership average among Test-playing nations. In 2014 it improved all the way to sixth best.

The reason Misbah failed, the reason Afridi failed, the reason Pakistan failed all had the same root. Misbah had to come in too early, resulting in him having to curb his natural game; Afridi came in too early to be able to make best use of his death-overs expertise; Pakistan ended up being bowled out in nearly half their matches batting first.

Perhaps it's a fleeting change - one that has previously resulted in false dawns for Pakistan fans at the hands of Nasir Jamshed and Ahmed Shehzad - but it doesn't hurt to have the man with the fifth-highest List A average ever providing you with the start you have so often lacked.

Shoaib Malik, the new-old lynchpin in Pakistan's batting order, has played seven innings in his comeback now - the average score when he has strode out to bat has been 164 (the only time he came in to bat with the score under 120 is also Pakistan's only loss in this run). From the depths of 2013 and 2014, Pakistan have stumbled upon the best opening partnership average in the world this year - despite the pre-Sarfraz debacle that was the World Cup.

Thus it is correct to take issue with what Misbah did - perhaps not with his beliefs, but certainly with his conviction in those beliefs. He was accused during his time of backing Malik excessively (who played 13 consecutive ODIs from December 2012 to June 2013 - scoring no fifties and picking up two wickets) and was accused of trying to turn the national team into his all-conquering SNGPL side. Yet the "resurgence" has been led by Malik and SNGPL players.

And foremost among them has been Azhar Ali - the man who is Misbah's protégé in popular imagination, the man for whom he could fight the selection committee, the man he recommended and pushed for as his successor. While the likes of Younis, Asad Shafiq and a plethora of openers were repeatedly given rope over the last four years, despite their glut of failures, Azhar was given far fewer chances than seems defensible now. Either Misbah didn't rate him in the shorter format, or didn't have the pull to force him into the team - neither of which reflect all too well on him. Thus, while it makes sense to question Misbah the ODI captain, foremost among those questions ought to be about his exclusion of Azhar.

Alas, that doesn't really fit with the narrative on either side.