WTF with worthless duck method, losing 1.4 overs and gaining only 10 runs on the target?!?!?
Zimbabwe would have been batting towards 50 overs, not that they could have achieved much acceleration, but surely the target should have been increased by a bit more than 10 poxy runs given Chigumbura was 32no and the lower order are capable of scoring double figures - Cremer has a HS of 37, Masakadza 45no and Price 46, so no mugs with the bat.
Not that it would have troubled Pakistan either way, just seems farcical given the advantage Pakistan had of knowing their target and being able to pace themselve to 38 overs, a luxury Zimbabwe weren't afforded.
Razzaq can be very lethal as a top order batsman because he will enjoy more overs of fielding restrictions plus he will have more time to settle and play a big innings. By using him at No.8 means nothing to me, its better to add a pure bowler rather a batsman at this position.
I tend to agree, a batsman of Razzaq's ability is wasted at eight. He averages 30.00 with the bat in ODIs, 32.11 with the ball, most interesting is the breakdown by where he bats.
Open : 77 runs @ 25.67
No 3 : 740 runs @ 28.46 (100 x1)
No 4 : 25 runs @ 12.50
No 5 : 199 runs @ 49.75
No 6 : 826 runs @ 29.50 (100 x1)
No 7 : 2004 runs @ 32.85 (100 x1)
No 8 : 1046 runs @ 29.06
No 9 : 77 runs @ 11.00
No 10 : 46 runs @ 46.00
No 11 : 0no
1-4 : 842 runs @ 27.16 (100 x1, 50 x5)
5-7 : 3029 runs @ 32.57 (100 x2, 50 x13)
8-11 : 1169 runs @ 26.57 (100 x0, 50 x5)
His average at eight is massively boosted by 15 not outs in 51 innings, he scores only 18.56 runs average per innings batting eight or below. He has scored five 50s at number eight, but he's scored nine 50s and a hundred at seven and scored nearly double the number of runs in about 1.5 times the number of innings.
