By Sadiq Mohammad
I want to begin with the issue of captaincy. In my view, Salman Ali Agha’s leadership needs serious reconsideration. Captaincy is not only about leading from the front with the bat; it is about reading the game, understanding match situations and making bold but calculated decisions under pressure. I feel that in the recent match against Sri Lanka, the tactical awareness required at key moments was missing.
Salman is a technically sound, basic-style batsman. He plays proper cricketing shots and is more suited to building an innings rather than forcing the pace. That is precisely why I question his role at No3 in T20 cricket. The No3 position in this format demands adaptability, the ability to accelerate immediately if a wicket falls early or to stabilize and rotate strike if the openers have provided a strong platform. Instead of playing his natural game of controlled stroke play and strike rotation, he appeared to chase a high strike rate, which does not complement his strengths.
As captain, one must also rise above personal preferences. Team selection and batting order should be based purely on roles and match requirements, not on familiarity or favoritism. Fakhar Zaman, for instance, has scored the majority of his T20 runs as an opener. His record clearly shows that he is most effective at the top of the order, where he can utilize the fielding restrictions. We must play players where they are most productive.
Personally, I believe that Pakistan should consider appointing Babar Azam as white-ball captain again. He remains one of our most technically accomplished batsmen and understands the rhythm of ODI and T20 cricket. Leadership in limited-overs cricket demands calmness, clarity and consistency — qualities Babar has demonstrated over time.
Now, coming to the match situation itself, Pakistan had two realistic qualification scenarios going into the game against Sri Lanka. The first was an outright dominant win that would significantly boost net run rate. The second was to restrict Sri Lanka to a considerably lower total than ours — ideally creating a margin large enough to keep semi-final hopes alive. These scenarios required precise planning and execution.
For the first time in the tournament, Pakistan got a strong opening partnership, crossing the 100-run mark. That was the perfect foundation. Fakhar Zaman played an outstanding innings but his dismissal shifted the momentum. From that moment, the responsibility was on the captain and coaching staff to control the next phase carefully.
The decision to send Shadab Khan at that stage did not work. In my opinion, when a set batsman like Farhan was at the crease approaching a century, the priority should have been to preserve wickets and ensure he faced the bulk of deliveries in the final overs. The incoming batsman’s role should have been simple: rotate strike, play proper ground shots and give Farhan the strike.
Farhan played a magnificent innings and completed his century, but after reaching the landmark, he lost his wicket attempting an ambitious shot. That was the turning point. In the last four overs, we needed calculated aggression — eight to ten runs per over through intelligent cricket, not reckless hitting. Instead, the shot selection resembled street cricket. We failed to push the total to what I believe should have been around 245 or more, which would have put Sri Lanka under far greater pressure.
The coaching staff must also take responsibility. In modern cricket, communication from the dressing room is constant. Clear instructions should have been relayed: who takes strike, what scoring areas to target, how to manage the last over. Setting a target is an art. Chasing is an art. Our batsmen must be trained specifically for death-over scenarios — how to manipulate the field, how to run smart singles and how to calculate risk.
On the bowling side, our line and length lacked discipline. Too many short deliveries were bowled, allowing Sri Lankan batsmen to play pull and hook shots comfortably. In pressure situations, yorkers and full-length deliveries are far more effective. A bowler like Shaheen Afridi has the ability to execute yorkers consistently. In crucial overs, I would have preferred to see him bowl fuller and straighter rather than offering hittable lengths.
Ultimately, I also hold the openers partially accountable. When you get a strong start, you must convert it into a commanding total. One big partnership is not enough; one batsman must carry the innings deep.
Pakistan cricket needs clarity of roles, better tactical awareness and stronger leadership. Batting coaches must teach players how to build towards 250 in ODIs and how to calculate targets in T20 cricket. Bowlers must understand match-ups and lengths under pressure. And above all, the captain must read the game two overs ahead, not react after momentum has shifted.
Talent has never been our problem. Execution and decision-making at critical moments remain our biggest challenges.
Note: Sadiq Mohammad is a former Pakistan Test opener.
