By the end of the 18th over of the second Twenty20 match against South Africa, Pakistan had managed to crawl to a 100 runs. The ineptness of achieving this milestone was summed up by an embarrassing stat that flashed across the bottom of the screen. Apparently, we had taken the longest time to score a 100 runs in all Twenty20s. That is quite a dubious distinction, particularly after the heady days of being world champions in this particular format. What is frustrating is how inevitable the state of affairs was, given the make-up of our team and the limitations inherent in three of our top-order batsmen. I have no problems with losing. As a seasoned Pakistan cricket follower I have come to terms with regular defeats. I accept them, even the insipid ones, because I convince myself that the rare triumphs we do enjoy are all the more sweeter due to our string of failures.

However, what I won’t stand for, what I simply cannot tolerate, is the sort of loss brought about by the selection of players who can only ever aspire to mediocrity. Losing is one thing but providing the opposition with the keys to our demise is another.

One of the most misleading conclusions the selectors can arrive at from a summary of the stats of the two games is that Misbah-ul-Haq, by virtue of being our highest run-getter of the series, was relatively our best batsman. The sheer short-sightedness of this misconception is frightening as Misbah crafted the sort of knocks that aren’t designed to engineer a recovery but maintain the status quo. Misbah has long been a spent force in this format and it is unclear why the captaincy of the Test squad seemed to justify his inclusion in the polar opposite format of the game at the expense of a Fawad Alam or even an Asad Shafiq.

Let us move on to the next culprit. I have made a sort of resentful peace with Imran Farhat pretending to be a Test opener. A man who scores 30 odd runs every other Test match, punctuated by a half-century in every other series does not qualify for being a Test opener. However, most of the openers we have tried over the last few years couldn’t deliver even that. Undoubtedly it would take no more than an average player to replace him, but until such a saviour comes along I’m willing to put up with Farhat’s meagre offerings.

However, Farhat as a limited-overs player is completely out of his depth. It is fairly easy to see why. Farhat has “blossomed” (by his standards) into a semi-reliable Test opener due to his willingness to eschew his daft aggressive tendencies, knuckle down and attempt to play a steady hand or, at the very least, exercise a level of judiciousness in his stroke selection. In the limited overs format he abandons his Test philosophy and reverts to his natural attacking self. The problem here is that Farhat’s talent does not match his ambition. He can practice his expansive strokes all day and night if it makes him feel like a stud, but it should be fairly obvious that when the umpire calls play in a limited overs game, he does not possess the ability to execute his plans.

The answer here is not for Farhat to play sensible cricket. It’s for the selectors to wake up and realize that he is not fit for the shorter format of the game. We gain nothing by Farhat transferring his Test average and strike rate to the ODI or T20 arena. Farhat’s role is to be explosive and take advantage of the field restrictions and he has no place in the team if he is unable to fill that role.

A lot of people are convinced that Shahzaib Hasan is the man up to that role. Ramiz Raja has been harping on about Shahzaib’s tenacity and I have been hearing the hype for the last six months or so. I have seen some of his exploits on a local sports channel. Sure, he can hit a cricket ball. But so could Farhat in the ICL. Yes he has scored a boatload of runs in the domestic circuit. But so did Hassan Raza and Faisal Iqbal in their time but you don’t see the critics arguing for their inclusion in the Wisden All-Time World XI.

I can’t fault the selectors for giving Shahzaib a try since he made a case for his inclusion through the appropriate channel. Shoddy technique and unpreparedness for international bowling notwithstanding, he has scored prolifically in the first-class circuit and deserves a spot in the side if one was available. It was, he got it, and fell short. He was given a decent run of matches but nothing in his performances remotely suggested that he should occupy an integral position in the batting line-up at the expense of someone more (or equally) capable. There is not much time left for the World Cup and we need to decide who can carry the attack to the opposition in the first 10 overs, and Shahzaib doesn’t seem like the man to me.

Replacing Misbah or Farhat or Shahzaib does not guarantee a sudden change in our fortunes. This is still a fairly weak batting line up and any replacements can’t be expected to perform miracles within a couple of games. However, until we do find the right combination, we should at least be willing to forego the players who we know to be the key architects of our repeated demise.