It is worth taking the time to carefully evaluate the batting strategy employed by the Pakistan team in the ODIs in New Zealand given that, in all likelihood, what we witnessed was the execution of a plan that will form the crux of our World Cup campaign.

It is not a radically new concept for Pakistan cricket. Start hard, progress cautiously, end strong. Many will remember it from the 1999 World Cup. The revival of this strategy has paid almost immediate dividends, a perception underscored by our series victory.

However, if viewed dispassionately, it is quite arguable that the level of risk inherent in this plan renders it practically foolhardy, if not outright suicidal.

For one thing, the efficacy of the approach being adopted by our batsmen is contingent on too many interdependent variables coming together at the same time. For the strategy to succeed, Mohammad Hafeez, Ahmed Shehzad and Kamran Akmal are required to exploit the field restrictions in the first 10 (if not 15); Misbah-ul-Haq, Younis Khan and maybe Hafeez would have to arrest the inevitable fall of wickets and bat sensibly through the middle overs; Umar Akmal, Shahid Afridi and Abdul Razzaq must be relied on for manic propulsion in the last 10 or so. If everything goes according to plan, we’re treated to a highly entertaining victory. The problem is that it is the kind of plan which is impossible to assess as it unfolds. No one can actually tell whether it is working until we cross the finish line.

For instance, the long term value of a sedate partnership of 70 or so in 15 overs between Misbah and Younis can only be apparent after our lower order is given a chance to capitalise on the launching pad presented to them. A heady start in the first 10 by our openers offers no assurance of its utility which is predicated on the composure of the middle order. With so many variables to account for, it is difficult to trust the state of the game at face value even if we appear to have our noses clearly in front. The slightest misstep in execution can swiftly convert an impending victory into an unmitigated disaster. Such a strategy is at its most vulnerable when chasing a significant total. As the underlying premise of the scheme is that the conservation of wickets by a cautious middle order would allow the lower order to finish effectively, we risk facing a rapidly mounting required run rate and heightened pressure on the hitters to do their job.

Of course, Pakistan does not make it easier for themselves by their rigid adherence to the methodology of this plan. Each batsman seems set on playing his premeditated role defined under the strategy. The openers will go for broke and seemingly abandon any hope of playing a longer innings. Younis and Misbah will make no attempt to force the pace, relying on the lower order to compensate for their limitations. Such a strict application of predetermined roles by the participants is capable of producing substandard results. Like in Napier where Afridi, Razzaq and Umar fell short (and even in Hamilton on February 3, to a lesser extent). When things do not go according to Plan A, there seems to be no fallback Plan B. We are left counting on a freak Tanvir innings or exceptional bowling to pull us through.

Again, I would urge you not to view our success in New Zealand-Pakistan series as indicative of the value of this strategy. New Zealand is a poor side with a weak bowling attack and an unsettled and out-of-sorts batting line-up. Hitting Scott Styris and Tim Southee out of the park is one thing. Trying to do the same to Dale Steyn, Lasith Malinga, Graeme Swann or Zaheer Khan is an altogether different proposition.

Given the quality of international opposition, it seems short-sighted to go into the World Cup with such an inflexible strategy. Particularly since our approach to the middle overs is anachronistic to the modern one-day game. The days when teams relied on a pinch hitter at the top to set the tone of the innings are fast disappearing with the advent of Twenty20 and the frequency of scores well over 310. Modern middle order batsmen opt to keep the runs ticking along at 6-an-over to give their sides every chance of achieving a 300 plus score. You won’t see guys like AB deVilliers & JP Duminy, Yuvraj Singh & Suresh Raina or Kumar Sangakkara & Mahela Jayawardene accumulating sluggishly. By playing risk-free yet run-scoring cricket they are also able to provision for any loss of wickets at the end.

Of course not every game calls for heroics in the middle overs, particularly if wickets have fallen at the start. But it is weird how our batsmen confuse conservatism with stability. Younis and Misbah seem incapable of regularly rotating the strike, which is stranger in Younis’s case who was an expert at the art. He needs to look no further than Jonathan Trott’s recent century as an example of a well-paced innings which relied on singles and twos and yet maintained a strike rate of above 85. A lot of people will point at Misbah’s innings in the fourth ODI as a comparison. But what if he had been dismissed while his strike rate was still 55-60? The amount of deliveries wasted in his innings may have proved the difference between victory and defeat.

The Pakistan team needs to start figuring out a Plan B for their batting especially considering that Plan A failed them miserably in 1999. To this end, it was refreshing to see Hafeez trying to bat through the innings in the third ODI. Shehzad played an awesome innings yesterday (February 3) and it bodes well for our prospects if both openers are aware that their roles in the batting order are not restricted to blazing away during the initial field restrictions. Afridi needs to be more flexible with the batting powerplay which he seems to reserve for himself, Razzaq and Umar in the end overs regardless of the state of the game. Finally, the onus must also be on Younis and Misbah to ensure that the runs do not dry up. If this task is beyond them, it is worthwhile to give Asad Shafiq an outing in the sixth ODI given that we have nothing to lose. But then, do you exclude Misbah, our test captain, or Younis, our best fielder?

Ultimately, it is a good problem to have because what it means is that after years of uncertainty at least we have a batting order which can conform to a plan, no matter how inflexible it may be. Shehzad and Hafeez have all the tools to become world class players. Razzaq, Afridi and Umar can win matches singlehandedly. In Younis and Misbah we have the assurance that the chances of a collapse may be nullified. And we haven’t even accounted for Shafiq and Kamran’s roles yet. We have the batsmen. We just need to fine-tune the blueprint.