Beyond the Boundary: "Where are the Superstars?!"

[kingusama92]

Pakistan cricket has generally been known as a cauldron full of individualistic personalities and star power. Players have won over the hearts and imaginations of millions of Pakistani fans over the years. There were stars like Imran Khan and Javed Miandad in the 80s, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in the 90s and Inzamam ul Haq, Mohammad Yousuf and Shoaib Akhtar in the early 00s. These personalities were able to tug on the heartstrings of their supporters and bring about fervent support. This leads us to the main question, where have these superstars gone? Pakistan cricket has always been mightily inconsistent in winning, but never in producing personalities and superstars.

There has been a clear shift in mindsets as the years have gone on. Controversy after controversy has chipped away at Pakistan. There was a point where people would be popping up on forums asking, “So what’s the controversy today?” There was often a humorous tone behind these questions, but they had a gloomy realism about them. The current team mindset revolves around a more unified and level headed group. This has been established by captain Misbah ul haq all the way down to the bench warmers.

The lack of ‘superstardom’ can somewhat be attributed to fate due to the spot-fixing controversy. Mohammad Amir was budding into a superstar that was for long desired. He was a young fast bowling prodigy like many before who had successfully won over Pakistani fans, yet it was not to be with his unfortunate lapse in judgment.

There are a few who will question a severe lack of ‘Shahid Afridi’ in this piece. Questions of ‘well, isn’t Afridi a superstar?’ will legitimately crop up. Yes, Shahid Afridi is quite the enigma with a personal fan base that is as passionate as can be. Rightly so, he has the charm and personality equal to any other player in the game. I would go as far and say he’s the most charming player in the game. Yet, having a bright personality does not equate to being a superstar. When we talk about superstars, we talk about the entire package. This player is someone who wins the hearts with both his consistent performances and off field charisma. Afridi has often lacked in the latter, while being enriched with the former.

From the current lot, there are a lot of respectable players. Individuals who will do everything for the team cause without thinking twice. These are the heart and soul players that win matches and series. No one can doubt the capabilities of such a cohesive team and it should not be taken lightly. However, to be a top side in the game, there has to be some star power in the side. Pakistan after a long time is lacking a true duo/trio of superstar players. It is a unique position to be in, one we are not used to. At the moment, Saeed Ajmal is the only superstar player in the side. A player who can dominate all formats of the game with equal prowess and has earned respect from his opponents.

Saeed Ajmal deserves to be applauded for his services as a Pakistani cricketer. There are few that are as passionate as him towards the betterment of Pakistani cricket. He wants to win and he wants to win big. This is the way he carries himself and it shows in his game. He can be chalked up as one of the finest spinners produced by Pakistan. Yet, the question remains is there no one besides him? Why are we lacking in these stars? Surely, there were more in the tank other than Mohammad Amir and Saeed Ajmal?!

Younus Khan is another name who will garner interest and rightly so. He is a spectacular player and a revered personality. In test matches, he has to be chalked up as a superstar for Pakistan. There is no doubting his legendary status as a batsman in that form of the sport. Yet, he’s just not good enough for ODIs and T20s. There is no superstar charm about him in those formats and it hurts his credibility as a superstar. The purists will state, ‘tests are all that matter’, but reality suggests otherwise. ODIs and T20s cannot be discarded; they are a part of the sport and will remain so for a long time. It’s time to accept this and learn to judge our players across all three formats. Tests should be one format to judge superstars, but a player should be good in at least one of the other two.

Umar Akmal is a young talent that had a lot to offer and still does. Yet, he is miles away from even become a regular in the test side. He is a superstar talent, but someone who has not put it all together. He might be a project that can be worked upon for the betterment of Pakistan’s cricket. Unfortunately, there is a lot to learn for the young man otherwise he will come nowhere close. Umar Akmal is a player that can become Pakistan’s next superstar standing beside Saeed Ajmal.

Why all this hoopla for superstars? All the great teams of the world have superstars. It’s just the way it is in cricket. You need those stars who can put you above and beyond the competition. There is no need to list the names in the Windies (80s) or Aussies (00s). They had superstars galore. Let’s take a look at recent top sides and adjudge the superstars in their sides.

Australia: Shane Watson, Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke
England: Kevin Pieterson, James Anderson, Graeme Swann
South Africa: Jacques Kallis, Dale Steyn, Ab De Villers, Hashim Amla, Graeme Smith
India: Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir
Sri Lanka: Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara

All of these sides are packed with stars. Pakistan does not have that type of star power and will continue to trudge along until we see a new crop. All credit should be given to the current Pakistani side for their excellence on the field. The current players are part of a splendid unit that works hard. Will they forge their way to the number one ranking? Without a few superstars alongside Ajmal, this won’t be the case. Will those stars emerge from the current lot or will they have to be developed? This is the question left for us to ponder and selectors to figure out.

[Ayyubjavvs]

Who cares about superstars or stars? Completely subjective and irrelevant. What's wrong for example with having moderately talented or comparably slightly limited and not-that-popular but effective players? Somebody like Ijaz Ahmed, Aamer Sohail, Arshad Khan, Abdul Razzaq, Abdur Rehman, Umar Gul, even Misbah-ul-Haq have each been effective pmembers of Pakistan;'s team even if not the most spectacular or eyecatching

However putting aside the arbitrary "superstar" tag which doesn't mean much imho, I thing South Africa have the most high-quality players in the world. Steyn, Smith, Amla, Kallis, de Villiers...also promising players lieke Morkel, Peterson, Rudolph & Philander


I do not like to hype up youngsters too much but I feel that InshaAllah, some of Pakistan's U19 crop like Babar Azam can be brilliant players

[Ayyubjavvs]

When we talk about superstars, we talk about the entire package. This player is someone who wins the hearts with both his consistent performances and off field charisma. Afridi has often lacked in the latter, while being enriched with the former.

I think you meant to say opposite to this? Afridi has off field charisma but is a little inconsistent

[Saqs]

Have thought the same ever since the late '90s to be honest.

I guess this is more accentuated when you're not living in Pakistan, and you're living abroad. You figure out what other people's perception is of your team. We no longer have those 'household' names that were commonplace on tongues here in Aus - the Moins, the Mushtaqs, the Shoaibs, the Anwars, the ul-Haqs.

Hell, there was a point in time where our team sheet would read something like Sohail, Anwar, Ijaz, Inzi, Moin, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain, Mushtaq, with Razzaq and Mahmood in the wings. Rattling that off just gives you goosebumps.

The lack of superstars could be due to a number of reasons:

a) cautious approach by team selection committee to select individuals with little ego/bravado (hence ommission of someone like Ahmed Shehzad?)

b) over-coaching which hinders the natural flair of an individual and thereby renders him a 'manufactured' player amongst many others

c) lack of leadership up top a la Imran who have faith in their ability to discern talent from rubbish and the confidence to back that talent no matter what.

Whether or not we need them anymore is the question. I would say - a resounding Yes.

I watch Pakistan cricket, to watch Pakistan win, but ultimately, to be entertained.


Btw - side-note - Kohli, Dhoni and Sachin are India's superstar, not Gambhir/Sehwag.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Saqib S Btw - side-note - Kohli, Dhoni and Sachin are India's superstar, not Gambhir/Sehwag.

I was doing it based off my criteria of being good in tests.

Otherwise, yes Kohli is a definite superstar. Dhoni is a great player and super star in the shorter forms, but lacks in tests.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs Who cares about superstars or stars? Completely subjective and irrelevant. What's wrong for example with having moderately talented or comparably slightly limited and not-that-popular but effective players? Somebody like Ijaz Ahmed, Aamer Sohail, Arshad Khan, Abdul Razzaq, Abdur Rehman, Umar Gul, even Misbah-ul-Haq have each been effective pmembers of Pakistan;'s team even if not the most spectacular or eyecatching.

It's been proven, teams do not stay number one without superstars. Pakistan won't be at the top with the likes of Umar Gul and Abdur Rehman.

These guys are excellent supplementary players to put around a core of 'superstars'.

On their own, they get exposed or become inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong, hard working teams are a lovely sight as a Pakistani fan. We haven't had too many of those over the years. It was always a conglomerate of individual talents.

However, to conquer and dominate you need that star power. We are nowhere close to reaching that stage.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs I think you meant to say opposite to this? Afridi has off field charisma but is a little inconsistent

Of course.

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 It's been proven, teams do not stay number one without superstars. Pakistan won't be at the top with the likes of Umar Gul and Abdur Rehman. These guys are excellent supplementary players to put around a core of 'superstars'. On their own, they get exposed or become inconsistent. Don't get me wrong, hard working teams are a lovely sight as a Pakistani fan. We haven't had too many of those over the years. It was always a conglomerate of individual talents. However, to conquer and dominate you need that star power. We are nowhere close to reaching that stage.

Yea but how is for example a 50-plus scorer like Younus Khan not a superstar? Or a consistent Misbah? Is it coz they're unpopular? There have been countless unpopular but great players thru history, that's where the terms underrated are there for. They can be great matchwinners without being superstars

What defines a superstar or a star? Pakistan in 2003 WC had a team with lots of superstars like Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Inzamam but crashed out. Pakistan in 2011 WC only really had Akhtar and Ajmal who both missed a lot of games as far as superstars went but we had a lot of fine useful but not great players also contributing

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs Yea but how is for example a 50-plus scorer like Younus Khan not a superstar? Or a consistent Misbah? Is it coz they're unpopular? There have been countless unpopular but great players thru history, that's where the terms underrated are there for. They can be great matchwinners without being superstars What defines a superstar or a star? Pakistan in 2003 WC had a team with lots of superstars like Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Inzamam but crashed out. Pakistan in 2011 WC only really had Akhtar and Ajmal who both missed a lot of games as far as superstars went but we had a lot of fine useful but not great players also contributing

Younus is a test superstar. I stated that in my article. He's not an all round superstar as he's average in ODIs and abysmal in T20s.

Misbah is an enigma. It is perhaps unfair of me to not label him a 'superstar'. I'll give you that.

That team in 2003 WC had two aging superstars, though. Wasim and Waqar were just names at that point. Throw in some dressing room controversies and it was an outright mess.

Superstars are someone who are consistent in at least tests and ODIs. A player who is right up there with the best in the world in these two formats.

[Raz]

Only someone who can make significant match-winning contributions should be considered as a superstar and vice versa. Rather than superstar surely we should ask: "Where are the match-winners?"

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by Raz Only someone who can make significant match-winning contributions should be considered as a superstar and vice versa. Rather than superstar surely we should ask: "Where are the match-winners?"

Yeah the term superstar is kind of strange in my opinion but I see the writer's point, I guess he is referring to match winners.

[JellyBro]

well you can't be a superstar unless you are also a match winner.

[withlovefrom vizag]

wat??
You guys have Shahid Afridi

[withlovefrom vizag]

SouthAfrica : 5 superstars

and India has only 3 ?? and without MSD!!!!!!

[Bullet Drive]

Afridi, Umar, Riaz & Ajmal - the superstars left.. Misbah is no superstar.

[Akmal Dynasty]

Afridi is popular but he is no superstar.

The only superstar in current team is umar akmal.

[GujjarSher]

Amir, Asif and Butt really were going to be the superstars of our team. All had talent and charisma, would've become household names easily, especially Amir. The three of them leaving left a pretty big vacuum and that was filled by older and more mature cricketers like Misbah and Younis Khan. Players like them will never be "superstars" because they lack personality, but I think Pakistan was very fortunate to have them around to stabilize the team and calm everything down. If someone like Misbah had a big personality and talked a lot, I'm not sure if he would've lasted or if Pakistan would've done well under him. We needed a quiet and mature presence after the spot-fixing mess.

I think in some ways our team is a reflection of our society as well. Pakistan of today is very different from the Pakistan of Imran Khan and Wasim/Waqar's days. I've read interviews recently with Wasim Akram who said that he would like the Pakistan team to go out more and not be so reserved. Afridi even said that the dressing room atmosphere is much different from when he first started playing. All this comes down to Pakistani society becoming much more religious and reserved than it used to be. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to heavy anti-Western sentiment in Pakistan, and that rejection of Western culture is an ongoing phenomenon that has had to have affected even our cricketers.

All that said, Pakistan has a huge population, and it really is only a matter of time before the next tearaway fast bowler or the next big hitter emerges. Our superstars will come... Spot-fixing mess robbed us of them, but I'm confident we will sooner or later find the exciting talent that we all love to see.

[Marshland]

*small voice from across the room*

New Zealand: Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum, Daniel Vettori

Carry on boys.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Marshland *small voice from across the room* New Zealand: Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum, Daniel Vettori Carry on boys.

I was just listing teams that have been at the top recently.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by withlovefrom vizag SouthAfrica : 5 superstars and India has only 3 ?? and without MSD!!!!!!

MSD is not a super star. He's below average in tests, which was a criteria in my article.

He's a terrific limited overs player and in those formats, he's a star. However, you should be good in tests to warrant such status.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs Yeah the term superstar is kind of strange in my opinion but I see the writer's point, I guess he is referring to match winners.

Same thing.

Superstars = match winners. I haven't seen too many super stars who aren't match winners.

It is assumed a superstar is good enough to be a match winner for his team. Otherwise, what is the point of being a superstar?

[freelance_cricketer]

I do not think Pakistan lacks superstars, potential superstars. You've just been awful at handling them. Apart from internationally acclaimed players like Amir, Asif, Ajmal you have/had many other blokes with the potential to reach the same level. Players like Salman Butt, Umar Gul, Umar Akmal, Kamran Akmal, Shabbir Ahmed etc all had the talent to be regular superstars of World Cricket. You have just failed to nurture them. The supply of talent so far has been good enough if not very good even in the tough phase that Pakistan is going through. I'd put the blame on PCB and the senior players of the past. They were greats but i would say they very much failed to play the role that seniors are supposed to play. Seniors are the pillars of great teams, they keep the team united and guide youngsters. They are not supposed to leave national team for a rebel T20 league and take oath etc. That just ruins the harmony and in that kind of environment, even the best of talent fails to emerge. This is just like regular life, if the family is a mess it has it's negative affect on the children's grades. That's precisely been the problem in Pakistan Cricket IMO. All the talent is there but the environment ruins it. So a big thumb down to Pak seniors.

















PS, Dhoni IS a superstar.

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 Same thing. Superstars = match winners. I haven't seen too many super stars who aren't match winners. It is assumed a superstar is good enough to be a match winner for his team. Otherwise, what is the point of being a superstar?

For instance I meant what about a matchwinner who isn't a superstar? I would cvertainly classify Ijaz Ahmed, Moin Khan, Abdul Razzaq, Abdur Rehman, Aamer Sohail, Aaqib Javed, etc as matchwinners who are NOT supersars. It's aartange term reminds me of WWF/WWE

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by Bullet Drive Afridi, Umar, Riaz & Ajmal - the superstars left.. Misbah is no superstar.

I am a fan of all these players but if Misbah isn't a superstar then neither are Afridi, Akmal or Riaz (though they are all immensely talented and have the ability for it). Shocking double standards again. You complain about people ignoring Umar's contributions yet you blatantly ignore Misbah's

[munda_khi]

i don't agree with this point that a team can only get to top when it has super stars. we have a number of super stars in mid 90's but we never get to the Top. there can't be bigger stars then wasin akram, waqar younus, saqlain mushtaq, shoaib akhtar, inzimamul haq, saeed anwar. to me a team who may not have stars but can play as a unit and fight hard and get results is more appealing then a team full of super stars and egos.

[Bilal7]

Well written article. One thing that I want to say is that even though the current Pakistan team does not have a lot of superstars, they will be remembered for a long time because they are different. No egos, no politics, no controversies but some very good performances.

I would rate Ajmal, Azhar and Misbah as superstars or semi-superstars from the current lot.

[Bullet Drive]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs I am a fan of all these players but if Misbah isn't a superstar then neither are Afridi, Akmal or Riaz (though they are all immensely talented and have the ability for it). Shocking double standards again. You complain about people ignoring Umar's contributions yet you blatantly ignore Misbah's

A match winner/superstar is the same thing. I don't really count Misbah as a match winner therefore he is no superstar. He isn't some one you'd go out to watch. You wouldn't go buy tickets for a game because Misbah is playing but you would if an Ajmal/Umar/Afridi is playing.

Afridi is a proven match winner. He's the sort of player who can turn a match on its head. He's had some incredible performances in the past. He is a superstar. He's a world wide superstar. Misbah isn't.

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by Bullet Drive A match winner/superstar is the same thing. I don't really count Misbah as a match winner therefore he is no superstar. He isn't some one you'd go out to watch. You wouldn't go buy tickets for a game because Misbah is playing but you would if an Ajmal/Umar/Afridi is playing. Afridi is a proven match winner. He's the sort of player who can turn a match on its head. He's had some incredible performances in the past. He is a superstar. He's a world wide superstar. Misbah isn't.

What about the players I brought up in Post 23? They're terrific matchwinners but not so-called superstars. The superstar label is very weird and arbitrary, we don't need superstars we need solid players & matchwinners. Their popularity/fan appeal has nothing to do with it

Anyway, I would definitely go out of my way to watch Misbah he is a clean hitter and a solid batsman, plus u never know which Misbah (blocker or hitter) will turn up. With Afriid u know he'll approach every situation the same way

[LastLaugh_PK]

I'd rather watch a 'non superstar' Misbah trying to guts it out than a 'superstar' Afridi who has a brain fart everytime the situation gets tough. Afridi is just a glorified mediocre slogger who hardly does anything. Performing once in ten matches should not be enough reason for a pathetic player to be in the team.

[Pakistaniboy]

Originally Posted by LastLaugh_PK I'd rather watch a 'non superstar' Misbah trying to guts it out than a 'superstar' Afridi who has a brain fart everytime the situation gets tough. Afridi is just a glorified mediocre slogger who hardly does anything. Performing once in ten matches should not be enough reason for a pathetic player to be in the team.

Did you even read the article?

[LastLaugh_PK]

Originally Posted by Pakistaniboy Did you even read the article?

I did.. I was replying to the posters above me..

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by munda_khi i don't agree with this point that a team can only get to top when it has super stars. we have a number of super stars in mid 90's but we never get to the Top. there can't be bigger stars then wasin akram, waqar younus, saqlain mushtaq, shoaib akhtar, inzimamul haq, saeed anwar. to me a team who may not have stars but can play as a unit and fight hard and get results is more appealing then a team full of super stars and egos.

Trust me, I completely agree with your point in essence.

However, looking at the teams who have reached number 1, they all are built by super stars/ match winners.

Look at all those teams I listed in the article. Look at those names. They are super stars. Pakistan will have to compile a similar list of players before going for number 1.

Even if we touch that number 1 spot with our current team, it will not last for long. There is no sustainable consistency without having those big game players. Bits and pieces only get you so far before there is a need for individual talent to shine.

[faisee]

good is this

[Ayyubjavvs]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 Trust me, I completely agree with your point in essence. However, looking at the teams who have reached number 1, they all are built by super stars/ match winners. Look at all those teams I listed in the article. Look at those names. They are super stars. Pakistan will have to compile a similar list of players before going for number 1. Even if we touch that number 1 spot with our current team, it will not last for long. There is no sustainable consistency without having those big game players. Bits and pieces only get you so far before there is a need for individual talent to shine.

What about the likes of Abdur Rehman and Abdul Razzaq and Aamer Sohail and Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali and Younus Khan even Misbah-ul-Haq or Mohammad Hafeez? These chaps contribute and sometimes turn matches (likee in the 72 all out Test) but they don't have that star fanbase and we're doing perfectly well without it.

[munda_khi]

Originally Posted by kingusama92 Trust me, I completely agree with your point in essence. However, looking at the teams who have reached number 1, they all are built by super stars/ match winners. Look at all those teams I listed in the article. Look at those names. They are super stars. Pakistan will have to compile a similar list of players before going for number 1. Even if we touch that number 1 spot with our current team, it will not last for long. There is no sustainable consistency without having those big game players. Bits and pieces only get you so far before there is a need for individual talent to shine.

you have a valid point that both west indies of 80's and australia of '00 have number of super stars. they were the only teams who maintained there #1 status for long time.
but on the other hand india also has super stars (atleast in batting) but they just fall apart. it seems more or less same will happen to england.
on the other hand you cannot produce super stars, they just born with it. none of the wasim akram, waqar younus, saqlain mushtaq etc were coached or trained, they have that natural thing in them. so yes super stars are always welcome, but life don't stop if we don't find them. a team not having stars but playing as a unit and winning most of its matches is the first step.

[munda_khi]

Originally Posted by Bullet Drive A match winner/superstar is the same thing. I don't really count Misbah as a match winner therefore he is no superstar. He isn't some one you'd go out to watch. You wouldn't go buy tickets for a game because Misbah is playing but you would if an Ajmal/Umar/Afridi is playing. Afridi is a proven match winner. He's the sort of player who can turn a match on its head. He's had some incredible performances in the past. He is a superstar. He's a world wide superstar. Misbah isn't.

i think now we are talking about charisma. we see people leaving the ground as soon as afridi gets out although in the end we still won the match. what that means is they don't care about the result of match. i agree that some people have that aura with them that people just follow them. not necessarily that they are also performers of highest order.
people won't go to watch musbah but misbah has very important contributions for our recent surge. afridi may won us matches single handedly once a year but all the other wins were result of solid contributions by normal (as oppose to super stars) players.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by Ayyubjavvs What about the likes of Abdur Rehman and Abdul Razzaq and Aamer Sohail and Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali and Younus Khan even Misbah-ul-Haq or Mohammad Hafeez? These chaps contribute and sometimes turn matches (likee in the 72 all out Test) but they don't have that star fanbase and we're doing perfectly well without it.

Are we number one because of them? Nope, we are sitting in number 4.

The likes of Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq might turn into super stars, but that is not the case right now.

My point is being made for what will lead to a consistent number one position.

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by munda_khi you have a valid point that both west indies of 80's and australia of '00 have number of super stars. they were the only teams who maintained there #1 status for long time. but on the other hand india also has super stars (atleast in batting) but they just fall apart. it seems more or less same will happen to england. on the other hand you cannot produce super stars, they just born with it. none of the wasim akram, waqar younus, saqlain mushtaq etc were coached or trained, they have that natural thing in them. so yes super stars are always welcome, but life don't stop if we don't find them. a team not having stars but playing as a unit and winning most of its matches is the first step.

Indeed, but even the teams that 'touched' number one over the past few years have had stars.

At the moment, it seems you need those big players to even reach the top position. Holding onto that spot comes later, of course.

Yes, talent is natural. Although, my main issue is with what is done to the talent by coaches. These upcoming players should be pushed towards the right direction instead of being forced into changing. Give them the best opportunity to become super stars. Do not change them into something they are not.

I think the number one status is achieved in a few steps. First, you build a strong unit of players. Just a team that plays well together and can win a few series (we've been in this spot for a while). Next, you have some budding super stars arrive and develop leading to a rise in the rankings. Once, these super stars hit their peak, you hit the number one ranking. It has been the same for all teams that have reached the number one status in the past decade or so.