Sarfaraz vs Rizwan: Pakistan's self-inflicted conundrum

There are certain issues that start off with legitimate debate. But, much like political allegiances - or the supposed superiority of biriyani over pulao - they soon cease to be about what is true. What matters is how they make you feel, and before too long, you've fed off your side of the argument enough that it becomes almost impossible to make the distinction. Even facts sound partisan; every phrase is parsed over with a fine-tooth comb, and all debate is just heckling from across two sides of a fence that can no longer be pulled down.

Which brings us nicely to Sarfaraz Ahmed vs Mohammad Rizwan, particularly about which of the two should line up on Boxing Day in the starting XI for Pakistan. The issue has been thrown into sharper focus following the first Test in Perth, where Sarfaraz was perhaps the least effective performer, aggregating the fewest runs for any batter across both sides. Though his wicketkeeping was, for the most part, solid, there was a crucial stumping chance missed off part-time spinner Agha Salman, with centurion David Warner the man reprieved.

Much earlier, when Australia were on the rampage in the game's first session, Usman Khawaja skied one that first slip rather than wicketkeeper charged after only to shell it; there is an argument Sarfaraz could have tried to chase after that. The data suggests slip fielders are twice as likely to drop catches as wicketkeepers, a measure of the advantage gloves offer.

None of this is analysis by hindsight. Before Perth, who took the gloves for Pakistan was one of the most pressing questions, its urgency only matching their resolute refusal to engage with the debate. Team director and coach Mohammad Hafeez had talked up Rizwan's ability as a fielder, seemingly flirting with the idea of playing him as a specialist batter. On the day before the Test, Shan Masood said Pakistan still hadn't made up their mind, even, somewhat curiously, saying the side didn't know who would keep if both of them played.

Perhaps the very idea that there was uncertainty was an affront to Sarfaraz's backers. Two Tests back, he had been Pakistan's hero and saviour in the fading light of his hometown Karachi's National Stadium, an epic 118 saving Pakistan from a certain series defeat. In the other three innings that series, he had scored three half-centuries, and he was named Player of the Series. Between then and now, Pakistan only played a two-Test series in Sri Lanka, where Sarfaraz had to be replaced by Rizwan early in the second Test after suffering a concussion ducking into a short ball from Asitha Fernando. Before that, he had scored 17 and 1 in the first Test.

And therein lay the problem. Anyone can sustain a hit to the head anywhere, but getting concussed in Sri Lanka is optically not the best way to assuage doubts about one's ability to play the short ball. That he lasted just 22 balls and scored seven runs while Mitchell Starc set him up beautifully on a fiery Perth surface in each innings wasn't a surprise to anyone who has followed his career since he made his debut in this very country nearly 14 years ago in January 2010, scoring 1 and 5.

"Sarfaraz is not new to Australia," Hafeez said after the Perth defeat. "He's played in Australia, England and South Africa before, so you can't say he's new here and couldn't adjust."

Hafeez then pushed back against the very idea of batters being suited to specific conditions. "Yes, he couldn't perform as well as we expect from him as a batter or keeper, but to doubt someone's skills and to label them as someone who can only perform in a limited set of conditions is not right."

Statistics, however, continue to have the temerity to say exactly that. In the time since, Sarfaraz struggling for runs on surfaces in Australia - and to a similar degree in South Africa - has become something of a theme. In ten innings in Australia, he now has 239 runs averaging 29.87. It includes Pakistan's tour in 2016-17 where, when Sarfaraz was at his peak with bat and behind the gloves, he came away with plenty of credit, reaching double-figures in all six innings and scoring two half-centuries.

Extend that record to include South Africa, and the average drops to 21.70 in 22 innings. His last tour there was egregious enough that it led to him losing his job as Test captain and being dumped from the Test side for almost four years - he had three ducks in six innings. Though he also scored two half-centuries, his other scores in these two countries over the last seven Tests read: 0, 0, 6, 0, 3, 4.

And while hard wicketkeeping numbers are more elusive, it's not as if Sarfaraz's keeping is what's keeping Rizwan out of the side. Even in that fairy tale comeback series against New Zealand, Sarfaraz had a poor time behind the stumps in both Tests, combining to miss at least seven catching or stumping chances, including two against Kane Williamson early on in an innings that saw the latter post an unbeaten 200.

Sarfaraz's omission from the side before then had also been partly attributed to a continuing decline with the gloves; and even at his best, Sarfaraz was a good - but never truly a great - wicketkeeper. By late 2016, when he was just about as sure of his place in the side across formats as ever, he had missed 63 chances behind the stumps, amounting to a miss percentage of 21%, higher than Kamran Akmal's 20%. Over the years since, his miss rate continued to trend in that direction.

Now to Rizwan. Rizwan has assumed a position of such prominence in Pakistan cricket that it is easy to forget he isn't the first-choice red-ball wicketkeeper anymore. Much of that is down to his feats in T20 cricket, with his almost superhuman consistency to deliver reliable runs at the top of the order cementing his place in the side despite the availability of top-order hitters with greater intent. And while those astronomical numbers haven't been replicated in Test cricket, a Test batting average a shade under 40 under no circumstances suggests a wicketkeeper failing to pull his weight with the bat.

Like Sarfaraz, his first Test tour also came in Australia, and it was that series which bought him the capital to remain in the side for the next three years. In what was otherwise a dismal tour for Pakistan, Rizwan was a rare bright spot, a second-innings 95 in Brisbane showcasing his ability. Over the series, he was Pakistan's third-highest run-scorer behind Babar Azam and, bizarrely, Yasir Shah, scoring 177 at 44.25. And though you might argue that sample size is much too small to read anything into, he is already just 62 runs behind Sarfaraz's total career number, with Sarfaraz's runs in Australia coming at an average nearly 15 runs lower.

But much of the conundrum Pakistan find themselves in is self-inflicted, and perhaps not as much to do with pure cricketing reasons as you might expect. When Rizwan was relegated to the bench ahead of Pakistan's home series against New Zealand last December, his Test numbers did indeed see a dip, though not nearly dramatic enough to suggest anything more than the sort of downturn most batters will go through. His last ten knocks had produced 261 runs at 26.10, with Rizwan picking up a habit of failing to convert starts, as just one of those innings saw him fail to reach double-figures.

In addition, Rizwan really did what it said on the tin to superb effect; he was, after all, a wicketkeeper, and an exceptionally good one. While wicketkeeping alone hasn't often been enough to win a place in an international side, he demonstrated the value of having one in top form. A rain-affected series in England in 2020 was the highlight, the pitches - and Pakistan's bowlers - making wicketkeeping conditions challenging, but Rizwan had held his own, with a miss percentage in single digits.

He would also keep up to Mohammad Abbas, who bowled in the 130ks at the time, restricting England's ability to use their feet to mitigate the sideways movement. The value of that quality was further highlighted by his opposition number's struggles, with Jos Buttler enduring one of the less memorable wicketkeeping series of his career, particularly in the first Test at Old Trafford.

But, at the tail-end of last year, Ramiz Raja had freshly been swept aside as PCB chairman by Najam Sethi between the home series against England and New Zealand, and with the new administration in a populist mood, they rung the on-field changes. In Karachi, where both the New Zealand Tests were to be held, Sarfaraz is royalty, but even Mir Hamza, a cause célèbre within Karachi's cricketing circles, played both Test matches, to rather less positive effect than Sarfaraz.

As almost seems compulsory now, it is vital to preface all of this by saying Rizwan's inclusion would have been extremely unlikely to alter the end result in Perth. Pakistan have never won a Test match there, or even taken 20 wickets in that city in half-a-dozen attempts. Even a side that included Majid Khan, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad and Mushtaq Mohammad, as wicketkeeper, and had triumphed in consecutive games in Australia - the previous victory had come in 1977 - saw that streak snap in Perth in 1979. It doesn't, however, excuse Pakistan for fudging up their own selection, one of the few things under their control in a series in Australia.

Sarfaraz's sensational showing across the home series against New Zealand meant anyone could have seen this dilemma coming in a year. It's always hard to drop a player who performed like that just two Test matches back, even if Rizwan took over in the most recent one partway, scoring an unbeaten half-century in an emphatic win. While it is perfectly mainstream to have a horses-for-courses approach when it comes to the bowlers - New Zealand dropped Ajaz Patel the match after he became just the third player to take all ten wickets in an innings - treating a batter that way, especially in Pakistan, comes with a different set of challenges.

It was clear that Sarfaraz's woes against Starc in Perth would not be alleviated simply because he had tonked Ish Sodhi and Michael Bracewell around in Karachi a year back, but it's still anathema to think that way, particularly in Pakistan cricket.

Hafeez strongly pushed back against any suggestions playing Sarfaraz in Perth was a tactical misstep, and referred to that New Zealand series as justification.

"Sarfaraz has performed brilliantly for Pakistan in the past. His performance against New Zealand in Karachi was outstanding," Hafeez said after the Perth defeat. "Of course it's been about five or six months since then [12 months], but you have to give your best performer in the previous series first priority. It's not as if we start thinking about someone else after one performance."

But then, he appeared to do just that with the next words he uttered. "Rizwan is an excellent cricketer and has played brilliantly for Pakistan. His inclusion is also possible."

A few miles down the road from the MCG at Junction Oval, Pakistan are playing a practice game against a Victorian XI side. The pitch is on the flatter side, and the bowling attack nowhere near as potent as what Australia will line up with at the MCG. Rizwan bats with Saud Shakeel, their partnership now in three figures. He has just reached his half-century with a six. These are the sort of easy runs Rizwan almost never misses out on.

Perhaps they won't matter, because on the day, this decision, as with nearly everything about this debate, seems to come down to how it makes everyone feel.