Kohli made it a one-sided match, says Hafeez

Quick Register
User Name:
Human Verification

Go Back   UNP > Chit-Chat > News > Sports News

UNP Register


Old 01-Oct-2012
Kohli made it a one-sided match, says Hafeez

Colombo: Pakistan skipper Mohammad Hafeez admitted that it was Virat Kohli’s knock of 78 that blew away his team’s hopes of beating India in the Super Eight match on Sunday.

“Virat [Kohli] was excellent tonight. I think he is in the best form of his life. I haven’t seen anyone in the form that he is in at the moment. He is carrying on with his good form; it’s a great thing for him as a batsman,” said Hafeez. “Today India played better cricket than Pakistan, there is no doubt. We really wanted to win the game but unfortunately we kept losing wickets at regular intervals, so we couldn’t come back in the first 10 overs.”

Hafeez added that early wickets for Pakistan could have made a big difference to the outcome, although he praise his team for “working really hard”.

The captain went on to justify his decision to bat first after winning the toss. “We all saw that the pitch was breaking. Our attack is spin-based. We thought if we could score 160, it would be defendable. But unfortunately, we lost wickets at regular intervals and couldn’t have a meaningful partnership early on. So the total we wanted to set, we couldn’t get there,” he said.

Despite being thrashed by eight wickets. Hafeez believes that bowling remains his team’s strength. “The ball was turning on this pitch and not coming on to the bat but the total we wanted to set as a batting unit, we couldn’t,” he said. “If we had got 160 or 150-plus, it would have been nice. In the end Kohli’s innings was spectacular, he made it a one-sided match.”

Hafeez, though, remained optimistic that his players will bounce back in the next match against in-form Australia at 2pm on Tuesday. “The boys are positive and will work hard and come out with a good performance,” he said.

Post New Thread  Reply

« Poisoning Watson’s food is Whatmore’s recipe | Terry case should never have gone to court »