Pakistan Won, But I Am Not Fully Convinced

I want to begin this column by acknowledging Pakistan’s victory, but the truth is, my heart is not entirely at ease. Yes, two points were secured against the Netherlands, but what unfolded on the field raised more concern than confidence. Perhaps the problem is that we have started treating victory as the final destination, when in a brutal and unforgiving format like the T20 World Cup, how you win matters just as much as whether you win.

Pakistan entered this World Cup carrying an extra burden — the possibility of not playing the crucial match against India. In practical terms, that means starting the tournament already short of two points. Under such circumstances, the calculation is simple and unavoidable: Pakistan must not only defeat associate or relatively weaker teams, but do so by convincing margins to protect and improve their net run rate. What we witnessed in the opening match, however, was the exact opposite of that requirement.

These are supposed to be the games where big teams assert their authority, where opponents are made to feel that there is little room for resistance. Instead, Pakistan has a habit of dragging itself into pressure situations even against lesser-ranked sides. Inconsistent batting, unnecessary shot selection, and the recurring hope that one individual will somehow rescue the innings — this is not a strategy. It is becoming a pattern.

One reality must now be accepted without hesitation: associate teams are no longer weak. The Netherlands, Nepal, the United States, and Ireland are no longer just names on the fixture list. They are organised units with data, planning, fitness, and — most importantly — no fear. Nepal pushing England to the final over was a reminder that against these teams, even a moment of complacency can come at a heavy cost.

Yet despite this truth, I find myself asking an uncomfortable question: has the meaning of being a “big team” disappeared altogether? Is it unreasonable to expect Pakistan to dominate associate teams quickly, clearly, and decisively? I don’t believe so. The issue is not the rise of associate sides; the issue is Pakistan’s own lack of direction.

There is experience and skill in the bowling attack, but decision-making in the death overs continues to falter. In the field, a few careless moments threaten to rewrite entire matches. And batting — perhaps the biggest concern of all. In modern T20 cricket, the start often determines half the contest, yet Pakistan still appears stuck in the mindset of “settling in” rather than seizing control.

My fear is simple: if the two points against India are never added to the table, these narrow, uncomfortable victories will turn into a liability. Net run rate delivers its verdict quietly, and Pakistan has already suffered its consequences in previous World Cups. Unfortunately, we usually realise this only when it is too late.

I am not writing this in despair. I know Pakistan has talent, ability, and a history of turning games around under pressure. But World Cups are not won on emotion; they are won through planning. Matches against smaller teams are meant to be opportunities, not trials. Sadly, Pakistan keeps turning opportunities into examinations.

There is still time. The World Cup has not slipped away yet. But unless Pakistan begins turning victories into commanding performances, unless bold decisions are made against weaker opposition, this tournament too may end up being remembered in familiar words:

If. But. What if.