A victory of sorts for the cricket board
By Sohaib Alvi
** Finally, we won at home. But was it because Pakistan played good, or was it because South Africa played bad? **
In the end Pakistan came out laughing from the tour. Firstly, they won a home Test series after six years, if you don’t count their 2-0 whitewash of West Indies at Sharjah in 2001 and victory in the only Test against New Zealand at Lahore in April 2002. Secondly, they earned some money and thirdly, they proved to the cricket world that Pakistan is as safe as any country to play cricket.
Their mirth was best exemplified when Dean Jones asked Rameez while commentating, whether he felt there should have been a third Test? Rameez could hardly contain his smile as he pointed out that there was one in the original itinerary and it were the South Africans that accepted the option in the changed scenario to play two. He was quite clear that it had been their call and PCB was happy to have played five One-Day games which were more marketable.
**Indeed, the South Africans came out of the tour the real losers. They barely won the One-Day series due to Duckworth Lewis, had a player sent home, their captain banned for one game, came out as the successors to sledging and on-field abuse, lost the Test series and revealed a childishness in their complaint against Shoaib Akhtar. **
In a casual chat with their media manager, Gerald de Kock, it was evident that they realized they had also gone overboard with their security fears. In fact they were almost kicking themselves on being locked in, especially when they saw the World XI players come for a charity game and party and shop.
Gerald was straightforward in appreciating the almost impeccable arrangements in all aspects and implicit in his cheerful demeanour was the admission that there really had been nothing to worry about in the first place.
It must therefore be the South African players who, on hindsight, must have wished that their cricket board had paid up $2.2 million and they had stayed at home.
Their fitness levels were evident in the One-Dayers as was the immaturity if their leader. Worse, their bowling strength was clearly exposed in the Test series, if not the resolve of their middle-order. Given that they got a couple of bad calls from the Australian Darrel Hair (ironic that the Proteas were undone by a nation they love to hate), their middle and lower order were clueless against spin and reverse swing when it mattered most. Rest of the time they played with an ear to the ground and almost never attacked the ball in the air.
The South Africans have gone home wondering where their next spinner is coming from, despite the fact that Paul Adams took seven wickets in an innings in the first Test and helped put on the brakes on the final day of the series. And on that day in Faisalabad, Peterson had three chances spilled, all quite comfortable in their offering.
It was therefore surprising to me that on the second day at Faisalabad when Pakistan were piling on the runs, some leading South African experts were concluding that both the spinners were playing for their place in the side. They even suggested that they should be sacked if they did not either win the match with their spin or forced Pakistan to a draw with their accuracy.
I wondered then what the seven wickets in Lahore had stood for? And Peterson played only the second Test where his analysis in the second innings was not only miserly but he should have had Taufeeq earlier than he did and also the scalp of Asim Kamal. Had they come when they did, they would have had more time to bowl out Pakistan on the final day.
What is clear is that the South Africans are caught between transition, the quota system and their ambition to win. In the World Cup, the selectors were forced to leave out Graeme Smith despite his high scoring in December, because there had to be four non-white players in the 15.
The fact stands that the imposition of quota has not gone down well with the players. They of course have a point and in some quarters it is being seen as a simple tit for tat by what is now a pre-dominantly non-white management.
This frustration can now be clearly seen among the top South African players, compounded by the burden they have carried since the World Cup exit. Pollock paid with his captaincy for backing Klusener and Donald and Boucher was not retained as vice captain for the England tour. It was clear throughout this trip that the wild enthusiasm that previous South African sides displayed was gone and it seemed another day at the job. “We’ll do what we have to, skipper. But let’s leave it at that.”
Such attitudes naturally lead to a drop in alertness while in the middle, and if only that last day is to be seen, Gibbs, Kirsten and Boucher dropped simple catches off Ntini, Peterson and Adams and a couple found Pollock and Kallis slow to react in the slips. For that matter throughout the tour, there was hardly any electrifying catch or a bull’s eye run out, let alone a Jonty pick up and throw.
Smith muttered his way through the final day and was more blunt than most skippers when he admitted that they lacked a breakthrough bowler and needed to apply more while batting. Since they had had reasonable luck in England, especially with Ntini, I think this was aimed more at Pollock and Nel, and it was clear that he felt Pollock’s six wickets at Faisalabad should have come earlier.
Though the Pakistani team and the selectors will bask in the win, it has been a victory of sorts for the PCB. The manner in which the PCB drew back the South African Cricket Board was very professional. Most importantly they gave the South Africans a reason to come when they needed one.
Having lured them back they walked a tightrope through the four weeks. This was the real test. It is easier to promise than to deliver. Not a single incident occurred that threatened their security. If anything at all exploded it was the South African temper, and both Hall and Smith paid for it. Indeed the way things transpired it were the tourists that were a terrorist threat and Pakistani players were the ones in danger of being bodily harmed and abused.
**I believe the only real threat they faced to their bodies came in the friendly fire of Shoaib Akhtar, whose pace was enough to push back the grill in Kirsten’s helmet. I do not remember a bowler more concerned for the batsman’s well-being than Shoaib displayed that day. But the South Africans revealed their small minds when they reported him for a gripe that fades in the light of the gibberish that Andre Nel threw at Shoaib Malik at Rawalpindi after he had ducked a bouncer. It was almost a speech of sorts that Nel gave that afternoon, at least enough for Malik to look toward square-leg in exasperation. **
The win was also due to a selection that turned out to be spot on, and avoided the experiments of the past six months. Aamer and Co. were brave enough to have dropped Younis Khan for Asim Kamal. Except for persevering with Mushtaq, (which was more the choice of Inzamam and Youhana and one that I know was not that of Aamer Sohail who favoured Kaneria all the way), the selectors were vindicated in their analysis and deserve to be congratulated.
It needs to be said that the PCB’s decision to bring in the South Africans at the cost of Karachiites and citizens of Peshawar stood the test of time and has indeed helped to prove that the international cricketer is safe in Pakistan.
It has made the normally suspicious and scared Kiwis almost a certainty to tour this month and though Rameez was gracious enough to attribute the credit of India’s revival of cricket ties to the Indian board, this decision to host the South Africans at all costs has definitely played its part in the recent breakthrough in cricket ties with our sensitive neighbours. Cricket teams are on the way back and after two years in the surroundings, it seems the circus is finally coming to town.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag15.htm
although its too late to discuss abt the S. African tour, i’d like to share this article with the fellow guppies.