A Cricket expert, by definition, knows more about the game than a follower of it. But cricket is a great leveller for when it comes to pure luck, no amount of expertise can account for it.
Inzamam was on course to see Pakistan home in its crucial match against South Africa. He hit Ontong for a six and momentarily got off-balance and his leg touched one of the wickets, the lightest of touches, and one bail was dislodged.
As freak dismissals go, this was the mother of them. But the South Africans can argue that Inzamam was dropped by Allan Donald off Boje, the most dolly of catches and, therefore, had used up his luck.
It is this element of luck that guides the destiny of cricket matches and, looking on the dark side, makes hell for bookies! Pakistan crashed out of the Morocco Cup because, in the end, it couldn’t handle the pressure in a low scoring match and proved yet again that it is a team that it has not learnt the fine art of chasing runs. I don’t think that Saeed Anwar should have been dropped and to ask Shoaib Malik to open the innings was asking too much of him in a pressure-cooker situation.
Sending Shahid Afridi at number three was the right decision to offset the loss of Imran Nazir who needs a crash course in shot selection. Shahid Afridi not only took Pakistan to a stone’s throw from victory but set up Pakistan to get a bonus point.
There is no more glorious sight in cricket than Shahid Afridi blazing away and clearly he got under the skin of Jacques Kallis who was taken for plenty and his ‘verbals’, his bad-mouthing, were ignored by Shahid Afridi and he never took the smile of contentment off his face and there was something of the Tom and Jerry about the thrashing of Kallis by Shahid Afridi.
To dispel the impression that this was something personal, Shahid Afridi also hit Allan Donald for a six. When he was out, one shot too many, he had given Pakistan the platform to waltz the runs required, 105 with 7 wickets in hand and plenty of overs remaining. It was from here that Pakistan botched it up.
And the good fortune that South Africa had in the manner of Inzamam’s wicket. It was a slow paced wicket but not an impossible track.. Pakistan should have opted for grafting rather than stroke-making but it must be admitted that the South Africans bowled brilliantly and the fielding was, as always menacing.
A fielding side can exert its own pressure and no one does it better than South Africa. Pakistan had bowled magnificently and had reduced South Africa to 49 for 5 and Wasim Akram, in particular, was superb.
Perhaps, Pakistan should have gone for the kill and kept Wasim on. His coming off after 5 overs, allowed South Africa to breathe again. But this is hindsight. The bowlers did a fine job in restricting South Africa to 196.
Once again, it was the batting that left Pakistan stranded, missing the bus to the final. Much praise has been heaped on Tangiers as a venue and the climate has been particularly praised and also an abundant supply of exotic vegetables.
There is no doubt that a wonderful job has been done. But missing has been the buzz that a full house brings to a cricket match.
Even John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier would have looked lesser actors who had they played to an empty theatre. What we got at Tangiers was ‘made for television’ cricket. Millions watch cricket on television but they too miss the buzz and the production becomes flat and two-dimensional. I don’t think comparisons with Sharjah are apt.
At Sharjah and indeed UAE, there is a very large ex-patriate population.
This is not the case in Morocco. It is going to be a very long haul before the stadium at Tangiers will be bustling with excited and exciting fans getting themselves hoarse, cheering for a team of their choice. But it can be argued that sometimes there are fewer people at test matches than there were at Tangiers. These are early days.
The conflict of business interest between the players and the ICC threatens to devalue the Champion’s Trophy in Sri Lanka.
The ICC has once again butted in, head first. There are many players who have long-term contracts with sponsors. It is not a case of players versus country. The ICC too is trying to protect sponsors.
So it’s money versus money. If some player decides to take the ICC to Court, the ICC will lose, as the MCC lost against Kerry Packer. And whatever little authority that the ICC has still got, will go out of the window. Have the ICC lawyers not heard of ‘restraint of trade’?
Anyhow, one hopes it will be sorted out and well before the World Cup starts next year and there are only a few months to go.
The Packer players too were accused of being unpatriotic. We now know that that was a load of rubbish. Banned, at first, they were re-instated and the cricket establishment ended with egg on its face.