*Now that Pakistan has lost its first home series to India, perhaps issues can be discussed. *
Who ever thought suicide attacks in Rawalpindi were a thing of the past, only had to see Pakistan’s batting on the fourth day. But much before we witnessed the charge of the light brigade last week, Pakistan had already come out as losers in this contest and poor ones at that. And I don’t only refer to the cricket on the field.
We lost because we talk more people and less on issues. People should only be discussed, subordinate to issues. If people have to be changed in the process then so be it. But all should look not only at performance of a player but also his environment and negative stimuli, his authority and training standards in the country.
In any organization the middle managers are subservient to the policies and the long term objectives and strategies of the top management. Sales managers are not held accountable for loss in volume if a new recipe has failed to deliver at the shelves after years of planning. Neither are brand managers expected to deliver products if there is no sound product research and development department.
If Shoaib is spoilt then it is the fault of those who became his benefactor and allowed him such luxury without accountability and then dumped him after the World Cup. We have lost because cricket and its administration stopped being a team game and became a tool of power and self-actualization of a warped kind.
It is the sign of a caring and concerned man when he is seen as the solver of all conflicts and problems. But the more this happened at the Gaddafi Stadium the more it became clear that it was due to selfish ambition at the top. No matter how well intended, it led to each man depending not on his fellow man but on the ‘king’. All grievances were solved (correction ‘temporarily buried’) through audience at the court.
Issues were drum beaten into submission. The word was out. Say ‘yes’ and take home the job. Say ‘No’ and take out the garbage.
We saw the signs against Australia in 2002, and saw them again in the World Cup. But to save jobs the players were thrown overboard for the load to be lightened and the ship to stay afloat. Little did they realize that players can go but the storms will keep on coming.
In A Man For All Seasons, William Roper implores Sir Thomas Moore to cut down every tree in England to chase a man who could be dangerous for him. To this Sir Thomas replies: “And when all the trees were down in England, would I be able to stand firm in the winds that would blow in from all directions?”
But sadly the focus of the humiliating defeats remains on the players. But this is because their insincerity was captured from 22 angles and commented on by famous names. My only request to the Patron would be to look behind the cameras and beyond this current administration to understand where it has all gone wrong. Again issues first, then people.
Inzamam has been criticized and in return has castigated his players in public. One can understand both, but in all fairness to him it must be said that he has never wanted the job. He has refused captaincy offers before. His appointers should know that the first sign about a great leader is that he must passionately want the job.
Ian Chappell, Imran Khan, Saurav Ganguly, Clive Lloyd all wanted it and became icons of captaincy. Shaun Pollock, Michael Atherton, Hashan Tilikeratne nodded when pressed for in a time of crisis and became ambivalent managers of men.
Inzamam falls in the latter category and like them wanted first to get the popular vote, before going for the tough decisions. They were all conservative and steered the ship to still waters. But to get to new horizons you have to go into the high seas and show the men that you know what you are doing; even when you don’t have the semblance of an idea what to do next.
And you keep your men’s chin up, especially in defeat. You don’t gather them in a circle in full view and implore them with half-anger and half-despondency to do better. Or you don’t go through agony at a post-toss chat and pray for salvation.
The Captain has blundered his way through the captaincy since October. He has been fortunate, even lucky that he had to face Bangladesh and a New Zealand second string side, among his first challenges. It must not be lost upon all that he lost the One-Day series against South Africa and on tour to New Zealand. The fact that we lost closely does not matter as our strength was our bowling and we gave too many runs most of the time.
His sole Test victory came in the shape of another Shoaib bolt-from-the-sky. Had it rained on the fifth day, judgment day would have dawned quicker on the PCB than it is doing now. He can’t be blamed for the dropped catches, but lifting sagging shoulders from the fourth ODI onwards was his responsibility and his natural body language has only accentuated the problem.
Inzamam will never make a great captain because although he enjoys respect as a batsman, he lacks intuition, ability to take bold decisions, innovation in the field, energy for the role and the body language. Above all he lacks the charisma and a long future in the team.
But PCB asked him and therefore he should not be blamed. He is doing only what comes naturally to him and captaining under pressure when the above traits are need of the hour is beyond him. He is quick on the obvious such as blaming bowlers, when fielding and captaincy equally downed Pakistan. Why was he hoping for consistent incisive bowling when recent history shows that in Tests it is the odd spell every third or fourth innings that gets us into a winning position?
There’s a feeling that Shoaib is being readied for the scapegoat. He is now becoming the decoy to deviate official and public condemnation away from other flaws in the system.
Sure he has some answering to do, but the defeat and the way it was inflicted has shown the shortsighted policies on issues of the past five years. The selectors then could not ready any back ups for the coming years. It was Asim Kamal, Imran Farhat and Umer Gul who were the heroes of the last two Tests and all three were either brought in or recalled by Aamer Sohail and Rashid Latif last year. What would Bari and Co. has to say in denfense? The fact that they could only think of Fazle-Akbar who had taken 10 wickets at 34.90 from four Tests after a debut six years ago, shows their lack of courage to try fresh blood and understanding of worth. Again don’t blame Akbar. He bowled only within his weaknesses.
PCB management must do some soul searching. To be fair to them, Sheheryar Khan and Rameez cannot be completely saddled for the lack of team planning as both were given positions of responsibility less than a year ago. The malaise we are witnessing is the result of years of lack of infrastructure, non development of coaches by associations, a short history of shortsighted and ‘safe’ selection, and above all the tendency to let senior players dictate terms and selection in the year leading up to the world cup.
They were breaking down, or at least showing themselves as such, over the whole of 2002 and yet the doctor responsible for their fitness was not made accountable. They opted out of tough assignments only to be welcomed back for the soft ones. The selectors could only nod and let them back in. Everyone was playing safe and in more ways than one.
What purpose is our committee serving by selecting 16? Normally at least nine men are certainties throughout the series and there are four or five borderline. Anyone can pick another eight from which those two are to be selected. When we lose the stand is they could have gone for one of those left out. I remember that up to the early 80s, people like Haseeb Ahsan and Salahuddin would be arguing for hours with Imran over the fourth bowler up to the morning of a match.
Also, in the leading countries, the selectors shortlist twelve, at most thirteen and are held accountable for it. Even my 14-year old picked thirteen of the fifteen for the Pindi Test and Fazle Akbar and Rana Naveed were not among them. But Hasan Raza was and we saw in the Test how desperately we needed someone to stay in the middle. After Pakistan were bowled out for 53 and 59 by Australia, Hasan Raza was recalled and scored 54 not out and 64 against them in the third Test. After three innings against Zimbabwe including a near fifty, he has been in oblivion. How Pakistan wanted someone like him this past rubber.
The selectors of course like the arrangement because they claim they don’t select the final eleven and save their jobs. I say that they should pick the final XI along with coach and captain. The captain must have the casting vote but if his choice fails more often than not he must be held accountable. Likewise if the selectors force someone in who fails after reasonable chances, they must be answerable. Whoever continues to bring in the wrong guys must then be sacked.
But the accountability at all levels is invisible as always. In a set up where no one even today knows who approved the final pitch at Multan as all from coach, captain, CEO, Chairman and selectors have denied their role, have we got our priorities right when we discuss who is responsible for team building, no balls and fitness levels?
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag15.htm
Absolutely spot on Mr. Sohaib Alvi. I totally agree with and support the arguments you have put forth. :k: