Cricket administrators responsible for Pakistan's debacle
Published on March 4, 2003 on Cricinfo.com
As colossal a failure as Pakistan's unexpected and anti-climactic exit from the World Cup, after so much and ostentatious hype orchestrated by our cricket managers, is not susceptible to easy, simple or one-dimensional explanations. Explanations have to be equal to the magnitude of the failure, and it was no small failure.
The defeat was caused by a complex of factors, not peculiar to one match, tournament or series. The problem, as I have said before, is endemic, structural and fundamental. And the responsibility for rectifying it must rest with those who run cricket affairs in Pakistan.
In the first instance, one has to recognise the problem in order to rectify it. But we have always been in a denial mode. First, what is this drum-beat about the "talent"? How do you define it? And how does talent define and express itself? Unless it manifests itself in a stable and sustainable performance it is hard to register its presence. Otherwise it remains, as they say, `a flash in the pan'.
Of course anyone who in a nation of 140 million people makes it to the national team does have exceptional ability. And for that matter some basic ability is present in most cricketers to a varying degree, in any cricket team in the world. But since cricket is a competitive game, what matters most is really where our cricketers stand in comparison with others. And that is where the issue of talent acquires a whole new dimension. It becomes a relative and not absolute quality.
Yes, we have had some very talented cricketers in recent years but their number has been smaller than generally believed. This is evident from the fact that we won some extraordinary victories that almost had a dreamlike quality about them because they were so improbable and magical. And the fact that many of them were won with narrow margins confirmed how much they owed to individual brilliance rather than any game plan. That, I am afraid, encouraged a false notion that somehow we had individuals of sheer ability and talent and that game plans were not necessary to the team's success.
Indeed, such individualism resisted coaching and worked against the culture of game plans and discipline as well as contributed to the endemic lack of cohesion in the team. And the absence of any credible domestic cricket structure mitigated against the emergence and solidifying of the spirit of competitiveness and mental toughness.
With leaders like Imran Khan, supported by an exceptional cricketer and team man like Javed Miandad, such shortcomings were transcended, but after them it has been a different story. There has been no consistent pattern of achievement as the team continued to depend exclusively on individual brilliance or inspiration, which has its ups and downs, susceptible to the mood or emotion of the moment. It hastened the emergence of a few cricketing heroes but not a tough, hard-nosed and well-knit cricketing outfit.
Our captains in this period have been either bowlers or wicket-keepers, and neither batting strategists nor great inspirational leaders. The team, therefore, on the batting side, particularly, has been entirely on its own – left to its wits. And there has been no good coach till we hired Richard Pybus who in my view is trying to do his best. But alone cannot reverse the inherited mental attitudes nor has he the full autonomy to deal with the players as he pleases.
Players have been moving in different orbits and are pampered or spoiled by the cricket bosses who have tied their own survival and staked their reputation to the success of a few chosen players.
This approach foments player power, besides fostering blue-eyed boys and big egos which is not, definitely not, an ideal situation for team cohesion and discipline. Players, instead of fighting the opponents fight with each other.
Indeed cricket bosses are mainly responsible for the failure of the team, not just the contemporary ones but also successive administrations in the past.
Current world cricket has become fiercely competitive because of huge sums of money involved due largely to TV rights and commercial sponsorship. No wonder only the teams which have perfected a methodical, organized and competitive way of playing the game are excelling.
It has been such a delight to watch the Australian team exhibiting exceptional commitment to excellence, underpinned by an astounding sense of self-discipline, tenacity and brilliant team work. Other teams are now beginning to take their cue from them.
Much of the money being earned by respective Cricket Boards is now being ploughed back into running cricket on contemporary competitive lines. That is why the gap between major teams is narrowing as evident in the current World Cup. India too, which suffered the same weaknesses as our team in the past has learnt its lessons.
What has our Board done? I do not know the present Chairman of PCB General Tauqir, but I do know that players are not soldiers and nor is cricket all about laying down one's life for the glory of the country. Cricket players are a special breed - sensitive, egoistic and often adolescent. They need special handling, best left to someone who has been a distinguished sportsman himself or has had a life long association with sports. And above all, one who can administer the game full time. The General has done some good things but the Board's basic approach and inner workings in essence remain unchanged from the past.
For years the heads of PCB have been appointed on a single consideration - they were all well-connected people who owed their plush and prestigious position to the personal relationship they enjoyed with the leadership of the country. And as long as the political leadership remained unchanged PCB heads enjoyed unlimited and absolute power and remained beyond accountability. So secure in their position they hardly had to perform to keep their job.
Cricket affairs were left to their wits, as a 'laissez-faire' approach was followed that continued to encourage player power. And like everything else, when a government changed, all the plum positions also changed hands, and the new man in the PCB went about the business the same way as his predecessor.
Of course statements would now be issued and some scapegoats too, as to what went wrong at the World Cup. Vacuous statements would continue to be made by the captain and others, that "so and so took away the game from us", "our batting did not click", "that was not our day", "well such things happen in cricket", "well that is the way it goes", "let us look to the future".
No analysis, no attempt to learn from the experience. And the Board would of course talk about all those the academies being set up and team discipline being restored and the need for patience as cricket reorganization is a long term task etc. Does the last three-and-a-half year record inspire any confidence in the future?
What was the need to announce such hefty rewards for the team before the tournament? Why the spectacular and colossal send-off to the team at the Gaddafi Stadium? Why were players, such as Shoaib Akhtar allowed to engage in hyperbolic bragging that he would do `such and such' to `so and so player'? What was the consequence of this extraordinary hype?
On one hand it put enormous pressure on the players to perform, especially the batsmen, and on the other it may have made them complacent as they came to rely so much on super-human performance with such self-magnification by our bowlers. How many such statements were made by McGrath, Hayden or Tendulkar?
There are many reasons for the success of the Australian team, but if I were asked to choose one single factor, I would describe it as follows: There are no heroes in the team nor anyone treated as a hero. So their feet remain on ground. They are professionals who are being paid fabulously for their performance, and if they do not perform they are out and others would take their place. So their presence in the team has to be earned and maintained with performance. Nobody is considered indispensable. Even the best players can easily be shown the door. Look at what happened to Steve Waugh. Nobody is pampered. Of course if they perform they enjoy enormous amount of public support and acclaim but certainly no adulation.
We, on the other hand, play by different rules. We like things to happen just as a matter of course, rely on the super-natural and heroics, and often want to blunder or gamble our way.
Look at the batting. There is no commitment or desire to build a partnership. No communication between the players on the field with the possible exception of the match against India. There is no strategy as to what happens if wickets start tumbling. Pakistani team has never been good at regrouping after a collapse. And collapse has often triggered defeat as panic sets in.
And there is no accounting for this mystery except the lack of a game plan, strategy and capability to regroup in the course of the innings and to dig-in and try for a partnership. And above all, not to throw away the wickets.
Another vital shortcoming is match temperament. And this is because the players hardly play real competitive cricket at home. What passes for domestic cricket is an apology for the game. We need to reorganize it to make it genuine, more competitive, and we must force our national team players to participate in it. Competitiveness teaches mental toughness.
There is therefore time, not only for serious soul-searching but also for hard-headed and honest analysis, if we want to learn proper lessons from the failure at the World Cup. The team still has more than average talent, but we need to harness it.
Ed: Touqir Hussain is former Ambassador of Pakistan to Japan
© CricInfo Limited
| 
