Pakistan lost only one match in the run-up to the final of the Asia Cup. India lost two but made it to the final. On the face of it this would suggest a cockeyed-format. But the bonus point factor had to be taken into calculations.
It had not suddenly been sprung on the Pakistan team. Why are Pakistani officials giving the impression that they were taken by surprise? Here is my read on Pakistan's match against India. Once it became apparent that Pakistan could win, no risks were to be taken that could deny Pakistan this victory. The bonus point factor just did not figure in the thinking.
Once Sachin Tendulkar was out, Pakistan could have put pressure on India and deny them the bonus point. And the way to have done it was to have denied the Indian batsmen singles, the fielders should have brought in to dry up the runs, the pace should have been taken off the ball and the wicket-keeper should have been standing up. That's the way the Sri Lankans choked India in the final.
Marvan Atapattu proved to be an imaginative captain, Inzamamul Haq a timid one. I can't help feeling that even the team management was not alive to the situation that India had given up all hope of winning and were only interested in the bonus point.
This is not the first time that Pakistan seemed unaware of the rules. In New Zealand, Pakistan needed only a few runs to win a Test match when the scheduled time of play was up. Pakistan could have claimed the extra half-hour.
Inzamam and Yousuf Youhana were batting, the captain and vice-captain. They certainly were not aware of the rule and there was no message from the dressing-room. Pakistan was lucky that the weather just about held up though the forecast was for rain and it did start to rain soon after the winning runs were scored. Pakistan was lucky that time, not so lucky this time.
It is important that not only the team management but the players should be familiar with the rules of a tournament. There should be a special team meeting and the rules should be understood, clause-by-clause, comma and full stop.
I find some of the statements issued after Pakistan was out of contention or knocked out of the Asia Cup somewhat irritating. Why not just leave well alone? Both Bob Woolmer and Inzamam appear to be satisfied with the performance of the team. At least this is what they have said in public. I hope their private views are more critical.
Just compare the intensity that Sri Lanka brought into its game with that of Pakistan. Sri Lanka's fielding won it the Asia Cup. I concede that Woolmer cannot improve Pakistan's fielding overnight but in fielding there is an ability factor but there is also a commitment factor.
In Test cricket it is possible to hide one or two poor fielders. Not so in the one-day game and Pakistan has more than a couple of fielders who have wooden legs and feeble throwing arms. The next two tournaments that Pakistan plays are one-day tournaments. I cannot see the fielding improvement unless some young legs are inducted in the team.
In any case, Pakistan must seriously consider the idea of having separate teams for the two versions of the game. Some of the players are good enough for both versions. Some not so. I don't at this stage want to go into details or into names.
The selection committee needs to discuss this at length with the captain and coach. But it is the selection committee that should have the final say at all times. A case in point is India's Vangipurappu Laxman who was injured. The Indian team management wanted a replacement.
Nothing doing said the Indian selection committee and Laxman was strapped up and made fit for the final. Danish Kaneria and Rana Naveedul Hasan played only one match each and even sat out Pakistan's last match against Bangladesh, a wholly irrelevant match.
If the two were not needed, they could easily have been sent to Kenya to join up with the Pakistan 'A' team. This is poor planning. I have no idea what sorts of powers are envisaged for Woolmer. Provided he is being quoted correctly, he gives the impression that he has been given a wider role than just coach of the national team.
I would imagine that he his hands would have been full with the national team and that's where his main focus must be. A coach has to groom and fine-tune the talent that is given to him. He should not get involved in talent-hunting.
Any input from him would be useful but he is not a cricket-development manager. That is the job of local coaches. If he wants to spend some time with the local coaches that's fine. But there should be a clear demarcation of duties, any overlapping leads to an untidy arrangement.
The immediate job of both captain and coach must be to take a hard look at what lies ahead and discuss with the selection committee the shortcomings of the present team as they dispassionately observed them in Sri Lanka with special emphasis on temperament.
Inzamam must also heed the criticism that Viv Richards has made of Brian Lara's captaincy. It is not enough to have a few shining moments. There has to be consistency. And someone must do the homework.
Against the mighty Indian batting, Sri Lanka's score of 228 was puny. Yet so well had Sri Lanka read the home conditions that they were able to defend it. On India's tour of Pakistan, it was India that better read the wickets than Pakistan.
It was Chaminda Vaas and Nuwan Zoysa who got the early breakthroughs for Sri Lanka and then the spinners did the rest. Sri Lanka had it all worked out. Cricket is a thinking man's game. India was not so much outplayed as outwitted as Pakistan was in the matter of the bonus point.
