Conflict of interest applies when a person uses his official position to benefit his personal business. That Ramiz Raja was CEO of the PCB as well as doing the cricket commentary for various television channels
did not constitute conflict of interest unless he was using his office to get television assignments.
This was not the case. Where there was a conflict was the time he was giving to his job as CEO against his commentary commitments. What the PCB has never made clear is whether it considered the job of the CEO to be a full-time one.
That's the general impression of a CEO. He's the helmsman, the man who brings leadership to management and, therefore, needs to be involved in all the nitty-gritty of an organization.
All that was needed in the case of Ramiz was to have changed his designation. He could have been called a consultant and his advice could have been sought on a when-needed basis.
The PCB needs to define itself. Is it a regulatory body? Or is it a corporation? Or is it both? It seems to be top-heavy which means that Parkinson's Law comes into play "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
What happens as a consequence is that a bureaucracy is created and what should have been a dynamic organisation begins to resemble a government department with several layers which in government parlance is called "proper channels."
At the same time, certain costly decisions are taken that seem to be like bursts of inspiration. A case in point has been the visits of Barry Richards, Darryl Foster and Greg Chappell.
I have no idea of how much they cost nor any idea of what was their specific assignment. They are respected names in cricket and no one questions their credentials but one can question their utility if they were going to be making flying visits.
But I do not have the qualifications to be passing judgement on administrative matters and my concern is the national team. The squad chosen for the tournament in Holland and the ICC Trophy is an indication that we have preferred continuity with only two changes.
One didn't have to be a rocket-scientist to have known that Imran Nazir and Danish Kaneria would be axed. Their replacements show some imagination. Salman Butt has been knocking on the door of big cricket and he has once again been given a chance.
Salman seems to be a long-term investment though in this squad he will be the third opener and it will be interesting to see if the opening pair of Yasir Hameed and Imran Farhat will be broken up.
Shahid Afridi seems to be the proverbial cat with nine lives. He has been in and out of the Pakistan team. He appears to be the only player from whom we demand instant accountability. Nor have we quite made up our mind what to expect from him.
Afridi has opened the innings and played the role of pinch-hitter, which entails taking quite a few risks. When he comes off, we praise him. When he doesn't he gets the chop for poor short selection.
We have never taken his bowling seriously and he's brought on to break up a partnership as if he was an occasional bowler. Afridi now has another opportunity and I feel that Bob Woolmer will know how to use him.
Frankly, I had expected a few more changes and these have been promised for the home series against Sri Lanka. Perhaps, that's the better way of bringing in young blood. Pakistan's real test will be the tour of Australia and the fact that the first Test match will be played at Perth and both Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee are fit means that Pakistan will be in for a torrid time.
Woolmer will know this and the team selected for the Australian tour will have to be a battle-hardened one. Sri Lanka put on a decent enough show on its tour of Australia though it did not play at the regular Test venues.
But the team will have to be mentally tough and the Australians play their cricket hard and they get very good public support which creates its own pressure.
The tour will also be a test of Inzamamul Haq's captaincy. The Australians are cricket-smart and they exert a great deal of psychological pressure on the opponents. Inzamam will have to be more assertive and less laid-back. He will have to demand more discipline from his batsmen and bowlers and more commitment from the fielders.
Both he and Woolmer were satisfied with the performance of the team in the Asia Cup. But surely they must know that Australians will roll over them with that kind of a performance. We need to look at Sri Lanka. It's a playing unit rather than a collection of players.
Sri Lanka have some shortcomings and should have won the Galle Test against South Africa but the South Africans too are no push-over. When their bowlers are not getting wickets, they are able to dry up the runs through tight bowling and their batsmen put a high value on their wickets and rarely get out to ambitious shots. That's the way that Woolmer taught them and that's the way he should teach the Pakistan team.
I don't attach too much importance to the tournament in Holland or the ICC Trophy even though we will be up against India in both the tournaments and certainly in England, the India-Pakistan match will attract a sell-out crowd composed of Pakistanis and Indians with not an Englishman in sight. But I agree we must not keep playing up the rivalry. It's not a cricket rivalry.
