03 November 2004	Wednesday	19 Ramazan 1425

The Pakistan cricket team would have made an ideal subject for an Alfred Hitchcock film. It cannot perform the simplest of tasks without introducing suspense and tension. 137 should have been a walk in the park.

The Pakistan batsmen made it into a walk on the moon. Only Shoaib Malik held his nerve and who knows what would have happened had Kumar Sangakkara held on to Abdul Razzaq's snick?

When Pakistan finally came to terms with a relatively easy target, Shoaib and Razzaq's made it look ridiculously simple because it seemed to have dawned on them that there was plenty of time available and all that was needed was sensible as opposed to heroic cricket. When Pakistan did win, the primary emotion of its fans was relief.

Unfortunately there was no crowd as such at the National Stadium for the Sri Lanka team deserved a standing ovation. It had lost a crucial toss and had been bundled out on the only day when the wicket assisted the bowlers. They conceded a massive 270 run lead and yet came back so strongly that it had Pakistan on the run.

Much to my surprise, if not astonishment, Sri Lanka did not play with Upul Chandana. As Danish Kaneria made life impossible for the Sri Lankan batsmen, a wrist spinner would have come in handy for Sri Lanka.

But Sri Lanka would have won many hearts with their spirited cricket and their determination to fight it out till the end. It is a sign of team spirit and I don't think that it is our strong suit.

Yet it was important for Pakistan to win the Karachi Test match. To lose a Test series at home is to reach a low point in one's cricket and Pakistan just can't keep losing without the cricket fans being turned off and the passion cooling as it has for hockey.

It was vital too for Pakistan to demonstrate that it can win without Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Sami. Both were unfit for the Karachi Test match and the rest seemed to have done wonders for them because both are restored to full fitness and have been picked in the squad for Kolkata.

And they didn't even have to go Lourdes for a miracle cure or to Manila for some consultation with a faith-healer. But neither of them should take their place in the team for granted.

I thought that Rana Naveedul Hasan and Riaz Afridi showed plenty of promise and I see no reason why Kaneria should not be considered for the shorter version of the game.

We had Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed and though he now only plays Test cricket, Shane Warne was a star in both versions of the game. It is always useful to have real pace in one's team but with pace goes the ability to take wickets. That is why Brett Lee is having difficulty finding a place in the Australian team.

There are not many positives that we can take from the Sri Lankan series. I thought that Kaneria bowled magnificently at Karachi and he showed that he had the stamina and the mental strength to bowl long spells. Rana Naveed showed enough commitment to be inked as a permanent member of the Pakistan squad. Riaz Afridi has promise and he is still very young.

But batting remains a problem. Yasir Hameed seems to be having a crisis of confidence. Dropping him from the Kolkata squad may be just the right tonic he needs though I would have applied the same remedy for Yousuf Youhana. Along with Inzamamul Haq he is Pakistan's best batsman. But he seems twitchy and restless at the wicket and he needs to come to terms with whatever is bothering him.

No one denies Youhana is a class act but he's got to start scoring some runs and in a convincing way. The Australians decided to give their players rest between the Nagpur and the Mumbai Test matches, to get them away from cricket and sent them on a holiday, to Singapore, Goa and Mumbai.

Too much cricket is also mentally tiring. Many multinationals force their employees to take a vacation. Youhana needs to get his form back. For that you need mental toughness and a little luck.

Jeff Crowe, the match referee at Karachi needs to be made to wear a dunce cap. That he should have fined Sangakkara for tossing his bat in the air when he was out playing a lazy shot is the most ridiculous decision a match-referee could have made.

The batsman was clearly disappointed and was angry with himself. For goodness sake, the man is a human being and not a robot. He was entitled to show some emotion and the gesture was not an offensive one, it did not bring the game into disgrace. Most of all it was not a menacing gesture. If anything, it was a playful one and it captured his disappointment with himself.

Sangakkara is one of cricket's fast vanishing breed of 'characters.' He is good for the game. I don't think that Crowe was being harsh. He was being officious and magisterial. In other words he was being a 'babu' loyal to the letter of a code and blind to its spirit.