The PCB Review Committee’s report is out. As was expected, names were taken and blames pinned for Pakistan’s highly dismal performance at the recently concluded World Cup. However, whether Pakistan will be a better team after this report, is another matter.
Headed by Naushad Ali and made up of Aquib Javed and Sultan Ahmed, the committee’s report tried to highlight the reasons for the team’s failure. According to it, the team selected for the event was, “an experienced one but also an aging one, a crucial factor in restraining it from delivering in big matches”. The average age of the players was 28 1/2.
The Report also pointed out that special treatment was meted out to the speedster Shoaib Akhtar. So much so, that Shoaib had a PCB sponsored personal physician with him. Also, the stubborn attitude of the captain, Waqar Younis had a lot to do with the team’s bad performance.
Though the Review Committee was open about the failed quest, there are many who believe that the report has not added any thing to what everyone already knew. With this backdrop in mind, it is interesting to have a look at what a similar committee had found decades ago.
This report was prepared after Pakistan returned from a foreign tour following heavy defeat. Excerpts from the report are given below. Names and references have been withheld, given the universality of these lines (in the cricket domain), they are not deemed necessary.
This report, incidentally, is an interesting read for one more reason: here, a spade is called a spade - something our present-day bureaucracy excels in circumventing!
“We are constrained to observe that the appointment of the Manager proved to be unfortunate.
“We find that the Ad-hoc Committee suggested the names of two senior Army officials....X is certainly a very impressive, (tall and imposing) military officer, with a fine record, and with plenty of administrative experience to his credit. Unfortunately he did not know anything about cricket; and as such, was unsuitable for an assignment, which called for at least some basic knowledge of the game. A good manager must also know the intricacies of managing international contests and must have current acquaintance with sundry other matters of the cricketing world. These qualifications could make his presence felt, his advice respected, and his guidance valued. ‘X’ lacked all these essential requisites, and this proved to be one of the biggest drawbacks.”
The Report continues, “....the Manager failed completely in creating that discipline and cohesion amongst the members of the team which was one of his primary duties. .....instead of being a guide, philosopher and a friend, he sided with the Captain to such an extent as to completely demoralize the rest of the team. He admitted before us, that ‘he did not allow the players to complain to him.’
“So, nobody could approach him even if he had a genuine grievance. This must create discontent. He made the amazing statement that ‘no untoward incident occurred during the introduction of our team.’ This showed that either he kept himself completely in dark about what the Captain was doing openly, or he was trying to shield the proved misbehaviour of the Captain.
“We have definite proof of this misbehaviour at importing functions. Not only that, there are allegations (against the Captain) of gross misbehaviour on the field itself which stand unrebutted. It is sufficient to note that the Manager’s report on the tour is completely silent about all these unfortunate happenings.
“It is not for us to speculate upon the reasons which prompted the Manager to overlook the Captain’s behaviour. Suffice is to say that his report does not appear to conform to facts so far as the conduct of (Captain) is concerned. The Manager speaks (in his report) of lack of sense of responsibility of the members of the team, but he did not tell us about the steps he ever took to improve the matters.
“Although Y (Assistant Manager) was an experienced cricketer, he was so placed between the Manager and the Captain, that apart from making off-the-field arrangements for the team (which are reported excellent), he completely obliterated himself so far as the playing side of the tour was concerned. Although he could have proved himself useful, he made himself completely ineffective, and was, therefore, not in a position to help in any situation.”
The Report gets better by the para. “He, however, made certain statements before us which are directly opposed to the statements made on the point by the Manager. This leads one to the somewhat depressing conclusion that not only the Manager suppressed the whole truth in his report, he did not disclose it even in his evidence before us. Both the Manager and the Assistant Manager complained about the physical fitness of our boys to face the ordeal. They admitted that our fielding was bad and below expectations. Even ground fielding was poor. So was throwing. There was careless batting and the boys could not adjust to the moving ball. Again the question arises, what was done to remedy all these defects?
“Even otherwise, (the Captain’s) tactlessness is consorting with some members to an extent that made the group (openly led by him) highly distasteful to other members, and his puerile behaviour towards others (including some senior members) made (Captain) off the field, a disruptive skipper. He was responsible for creating factions, and did not treat his players as ‘gentlemen’. Unfortunately, nobody corrected him, when he went wrong. Instead, the Manager allowed (Captain) to do what he liked, with the result that things went from bad to worse. Here was a team beaten by its own Captain!
“On the field, the tactics of the Captain appear to have been elementary. He bowled his seamers to a stop and yet asked for a spinner from Pakistan. It seems (Captain) never had a plan of action either in batting, bowling, or field placing. The Manager admitted in his report that (Captain) had the ‘tendency’ of changing the batting order in each innings which perhaps upset the batsmen. He also admitted before us that there was no cohesion between the members of the team. The result of all this was that mid-way through the tour it was no longer a team. Each player started playing for himself, and there was no cohesions or team spirit. Most of this rot is traceable to bad captaincy.
“Some of the younger members of the team were not given any opportunity. The Manager admitted this before us. Although the batsmen failed to play the moving ball well, the Captain (and Manager) did nothing to mend matters.
“The committee is of the opinion that our team was as good (if not better) than any, sent abroad, by us earlier; but its talent was not properly utilized.”
Different members of the team:
“...the performance of our team was much below expectations. It was certainly not up to test or first class standard. According to the Assistant Manager it was not even like a country side’s performance.”
“Fielding was very poor. Batting was careless. Limited stock of bowling. That too was depleted by over-use or wrong use. Talent was not properly utilized, leadership was inexperienced. Batting order was frequently changed unnecessarily. We were a weaker side.”
“Fielders were changed causing disturbance in the bowlers strategy.”
“Fast bowlers used very much. Most batsmen started loosing patience. They could not stay long. Many inexperienced players. No planning by Captain. Players played as individuals, not as a team. There was lack of understanding between the Captain and the boys. For most of the matches the selection Committee would not meet.”
“After sometime there was no determination that some boys were over-played, some were not utilized. Field setting was bad. ....We were not a happy side.”
