There are basic lessons that can be learnt from history, but that is only possible if we actually want to do that. As a nation, we have not shown much inclination, and, in that sense, history goes against us
WHEN Gen. Alfred Rommel, who had written many papers on tank warfare and infantry attacks, was sent to Africa to replace the ailing Italian command in 1941, his men were regarded as an expeditionary force. Axis forces were on the back foot and an entire Italian army had surrendered.
One of the first things Rommel did was study the terrain. He wanted to know how to use the natural advantages he had. In less than 18 months of his landing on the African soil, the British had been attacked, pushed and pursued, all the way to the Egyptian border. Rommel was made Field Marshall and earned him the nick name, Desert Fox. His brilliant on-field strategies even earned him the respect of the British soldiers.
When Field Marshall Montgomery eventually tamed the Fox in the historical battle of El Alamein, he shouted after the final German counter attack was repulsed: “I read your books, Rommel.”
Now, coming to our original subject, cricket, there are three lessons for us to learn in this brief look at wartime strategy.
One, it’s not always the resources. It’s how you use them. Rommel once managed to extricate an entire division, surrounded by British troops, by making his tanks run in circles, thereby creating a sandstorm and then blasting his way through the blinded enemy.
Second, study the terrain where you will fight and choose your resources accordingly.
Third, don’t advertise your strategy openly to the opposition, and that too just so that you can calm your critics who say that you are not prepared. How the battle was fought (not necessarily won) that always speaks for the planning.
In the context of rebuilding the Pakistan cricket team, these factors are crucial for the reconstruction of not just the top order and the fast bowling, but also of morale. In a population as large as ours, substitutes are stacked at the shelves, with another warehouse full. But if they are not used intelligently, the numbers will only compound the problem, not alleviate it.
If the selectors still stand hands back and fingers crossed for approval of a squad of probables, then what’s new in the character of the PCB setup? It is the prerogative of the Chairman to stay back and clean-up whatever he feels has to be cleaned? What happened to the promise of not interfering in selection?
That came as early as October last year when Bari and his merry men put forward teams for the Zimbabwean and South African tours. In PCB’s own statement, it was clear that from now on the selectors would choose teams independently of the PCB management. This had made sense that top management in every sport all over the world runs administration and not the teams. But the PCB management had played the role of advisor on selection of the XIs during the World Cup and it contributed to the misgivings and grossly undermined the authority of the team management. It will do the same if the final selection is at the mercy of the top management.
It should be up to the selectors whether to choose Inzimam or Moin or any other horse or colt from the wilderness. Of course the coach and captain and to an extent the manager must have their say but it should not go beyond this circle of authority.
And if it does, then let us accept that all the talk of delegation to the professionals is one of the several superficial acts to indicate that the management is taking actions on all fronts to clean up the game and learn from the loss.
However, already all the good work of the management of the past four weeks is going down the drain. There has been much backslapping and promises, but people of the calibre of Javed Miandad and Rashid Latif are still being seen by the young cricketers that the management’s approval is necessary for them to have a future.
It will lead all eyes and ears to Gaddafi Stadium, something that a professional set-up should avoid. Once again there is the danger of a king’s court and the command room being perceived as being in the administration and not in the team management.
On tours this can be disastrous. Even if the PCB Chairman wants to rule with an iron fist, then he should keep this very, very focused on continuity presentations. The selectors must present a policy statement valid for a year and any selection should fit the long term objective laid out. Questioning the selection of three spinners when taking the team to New Zealand should be the prerogative of the top management.
Coming back to getting the best out of your resources, the biggest test will be how Shoaib Akhtar bowls when he comes back into the side.
Bret Lee’s comeback is the perfect case study for the selectors. When Ricky Ponting took over the Australian One-Day side, he had Lee dropped in the first game against Pakistan at home last June. In Ponting’s opinion, Lee was bowling too many no-balls and wides while going for pace and was also going at over five an over.
Lee came out with the explanation that he had been asked to bowl fast by Steve Waugh who always wanted aggression. But Lee also said that he would adjust according to how the captain wanted him to bowl. Please note that Lee did not mention even the coach and selectors, let alone the ACB President.
In fact when the sponsors protested to ACB at the exclusion of Bret Lee for the first One-day, after they had marketed the series as Shoaib versus Bret, the ACB replied that they manage the cricket, they don’t select the team. Perhaps a tacit pressure brought him back in the second game. He bowled exactly as Ponting had feared and was dropped in Brisbane.
Shoaib should be brought back for Sri Lanka. He is clearly frustrated at being singled out for stories about off-field activities. What he has yet to realize is that curiosity follows the flamboyant. But the fact remains that if there is uniformity of justice and complexes are removed from the team members, even the wildest player can fall in line and play his cricket the way he is asked.
If Shoaib knows that he wont get an appointment with the management, he will work harder at the nets. Why blame him for loose bowling against India and England when he was given every signal that he was so good that he himself knew what the best way to bowl was? You can’t tell someone you’re several notches above everyone, including the captain, and then pull him up for not following orders.
If it has been the decision of the Chairman to plug him back into the 21 then it shows that his belief in Shoaib is unflinching. The boy is our best bet today at getting through the top order of the best sides in the world. The problem is not in him. It is around him.
Coming to the second lesson we learn from the African campaign is that we have to study where we will be playing. Perhaps the pair of Shoaib Akhtar and Sami is all we need with Razzaq as back up and bring in two specialist bowlers. Then use guys like Hafeez and Taufeeq to use their part-time spin.
In England we may need to bring in Azhar Mahmood to use his experience of playing cricket there for the past two years and his natural swing abilities. And there we will have to take a closer look at Taufeeq Umar because his shuffle and bat preparation is suicide on English pitches.
Third and last lesson is that we will have to keep our mouths shut. Too much public strategizing to assure the Pakistani public and perceived critics that the new management is in top of their planning will only give the opposition more than just a whiff of our tactics.
The troops are still raw and have yet to be tested against honed artillery. Let us not give away our positions for the sake of raising the morale. Let that be done through victories and, yes, even close losses.
There are basic lessons that can be learnt from history, but that is only possible if we actually want to do that. As a nation, we have not shown much inclination, and, in that sense, history goes against us 
