THROUGH THE COVERS: Chop-and-change policy continues
By Zaheer Abbas
THERE appears to be no end in sight as far as the chop-and-change policy of the national selectors is concerned. They continue to pick players and then drop them without giving a chance, only to pick them up later. While the policy itself is funny, even funnier is the fact that each time they do it, they try to inject some logic in their decisions. They perhaps don’t mind the prospect of becoming the butt of all jokes. My guess is that they take it as a professional hazard one has to live with. And if that is their idea of doing the job, I am afraid not much can really be expected of them, and of the team that they select.
Just imagine how they justified the selection of Imran Nazir. If newspaper reports are anything to go by, the chief selector called him a popular choice. Well, well, well ... there is something seriously wrong here. A selector picking up a player on the basis of popular choice! I wonder who would buy such professionalism. I certainly won’t, and that is for sure.
Misbahul Haq is another case in point. His selection seems to be cyclic, as he gets picked up for one assignment and dropped for the next. I guess he will do well to plan his career accordingly at least during the tenure of the current selectors.
Taufiq Umar’s case, however, is the most interesting. He has been dropped even when the chief selector described him as a good potential. The reason to drop him was not to accommodate Imran Nazir, though. He was dropped because, according to the chief selector, he had a technical flaw in his batting and was getting out repeatedly in a similar fashion.
I don’t want to go into the details of all the technical flaws that the selector had in his playing days, but I do wonder what the team management and the national coach were doing all this while to rectify the technical flaw that young Taufiq supposedly has. He has been dropped so that he may go back to the domestic circuit and improve his technique. Don’t blame me. I am just quoting what the chief selector told the journalists.
I have always maintained that there is little utility, if at all, of having a senior coach attached with the national side. The stage where a coach can make a difference is at the junior level, schools, Under-15, Under-19 and, perhaps, Pakistan A. Beyond that, it is difficult to do much in this respect. That the national coach failed to rectify whatever technical flaw the chief selector thinks Taufiq had, only proves my point. And that being so, I fail to comprehend what the coach is officially supposed to do.
Take, for instance, the case of South Africa. Their used to be national coaches even before the South Africans returned to international cricket back in 1992, but they made it a high-profile slot by introducing gadgets, graphics and analytical data produced by top-of-the-line computers. I am not sure, but I won’t be surprised if someone tells me they used computers for charting out team strategy. Such was, and remains, their dependence on computers and related technology.
Against all this, they don’t have the kind of success that would justify their approach. No World Cups. Nothing. I know they were a pretty good side till a few years ago, but, then, there have been other good sides as well. They have always been behind Australia, and today is no different than yesterday. To be honest, they have been a distant second. All their high-profile coaching aided by technology has failed to take them to the top.
In contrast, Australians have always preferred to have a low-profile coach with the national side, putting more stress on their academies and the domestic structure. The result is there for all to see. Which way Pakistan wants to go is for the PCB to decide. What they have decided is apparently not working. It is time for a rethink.
THERE appears to be no end in sight as far as the chop-and-change policy of the national selectors is concerned. They continue to pick players and then drop them without giving a chance, only to pick them up later. While the policy itself is funny, even funnier is the fact that each time they do it, they try to inject some logic in their decisions. They perhaps don’t mind the prospect of becoming the butt of all jokes. My guess is that they take it as a professional hazard one has to live with. And if that is their idea of doing the job, I am afraid not much can really be expected of them, and of the team that they select.
