THE worst did happen. In my column last week, I had hoped that Pakistanis will do better in the second leg of the tri-nation four-team double header in Australia. But, as it turned out, I was hoping against hope. The ground reality was that it was too much for the national side to change gear after that dismal performance in the first leg.
Four matches in the first leg, and as many in the second make it eight in all. And the team has just one victory to show, and that too came against the second-string Australia-A. To make things worse, the Pakistanis lost to the same side in the third-place playoff, giving rise to suggestions that even that sole victory against the juniors was nothing more than a flash in the pan.
That the side took the wooden spoon in both the contests is a matter of shame. They were fourth in the first leg of the three-nation contest, and they failed to turn things around in the second leg. When Pakistan had lost 7-1 to New Zealand in the Commonwealth Games, the result had come as a shock. But to have lost to a junior string three times out of four in a matter of days is something that has given us all a real jolt. The national pride was never more abysmal.
The opponents were the same. The climate and playing conditions were more or less the same. The national side was not carrying any serious injuries. All this called for an improved performance in the second leg of the contest. It was a logical expectation since there was ample time for the team management to do its homework, to know exactly what the team was lacking, and to devise ways to overcome the shortcomings.
I am sure the team management would have done its best, but, unfortunately, it did not reflect in the team’s scoreline. Apparently, its best was not good enough. It is a matter of relief that there was no third leg in the contest, otherwise it would have only prolonged the Pakistani misery.
I know the team was below par in the absence of three senior players, but it would be a folly to use their absence as an argument to justify the team’s pathetic showing. Hockey is a team game, after all. Individuals come and go, but teams have to survive such phases. If we really believe that the team was affected so radically by the absence of three players, we might have to think seriously about the fate of the game in the country.
I have been saying for the last several years — my weekly columns bear a testimony to this — that Pakistan hockey revolves around, at the most, thirty-three players. If people want me to believe that the absence of Nadeem, Sohail and Waseem can have such a drastic effect on the team’s performance, I will have to revise my estimate. Pakistan hockey, in that case, revolves around three — not thirty-three — players. Is that what you would like to believe?
THE worst did happen. In my column last week, I had hoped that Pakistanis will do better in the second leg of the tri-nation four-team double header in Australia. But, as it turned out, I was hoping against hope. The ground reality was that it was too much for the national side to change gear after that dismal performance in the first leg.
