June 22, 2003

AS usual, I am writing these lines in the middle of an event, the three-match series between Pakistan and England, of which one match has been played at the time of writing, but the series will be over by the time these lines appear in print. That is not a very ideal situation to be in, but newspaper deadlines have a sanctity of their own, and have to be kept.

The victory in the first One Day International was an ideal start for the team and I hope that they will capitalize on it. It was quite obvious that both the teams were a bit jittery going into the game which was the first major assignment as captain for Michael Vaughan, and first international outing for several in the English side. The Pakistani outfit, as is known too well, is passing through a restructuring phase and had in its fold a handful of rookies.

All this made it for a low-scoring encounter which was turned into a thriller by the lack of experience on both sides. Both sides had a good start, but lost their way in the middle, with Pakistan finally surmounting the modest English total after making a heavy weather of it. Had it not been for the experienced Azhar Mahmood and Abdul Razzaq in the end, England just might have turned the tables on Pakistan.

This brings us to the issue of Abdul Razzaq’s last-minute inclusion in the national side after he failed to get the selectors’ nod initially. This, of course, is indicative of the confusion that is prevailing in the relevant circles that is doing no good to the national cause. There is hardly anything in it except whims and fancies of certain individuals who happen to be running the show.

I say ‘whims’ and ‘fancies’ with absolute awareness of what the two words mean and imply. How else would you justify, or even attempt an explanation, the turnaround on Abdul Razzaq? He was dropped because, in the words of the chief selector, he had looked fatigued and jaded in Pakistan’s previous outing, and in its infinite wisdom the selection committee decided that he needed a bit of rest.

There was hardly any truth in that, for sure. He was just being sidelined because the whole PCB hierarchy is gripped by a star-dumping fever. That it is a worthless piece of policy is an opinion shared by many. I will write more on it some other time, but for now let’s get back to the business in hand.

So, Abdul Razzak was dropped, and the player who, according to the chief selector, needed rest, instead went to England and resumed his career on the county circuit. This should have made him even more ‘fatigued’ and ‘jaded’, but that did not happen, and the chief selector, again in a blatant show of his infinite wisdom and cricketing knowledge, recalled Abdul Razzaq on national duty. This makes me wonder what exactly the PCB selection policy is, and if there is any policy at all.

Besides, Abdul Razzaq was asked to join the team in place of Faisal Athar, who picked up an injury on the tour. Now Faisal is a top-order batsman, and should have been replaced by player of matching credentials. Replacing a specialist batsman with a bowling allrounder is something that only the chief selector can explain.

In fact, he did try to come up with one of his lame excuses. A newspaper report quoted him as saying that when the skipper demands a particular player during the course of a tour, the selection committee should cater to his requirement. That, probably, is another piece of the jigsaw puzzle that represents the current PCB selection policy.

First, the selection committees in the past have repeatedly over-ruled demands from the captain and the tour management committee, and if we keep a check on the issue, I am sure we will similar instances in the future as well. Second, does it make sense to ignore the captain’s views during the selection process, and then to give full weight to what he says once the tour has gone under way? I don’t think I am qualified enough to solve this jigsaw. Only the PCB bosses can do this.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)