December 14, 2003

With the lot that has been selected to go to New Zealand, it is hard to believe that the selectors are serious about putting together a strong team

HISTORY is what you perceive it to be. The English call the 1857 uprising a mutiny while the Muslims call it the war of independence. I used to deal with the executives of a global company whose visiting card gave their designations to be Transit Managers. They would visit Peshawar and meet some of the dubious businessmen who would trade across the border. That was supposed to be alright with the ‘civilized world’. What was of course unacceptable to them were the ‘smugglers’ from the east who were involved in illegally bringing in goods into their country.

It is this muddled logic that seems to have permeated our selection policy. They may win in the end in New Zealand, such is the talent and individual brilliance of our players, but it definitely remains an unfair selection in some ways, with contradictions rising up once again.

Mohammad Hafeez was considered the find of the post-World Cup period and scored many runs and took wickets at vital stages as well as being a brilliant fielder. But after one poor series he was dumped because of a flawed technique. Now Saleem Elahi has been recalled after being one of the underachievers of the previous season because of a flawed technique.

Nevertheless, Misbah-ul-Haq and Hasan Raza remain out of the team because of ‘flawed techniques’. The fact that Misbah with a series of fifties last year was nominated Man-of-the-Tournament, that included the bowling of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne, and Hasan took two fifties in one Test off them, remains of course insignificant. Runs are not the criteria until Saleem Elahi’s inclusion has to be justified. Then we hear he has forced himself into the side on merit because of his runs in domestic cricket, never mind that the tournament was farce with majority of teams not worthy of being classified in second grade cricket.

Then there’s Younis Khan, who was suddenly banished from the side because the selectors felt that he had delivered nothing of significance during his three and a half years. Two months down the line he has been recalled for the New Zealand tour because the team requires some experience in the middle-order! Was that not needed against South Africa in the Test series?

The other reason for his recall is even more hair splitting, and I quote the chief selector: “He has been recalled chiefly because he enjoys an excellent record in New Zealand.” Then why didn’t they play him when the Kiwis were here last week? That ‘excellent record’ was against the same bowlers. It was in fact weakened by the absence of Shane Bond and a degenerating Harris.

And if track records are a criteria, then Faisal Iqbal fetched two fifties in the third Test there on what was his maiden tour and averaged over 40 in the series. And Waqar Younis did reasonable well. Waqar is still a greater threat than at least Umar Gul. Saqlain Mushtaq was our best spinner with 11 wickets in the Tests, and even rocked his way to a matured Test hundred! All three were available.

If the selectors have been digging up track records of the previous tour in New Zealand, the following data couldn’t have escaped their attention.

Salem Elahi scored a total of 31 runs in the two Test innings he played there, less than Misbah-ul-Haq who had a higher average. He totalled 57 runs in the three ODI’s he played, a failure at all three positions, he was tried at in the top order.

Moin Khan, captain on the trip, scored 102 runs in the five ODIs garnering only five catches, and a total of 75 runs in the two Tests. He took three catches in the five Test innings New Zealand played.

Azhar Mahmood, who has pencilled in for the One-Day series, could make it to only three ODI teams and finished with 2-149 from his 30 overs. His three innings produced 17 runs, including two ducks.

Among those who have been left behind is Rashid Latif, simply because he was arguing with the selectors on precisely this line of confused thinking. He wanted a clear mandate to rebuild from the youngsters up, with senior players playing a role but certainly not that of usurpers. It was working with the Pakistan side reaching consecutive finals of team competitions and winning one of them. In the other they eliminated a full strength Sri Lanka on their turf. They won with professionalism the first game in England, and the hosts couldn’t believe their luck as they scraped through a win in the third to win the series.

Rashid was coming out the hero, as captains normally do. The selectors were no doubt playing their part in the process and Aamer and Co. need to be credited for that. But it is always the captain who wears the crown, whether it is one of roses or thorns. Rashid’s stature was rising as both a thought leader as well as a leader of young men who were beginning to gel together. Soon he could have become the Allan Border of the mid-1980s, who took up a set of youngsters and alongwith coach Bob Simpson, made them the best in the world.

It was also clear that he was grooming Younis Khan as his successor, as he seemed to have the basic ingredient for the job-sincerity of purpose, true grit and a track record.

But the selectors kept oscillating between youngsters and the spectre of brining back the senior players. Inzi was supposedly being rested despite his protests that he wanted no such thing. He was told in no uncertain terms that he would have to prove his fitness in domestic cricket before he would be considered. Yet there he was against Bangladesh, having had no cricket outing since the World Cup. The exit of both Rashid and Younis at the time was akin to the removal from American politics of the Kennedy brothers. They were eliminated within five years in the 1960s simply because they thought differently. Sadly both Rashid and Younis allowed the boot into the door they left ajar. Younis opted out of the first two Tests against Bangladesh and Rashid chose not to play the Tests against South Africa.

Now both have been conveniently set aside, one from cricket altogether and one from a future job as captain. Rashid is still so magnificently fit and athletic and Younis remains a magnificent striker of the ball but now they must bide their time.

The chief selector may have honesty of purpose and a sincere commitment to improve Pakistan cricket, but he is on weak ground when it comes to fairness, consistency of thought and fairness to youngsters. For instance, bringing back Salim Elahi when Misbah-ul-Haq and Salman Butt have been carted around for the last three months as replacements in the top and middle order is retrogressive thinking. It also is a complete slap in the face of the rebuilding slogan. It shows contradiction in policies of the selectors. Saleem seems to strike it rich. For the past three years he has been brought in for the easy series, given opportunities to score and taken on foreign tours.

In 2000 he was played against a tepid English bowling attack, scored runs and went to New Zealand where he had no clue to the bowling. Then after the tougher series against the Australians was over and the other candidates had been thrown in against the best bowing attack in the world, he was picked up to bat against another pedestrian bowling attack, that of Zimbabwe. Against the South Africans he failed miserably, his ineptness clearly exposed against genuine pace and swing bowling. The one hundred came with three lives earlier on. Rest of the time he went early in every game. Then he was pathetic in the World Cup and totally at sea. Some of the foreign media there told me that if this was our reserve lot, we were fooling around with our development programme.

Now he was brought in once again as a surprise package and given chance to bat at No3 against a club level attack. A game earlier Misbah-ul-Haq was kept back to No7 and till the slog overs, as Moin was given the opportunity to play himself in when the team needed singles and twos. Once he had stroked his way to 70 which any other batsman would have done given the settling time that a No3 player gets, he was shielded from batting in the next two games so that his good work may not be dented by an early dismissal. To the extent that Saleem went in at No10 in the last over of the third match and with some twenty runs to get in the fourth.

Now he and Moin are on the plane to New Zealand. Misbah-ul-Haq is being probably asked to work on his technique and report to the academy along with Hasan Raza. ‘Thank you for Kenya and Sharjah young men. We’ll call you when we have to face up to the next big Test for which our favoured lot lacks temperament and technique.’

As for Rashid Latif, it seems he has done his task of saving the jobs. But he is a man scorned and used. Rashid will, and should not give up, his tirade for the truth and for justice in our cricket system. This brotherhood of man concept must finish and merit should prevail. Otherwise the PCB will remain a hostage to a group of men who, for their selfish desires will take Pakistan cricket down the drain as they did over the six months leading up to the 2003 world cup. Take a look at the side today. Back are Inzi, Moin, Saleem Elahi, Azhar Mahmood. Mushtaq Ahmed fumbled on re-entry otherwise he would be on the plane and not Danish. Saqlain is actively being lobbied for by the skipper. Even Afridi is being brought in from the wilderness through the side door.

Make your conclusions. Is something not being readied for an India-Pak series? Will the patron of PCB look more closely at the team being readied? The thaw in bi-lateral relations points to an economic boom. Is the same being lined up in cricket for a different set of speculative economics?

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)