THERE has been a flurry of comments in the media and in private circles about the decision of Inzamamul Haq in the semi-final against the West Indies to bat first on a difficult wicket and under conditions conducive to swing bowling. To many, it is the main reason behind Pakistan’s misery on that fateful day.
As I see it, winning or losing is not something that can be decided at the time of the toss. Pakistan’s performance would not have become acceptable had Brian Lara won the toss and put Pakistan in to bat. The team’s batting procession needs to be condemned in its totality. Losing your nine wickets for sixty-odd runs, the last seven being for some thirty-odd, is not the kind of performance that can be defended on any count.
It is not fair to blame Inzamam alone for the decision because it is always taken in consultation with the coach and the senior players. It was a debatable decision, but I am sure Inzamam and company must have had something in mind that didn’t go according to plan. But what about the decision to play Salman Butt? Awarding international debut in a semi-final, and that too at the top of the batting order, is not something that happens often. A pressure match is not the time to experiment, but Bob Woolmer, the imaginative coach that he is, stretched his imagination a bit too far this time.
This brings us to the issue of Woolmer’s statement before embarking on the tour wherein he had described the triangular in Holland and the ICC Champions Trophy in England as the litmus test for the team under his command. If the scoreline is anything to go by, the team has failed the test, and so has Woolmer himself. This is, however, not to suggest that he should be kicked out of the equation, for it would be worse than the initial decision to appoint him.
My thoughts on the issue have always been clear. You do not need a high-profile coach for the national team. Instead, his place is with the junior strings. Those donning the national colours are generally past the stage where a coach can do anything about their levels of skill and temperament. The senior team needs a strategist, not a coach.
Even in the semi-final against West Indies, Woolmer would have certainly told the players to stay at the wicket, and try to play out the allotted quota of overs. But it is always up to the players to deliver. Woolmer, or any coach, can’t go out and play on their behalf. When it does not matter, why should we have a high-profile coach?
As for the players, they continue to be victims of their lingering malaise. Their lack of mental toughness and the missing sense of responsibility are key factors behind their attitude of throwing in the towel, more often that not, at the first possible hurdle. Yes, the game against India was different where Youhanna tried hard, and Afridi’s brief cameo towards the end gave Pakistan a hard-fought win, but, then, matches against India always tend to make people stretch their limits. The problem is that Pakistanis only take the Indians as their rivals, and show an inexplicably carefree attitude against the rest. Why? No one knows for sure.
By continuing to waste our resources on the senior side at the cost of junior strings, my fear is, we are putting our future at stake. If we are really interested in bringing this rot to an end, we need to focus on the Under-19, Under-21 and Under-25 strings. This is where we need a full-time coach, and we need him rather desperately.
THERE has been a flurry of comments in the media and in private circles about the decision of Inzamamul Haq in the semi-final against the West Indies to bat first on a difficult wicket and under conditions conducive to swing bowling. To many, it is the main reason behind Pakistan’s misery on that fateful day.
