November 7, 2004

THE fact that Pakistan came from behind in the home series against Sri Lanka is bound to have a good effect on all concerned even though it was not the thumping victory that it promised to be in the first half of the five-day encounter. The credit for this must go to the Sri Lankans who stayed in the game with their never-say-die approach.

The manner in which their top order responded to the crisis in the second innings was impressive to the core, and was almost good enough to turn the tide in their favour. Another fifty runs would have made a world of difference, given the traditional Pakistani tendency to make a heavy weather of chasing even small second-innings totals.

As they get down to analyzing their performance, the Sri Lankans will surely find fault with the fourth-wicket partnership between Kumar Sangakkara and Thilan Samarawera. The irony is that it was one of the key partnerships that kept the Lankans in the game, and it is difficult to criticize the two individuals. But, technically speaking, there was still too much time left for the two of them to concentrate on just staying there without much of an effort to score some runs.

While Sangakkara was trying to push the score along, Samarawera, while being solid in defence, apparently had no intention to at least push the ball in the gaps for singles. He scored some twenty odd runs in more than one hundred and fifty balls. He could have easily scored another thirty-forty runs during that innings without taking any chances at all. That would have lessened the pressure on Sangakkara, who all of a sudden had to change gears once Samarawera was dismissed. In the process, he also got out, leaving the tail fully exposed with more than a day to go and almost nothing on the board.

Together, the two could have scored an additional fifty runs, and that would have added to the cushion the Lankans finally managed through their lower order. Had that been so, it would have been anybody’s game, for time and run rate would have also become relevant factors in the equation.

Before moving on to Pakistan’s performance in the series, I wish to touch the fine imposed by the ICC on Sangakkara for showing his frustration at being caught behind after his long vigil at the crease. His act was said to be “against the spirit of the game.” I find the penalty rather harsh, because Sangakkara was frustrated with himself, and not with the decision of the umpire. It was very much in the spirit of the game, for players play the game, any game, in the spirit of trying their best to win. The kind of innings he had played, Sangakkara knew that all his effort was nullified by that dismissal, and, hence, the frustration. I find fault with the ICC, not with Sangakkara.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, I will try to confine myself to their performance during the series alone. Their resolve to make an impression after going down in the first Test was, indeed, praiseworthy, more so because they did not have the services of their frontline bowling attack. However, they keep blowing hot and cold, and it is hard to say that they showed maturity as a team. Even the team management is apparently not too impressed by the performance, and the recent statements made by coach Bob Woolmer in this regard are clear examples of his assessment of the team keeping in view the Australian tour ahead.

In the last few months, Woolmer has declared each assignment as the litmus test for the team and for the training methods he has introduced since his arrival on the scene. First it was the triangular in Holland, then the ICC Champions Trophy after which he said he was basically looking forward to the Test series with Sri Lanka and now once again he has declared the Australian tour as the litmus test. If results are anything to go by, he has failed the first three tests. I wish him luck in the assignment ahead.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)