THE victory at Lahore must have given a lot of heart to the national team and those who follow its fortunes closely. Coming as it did after a rather lengthy period, I am sure, it would have tasted that much sweeter. The England tour and the Champions Trophy outing in India were, to say the very least, eminently forgettable in their respective nature, dimension and magnitude. That the victory came despite the absence of the team’s key bowlers and despite the loss of so much time on account of bad light only goes to confirm that the outfit is a better one than the one in West Indian clothing.

One of the key differences in the Pakistan team that undertook the last two assignments and the one that is taking on the West Indians these days is the difference of approach in the present team. For those who may wonder how could the approach be any different when the players are more or less the same, very much the same, let me explain.

While proceeding on the tour to England, the national team was on a relative high, as it had had the upper hand at home series that had preceded the tour. This resulted in the rise not just of the level of confidence in the team, but also in arrogance in the attitudes of the players. Call it whatever you may, but for me it was player power at its worst.

As was proved by the incident at The Oval, the notion of Player Power appeared to be on the rise in the Pakistani dressing room. Speaking strictly in terms of principled mechanics, the players had no right to refuse to take the field at The Oval once the PCB hierarchy had made the suggestion to them. After all, the players are all employees of the PCB, and were duty-bound to follow the advice of the chairman.

However, those were special circumstances and the chairman apparently did not wish to force his opinion on the players in that charged dressing room atmosphere. In such circumstances, it was not fair to expect me, the manager, to force the issue. The advice to the players was hundred per cent correct, as has been proved by the result of the recent ICC hearing which found Inzamam guilty of tarnishing the image of the game. Had the players taken the field that day, Pakistan would have come out absolutely clean from the entire controversy.

The decision whether or not Pakistan should complete the tour also remained in a limbo because the players, not the PCB, were taking time to reach a decision. It was only after the players confirmed to the PCB chairman that he was in a position to face the international media with confidence.

At another level, despite the rather smart salaries that the players are getting under the contract system, most of them continue to play for English counties and in League Cricket, as well as appearing for exhibition matches around the world. The basic purpose of the contract system, as one would recall, was to allow free time to the players and to ensure their fitness when on national duty. In the current scenario, too much of cricket means the players are below par when they report to national camps. This is one major reason behind the worrying lack of physical fitness among the players. But the PCB was in no mood and, may I say, no position to ask its superstars to stay back and work on their fitness for national duty. It was player power that dictated the terms.

Whatever happened after the English tour and before the commencement of the Champions Trophy has apparently taken the wind out of the sails of the player power. The players appeared to be more focussed on the game, and that paid due dividends.