Pakistan cricket has had more than its fair share of vicissitudes. In a sense, the game has followed the trend one has so painfully witnessed the country patterning over the last many years: adhocism. What is it other than the absence of specific policies carefully tended by specialists that has given rise to this menace in the administration of cricket affairs much like the nation’s other issues? It is difficult to see any at all.

The PCB with its ad-hoc (for lack of originality) committee which, incidentally, is just that, has miserably failed to achieve anything that bodes well for the game of cricket in the long-term. It is no rocket science to see why as the committee cannot possibly have a mandate that would lend to making a structural difference in the game, given it is, after all, ad-hoc. No wonder, then, that the head of the board tends to react to the inevitable snafus in a knee-jerk fashion that, more than occasionally, ignites the proverbial two-second fuse. We have seen examples galore, recently and some not so recently.

Without going into specifics, some of the incidents in the last couple of months point to a clear lack of discipline and a definitive crack in the hierarchy of the collective decision-making process. Undue emotions have been long known to have destroyed many a life, both personal and professional. Emotional intelligence, defined by Daniel Goleman, is a master aptitude, a capacity that profoundly affects all other abilities, either facilitating or interfering with them.

We can have the most brilliant of people in a field; however, if they lack the abilities and characteristics of mood management, managing relationships, self-motivation, empathy and self-awareness, in effect all critical to emotional intelligence, the road to overall success may just remain elusive. Similarly, a cricketer of seismic proportions in terms of talent cannot go too far unless there is some infusion of emotional reliability.

The Oval Test fiasco is a testimony to the dearth of this sentiment in our cricketing leaders. There is no doubt that there ought to have been a protest against the most biased charges against the team; however, the way it was lodged and demonstrated was an indication of how we tried to achieve the right thing using the wrong method. There was no reason why we couldn’t achieve the same objective of being cleared of the tampering charges and still not be charged with and then, subsequently, convicted of bringing the game into disrepute, not to mention forfeiting a match we’d all but won. The penalty: a four-match ban on the captain. The consequence: the situation as it stands today, all entirely avoidable and, therefore, unnecessary.

Where did we go wrong? Is the captain to blame or was the manager not involved enough? How about chairman of the board? Was he too weak to prevail or did he misread the situation? Did the coach have any input at all or was he brushed aside? We can go into various permutations and combinations; it is what it is, and now it’s high time we take stock of what we have before us, regroup our thoughts, refocus our priorities and move on. How we move on, though, is important.

Basic education of all cricketers is a necessity. It is understandable that we should pick talent where and when we see it, be it a narrow alley in an obscure town or in an inter-school/college tournament in a prominent city. The proof of pudding, as they say, is in the eating. So, as important as recognising talent is nurturing it, and not just in the myopic way of furthering the ability to play better cricket but to develop resilience, tenacity, discipline, communication, situational leadership, and generally a can-do attitude. For the Pakistan team, these traits are even more important than getting better at fielding. We must begin now to restructure cricket with a view to streamlining the way we pick and develop overall talent. We should see the beginnings of the future Pakistani cricketers in schools, promoted via inter-school tournaments and devoted coaches. This should be supplemented by class room sessions focused on developing the players’ emotional intelligence quotient.

Promoting cricket from the identified grass-roots level will achieve the parallel objective of consistency. Education will be an added advantage, and cannot be ignored as it serves as a prerequisite for becoming not merely a good cricketer but growing to be an accomplished and worldly cricketing leader. The two are vastly different. One is a good cricketer on the field, and the other is that along with the qualities of what encompasses emotional intelligence as described earlier on in the piece. That demarcates a good cricketer from a great cricketer, and distinguishes a tactical captain from a strategic leader, on and, equally important, off the field.

This should also help in curbing the scourge of individualism in our cricket team and encourage team-work. Unfortunately, we bask at our past glories and pooh-pooh the very concept of block-building based on the collective talent of the team. Instead, they choose to ignore the benefit of how each and every player brings something unique to the team and how such synthesis, if appropriately applied, can effect synergy. In other words, we forget that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Yet another example of our cricket’s depth of crisis is the recent doping issue. There have been various publications on how the entire matter was handled to begin with and the quality of the judgment handed down by the commission. While the ICC has found the transparency laudable, some of the circles in Pakistan, as expected, are being long on emotions and short on rationale. If we all accept that irrespective of the stature of the players the board has the obligation to be impartial, we will somehow get around to finding peace in justice, as long as justice is, and is seen to be, done. Without knowing the details of this unfortunate incident, one is tight-lipped on passing remarks — lest they be termed as cryptic — except that the team, without the demolition squad that the two have so often constituted, will feel vanquished. Beyond this, it will be preemptive to say anything else as the appeal process shortly goes underway.

Dr Nasim Ashraf, the replacement for Mr Sheheryar Khan, again, does not come from the world of cricket. This brings another interesting point of how such crucial positions are filled. How are we to believe that head of the state, who is also the patron-in-chief of the PCB, can make well-deliberated appointments to manage and lead the board? Is it not important to seek the counsel of the leading past cricketing greats of the country in selecting head of the board? And, does it really make sense that this is a selection and not an election?

These are questions our leaders must have the courage to answer. As a nation, we must develop the maturity to question. Are we up for it?