Four dropped catches, including three off the same batsman who went on to score a match-stealing century. Add to that a single-minded determination to destroy the career of the country’s best spin bowler, and you’re forced to confront the fact that our wicketkeeper is more dangerous to our team than the opposition itself. There can be no questioning that Kamran Akmal is the sole reason we lost a match which was unequivocally ours for the taking.
But what is the solution? Drop him, you say? But, you see, it’s not that simple. The Pakistan selectors take a lot of stick, but they’re not stupid. They have been watching Akmal spill catches for the last couple of years, but they have stopped short of taking any definitive action, possibly because they have also witnessed him contribute to some of our most historic wins. No one can accuse the selection panel of coddling the senior players as they have hardly shirked from discarding anyone who may consider himself untouchable. Shoaib Malik. Misbah-ul-Haq. Abdul Razzaq. Even old Mohammad Yousuf. All have felt the jagged edge of a largely indiscriminate axe. Plus, Akmal has been dropped before.
So why is he still there? I would think it’s fairly obvious, but apparently others don’t. Over the last few years I’ve developed a slight contempt for people who assume that the answer is as simple as replacing Akmal with a specialist keeper such as the likes of Sarfraz Ahmed. Such a statement is incredibly short-sighted and akin to expecting free and fair democratic elections to work in every country. One has to look at the broader picture and account for the exigencies of a particular set-up before imposing a simplistic solution.
The selectors have left Akmal in the team because of his batting, and his ability to win us games. Scoff if you will, and I would agree with the argument that his mercurial presence comes at the cost of him single-handedly losing us matches such as this one, which could have been one of our most important Test victories in more than a decade (beating India in Karachi was more important, and Akmal was a central figure in that).
Akmal’s batting isn’t great. While it has the potential to be world-class, it certainly isn’t up there with Adam Gilchrist and it would be unspeakable to compare him with Kumar Sangakarra. However, unless Sarfraz Ahmed or whoever can score enough runs at the domestic level to justify their inclusion, it would be difficult to let Akmal go.
Even the most cursory glance at the current Pakistan batting order would betray its precarious condition. Do we even have a dependable batsman at the moment? Yousuf is unquestionably world class, but a far cry from the consistent run-machine that he was back in 2006. Umar Akmal is undoubtedly our next big thing, but this tour has shown that there is still some growing up to be done (and I’m in no hurry to see him shed his carefree side). If Younis Khan were to return to the fold, we would then have a maximum of two-and-a-half real batsmen on a good day. Even the most optimistic supporter wouldn’t classify Misbah or Malik as reliable, and I’ve wasted enough column space on the unreliability of Faisal Iqbal and the openers.
With such a sorry state of affairs, it’s difficult to conceive lengthening the tail by adding a keeper who is mediocre with the bat. Sarfraz may be no mug, but, like it or not, Akmal has proved his worth with the willow often enough to convince the selectors (and a fair degree of the public who’re quick to forget the praise they lavished on him when he contributed to the World Twenty20 or helped us win a Test in South Africa that he is a useful lower middle-order batsman and makeshift limited-overs opener. This quality makes him a priceless commodity in a team which needs the most out of its set number of batsmen. We dare not risk dropping a specialist bowler for an extra batsman since our bowlers are the ones who bring us to the edge of victory in the first place.
There is yet another argument to be made for Akmal, but it’s a more amorphous, perhaps whimsical one, which I really have no hard stats to back up. I call it my Afridi-ist approach to Pakistan cricket. It is my firm belief that ‘practicality’ is anathema to Pakistan cricket. We’ve never been stable enough to implement such a concept and have learned to prosper in its absence. Our cricket is defined by unpredictable flair and periods of brilliance. We achieve results not when we grind, scrap or mechanically follow the text-book, but when we cease the imitative, turn on the style, and charge ahead on impulse and adrenalin.
We’re a momentum-based side and we feed off players who’re capable of sparking it. The 1992 World Cup is a perfect example. We were average throughout the tournament and then Inzimam-ul-Haq and Wasim Akram lifted us to an improbable victory. Shahid Afridi personifies this aspect of Pakistan cricket (and hence my ‘theory’ takes its name from him). Shahid bhai was critically lampooned for most of his career as Akmal is now. He’s lost us our fair share of ODI games. However, there was no denying the element of brilliance he offered. And after a decade, he brought home the Twenty20 World Cup.
Akmal is a player in that mould – perfectly forged to suit the system around him. He will frustrate you as often as he thrills you, even with his keeping feats. Pakistan will never win matches with the Rao Iftikhars, Wajatullah Wastis and Khurram Manzoors of our country. We thrive on raw talent, as capricious as it may be. Hence, Akmal defines Pakistan cricket. By his very nature, he is built to serve an attacking Pakistan team. Well, at least according to the Afridi-ist school of thought. But hey, even Karl Marx had his critics, so what do I know.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
