Last week I wrote that Pakistan looked an unsettled team and I am wondering whether there is a communication-gap between the team management and the players.
Shoaib Akhtar looked visibly disappointed that he had not been given the new ball. I presume that there are regular team meetings and some sort of strategy is worked out.
One would also presume that Shoaib would have been told that he would be coming on first change and an opportunity offered to him to state his opinion. The captain or the coach or both would have tried to explain to Shoaib Akhtar why it was in the best interest of the team to give the new ball to Mohammad Sami and Rana Naveedul Hasan.
If the players, seniors and juniors, are encouraged to provide some in-put in the game-plan, there will be a greater sense of belonging. It does not diminish the stature of the captain or coach to toss their ideas about at team meetings and encourage discussion. No voice is wholly lost and even the lowliest can sometimes make a high-value suggestion.
Shoaib Akhtar is Pakistan's main strike bowler. I do not suggest that he should get special treatment but the skills of man-management must be applied so that we get the best out of him.
News reports that he was unhappy because he was being treated as a "stock bowler" may have an element of exaggeration but if body language is anything to go by he wasn't exactly charging about and couldn't wait to have a go at the Sri Lankans in Karachi. It was a particularly hot day and, perhaps, the heat got to him.
Another matter that needs to be resolved is the relationship between the selection committee and the team management. One of the reasons for the success of Australia is that they have this relationship right.
The selection committee is the supreme body and brooks no interference and is not obliged to consult the captain or the coach. So many budding young players have been picked by the selection committee and many of them have gone through entire tours without being picked in the playing eleven.
There has always been an element of cronyism (yaari-dosti) in choosing the playing eleven, which might explain why Pakistan has no bench-strength, the budding youngsters have withered away. Some have been grudgingly given one or two chances and then discarded while the more 'established' players are given chance after chance.
During the India-Australia Test match, one of the Australian commentators observed that if Virender Sehwag had been an Australian player he would have been dropped given his present poor form.
But the icing on the cake is the case of Younis Khan. Let me make it perfectly clear that I have been his fan but to get him in the team by making him keep wickets would dent the confidence of the most ardent fan.
Moin Khan falls ill and the team management asks for a replacement wicket-keeper and one is provided who happens to be the most natural choice. Not only is he not picked but also Younis is asked to keep wickets. To the best of my knowledge Younis had never kept wickets ever in an international match or even a first-class match.
I am absolutely certain that Bob Woolmer had never seen him keeping wickets and I would also imagine neither had Inzamam. Against Zimbabwe, it didn't make a difference but he was played again against Sri Lanka. What has happened is that the chance of a young specialist wicket-keeper has been put on hold.
If Moin does not recover is it the plan of the team management to play Younis as wicket keeper for the remaining match and the final of the triangular? If Younis has to be played for reason not known to me, he should play as a specialist batsman and made to either open the innings or come one down.
I have a pretty good idea of how Kamran Akmal must feel. He must be heart-broken, as must have bee others including Imran Farhat, Hasan Raza and Faisal Iqbal. When he was given a chance, Hasan Raza made runs in both innings of a Test match against Australia and then was sent into the wilderness.
Inzamam may or may not know this and there was a lot of pressure on Imran Khan to drop for he failed in the early matches. But Imran trusted his judgment. After World Cup 2003, Inzamam was one of the players who was banished along with Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Saeed Anwar.
Inzamam in fact had been told to show his form in domestic cricket. He not only made a come back but became captain. The experience should have humbled him. He should not be a party to cronyism. Indeed, he should be seen as the best friend of his young cricketers.
Woolmer speaks softly and seems more into the long-term development of cricket. With the Australia and India tour coming up. I think he needs to concentrate on his principal job, which is coach of the national team. Impatient because the Indian batsmen were not making runs, the Indian Board has brought in Sunil Gavaskar.
John Wright has done an excellent job but the Indians, want results. I hope that Bob Woolmer is not put under similar pressure the Pakistan cricket public too can be fickle. He should persuade other members of his team management that they need to get their act together.
In the Asia Cup, it blundered on the bonus point, in the ICC Champions Trophy semifinal Pakistan batted when it should have fielded and in the triangular it is getting someone to keep wickets who can't even be described as a back-stop.