DISPARITY BEGINS AT HOME

What has caused our downfall in the backyard?

It was the 2005-06 season when Pakistan first played England and then India at home. In a Test against England, Inzamam-ul-Haq played a ball back to Harmison who picked it up and threw it at the striker’s stumps.

Inzamam, at the edge of his crease, bent his legs to avoid the ball hitting him, with his right heel coming off the line slightly. Just at that time the ball whizzed past him and broke the stumps.

England players appealed and the square-leg umpire asked for a review. It showed the right foot above the ground as the left foot was slightly out of the crease. Inzamam was given out to his complete astonishment.

A few weeks later the Indians were here and in an ODI Inzamam struck the ball to mid-off and after taking only a couple of steps decided against the run. The throw nevertheless came at the stumps from mid-off and Inzamam, just as he took a step back cheekily put his bat in front of the incoming ball to avoid it hitting him.

He was possibly a few inches from the popping crease line. The Indians appealed for obstructing the field, claiming the ball would have hit the stumps otherwise. The umpires deliberated and decided to give Inzamam out. Once again a bewildered and baffled Inzamam trudged back to the pavilion.

At the post-match ceremony. Ramiz Raja asked him what he felt about the decision. Recalling the one against the Englishmen at the same time Inzamam’s reply in his typical quietly serious style was: I can’t understand. When I let the ball go to avoid hitting me they give me out. When I try to stop it from hitting me they give me out.”

These two incidents and Inzi’s reply came to my mind just as England won the second Test against Pakistan. Like Babar and Saqlain scratching their head and saying: We make a bland pitch and they beat us. We make a turning pitch and they beat us.

More poignantly, it has been England’s pacers that have been incisive on pitches that are the pacer’s worst nightmare. James Anderson, Ollie Robinson, Mark Wood and Ben Stokes have taken 23 of the 40 wickets with the first three taking their wickets at an average of less than 19 in the series so far.

Their batting has carried the philosophy they exhibited in the summer even as some were prepared that it would be misplaced eventually, especially on turning pitches.

The pitch in Pindi of course tuned on its grave if anything so 500 in a day sent the signal that ‘bazball’ was going to be business as usual. But even on the Multan one, where the ball did things off the pitch, it was their approach in their second innings irrespective of the enormous time they had to set a total that exhibited their unrelenting belief that this is the only way to play.

Pakistan in their second innings and the fourth of the match gave the hint that they were attracted to that approach, in their own shy manner. Just about all batsmen went for their shots, though it must be said that that was also because of the novel and aggressive field that Stokes set for them, leaving vast spaces beyond the infield to hit the ball without much trepidation.

Did Ramiz get to them? He had unequivocally sung praises for their approach to an extent that his long-time infatuation with the Australian approach in all aspects of cricket seems to have gone to the back burner.

Now he was urging Babar to pick batters for Tests who are in the T20 mode and possibly made them bat more positively in that fourth innings where Pakistan actually seemed to have a good shot at a target beyond 350, something they have chased successfully only once in their Test history when they ran home laughing a few years back in Sri Lanka with a target of 380-plus in their pockets and with wickets and hours to spare.

For that, they must be credited and to be fair they have been in winning positions on both the Tests right up to the last five wickets.

In fact, harking back to the Australian series, they were well placed to draw the third Test going into the last three hours of the fifth day. As Farid Khan tweeted: “Pakistan lost the Lahore Test against Australia when they needed 242 runs with 8 wickets in hand, lost the Rawalpindi Test against England when 83 runs were needed with 5 wickets remaining and lost the Multan Test to England with 65 runs needed and 5 wickets in hand.”

However, Pakistan wouldn’t have had a sniff in either of those three Tests if it had not been for bold declarations from Pat Cummins (giving Pakistan almost four sessions to get 351) and Stokes giving them the same time to get 343 at Pindi.

In Multan, it was their aggressive approach that saw them bowled out for 275 in less than 65 overs midway through the third day that brought Pakistan back into the game. Had Cummins and Stokes wanted or can we say adopted the Pakistani mentality, they could have batted Pakistan out of the game in the third innings of each of those three Tests.

And possibly faced a draw, especially with no incentive for Pakistan to go for their shots at all. On an insipid pitch they would definitely have pulled it off in Lahore in March and against England in Pindi, and if that Karachi rearguard against Australia is any indication, maybe even in Multan.

What worries me is what Saqlain and Babar will get out of this game based on the way they have avoided looking into their mistakes, even blunders throughout this year. ‘Oh, we were ten minutes away from a draw in Pindi and 26 runs away from victory.’ And going back to Farid’s tweet, claiming that Pakistan was 83 and 65 away with five wickets in hand. Heavens, we could have been two up by now.

No that won’t do. Not again. Qudrat ka nizam has to be shelved. It is making even the players think there’s not much they can do if it is not written in their destiny. Pakistan have messed up this series and not just on the ground.

I had written at the time of selection that although a couple of inclusions, like Zahid Mahmood and Saud Shakeel were justified even though Zahid had been a trifle expensive this season, but putting in Mohammad Ali after just two seasons was pushing it too far.

Was it done to appease the critics who felt the first-class performances were not being given weightage? Can’t say, but after watching him bowl in these first two Tests he offered no threat. It can be said that he was picking up his wickets on mostly lively tracks (yes, even the Pindi square had a tinge of green in first-class games), but then Mohammad Wasim knew what pitches would be on offer in the series. If he didn’t, there is a serious lack of communication internally.

Then to push Haris Rauf into the playing eleven with next to no experience of being in the field beyond a day at the most was downright stupid. His muscles are just not used to the longer grind; any quack doctor would have told the selectors that.

And so he pulled up in the first test only. Naseem has been prone to injury ever since his early days, something not unusual when you push growing mid-teenage muscles in for the long haul.

He would have been ready if he hadn’t spent four weeks on the hard grounds of Australia. But to be fair you had to take a chance with him, just that he should have been handled a bit more carefully as England have done with Anderson and Wood.

Which meant that without Shaheen, Rauf and Naseem for the Multan Test, Mohammad Hasnain should have been the main contender with Mir Hamza (not in the squad I know but you are not looking at a visa from the England team to bring in a player from outside the squad in what is a home series).

I say Hamza — and I wrote here when the squad was announced that he should have been in the squad — as we otherwise don’t have a left-arm pacer (who has been taking wickets this season).

Faheem Ashraf merits a place in the squad, yes. But how can he possibly be envisaged as a new ball bowler when all through his Test career he has been coming in as second or third change and needs a helpful pitch for his military medium, is beyond me.

Then look at what Babar (who has the final authority on selecting the final XI) didn’t see: playing a debutant alongside two bowlers playing their second Test (who were totally ineffective in Pindi) with a medium pacer and left-arm spinner with hardly any Test experience on Pakistani pitches. Ridiculous.

Had it not been for the England batters not versed at all with the mystery grip of Abrar Ahmed and committed blindly to playing their shots, Pakistan could well have been out of the game midway on the second day.

It was the most inexperienced bowling lineup put into a Test match in a long, long time. Almost a club-level bowling combination.

What I also can’t fathom is why Agha Salman was played. If as an allrounder he bowled one over in the match so can’t be that. If as a specialist batsman then why leave out Shan Masood, who could have been a like-for-like replacement for Azhar Ali leaving Babar to bat at his usual number four. Agha would have been the one to make way for Abrar.

And if he had been played more as a batsman, why hold him back to below Faheem and then Nawaz in the batting order. Leach was the least of Pakistan’s worries yet they sent four left-handers in succession once Imam came to join Saud.

Three fell to right-arm pace or off-spin and Imam did succumb to left-arm spin that he was supposed to override.

Also, Babar is playing bits and piece players in very important and crucial positions. Yes, you play one all-rounder at maybe No.6 to add to the four specialist bowlers that come after the wicketkeeper at No.7.

But Babar’s batting front in Multan had Rizwan, Faheem, Nawaz and Agha from 5-8. That meant just three specialist bowlers instead of the minimum four you need in a Test match. And the last three are all-rounders (considering Tests only) only in the sense they can turn their arm over for a few overs.

The only way Nawaz’s inclusion can be justified is that the other left-arm option was Nauman Ali. Had Zafar Gauhar been in the squad (as I had written two weeks ago he should be considering the number of wickets she has taken this season compared to a paltry few by Nauman), then even Nawaz would have been questioned.

Babar would make a great insurance executive really. He just plans for back-ups in case something goes wrong. Yes, it’s always a good idea to have a Plan B, even a Plan C.

But he has to look at the potential effectiveness, especially on the pitches he is playing on. Unless you have an all-rounder like Stokes or Cameron Green you can’t really depend on them.

And even with them playing in that role, they have four specialist bowlers around them. Here, forget the term ‘four specialists’, the three that were playing having just one Test experience at the toss. What were they thinking?

There has been some good cheer nevertheless in the success of Saud and Abrar. Both have lived up to their potential and the trust placed on them. And they have done it with a maturity not expected of debutants.

Having said that I was a wee bit disappointed in how Saud got out and I’m not referring to the grassed ball that was given out despite the technology available to the TV umpire.

It was the choice of the shot. Nawaz had gone pulling when it was clear that was how England were trying to get the wicket. To then play the same shot at a wider ball when Stokes had placed a leg slip as well was not good game awareness.

Recall they had got rid of an obdurate Azhar in Pindi the same way as Pakistan closed in on the chase. It’s a no brainier really. He may have been technically not out but Saud put a damper on what had otherwise been a stellar stand against the odds and under great pressure. As in Pindi in the second innings, it came when Babar had gone cheaply.

Saqlain as a coach has to work on building the capacity to take pressure in the bottom half of the line-up. In Pindi when Pakistan were 259-5, they lost their last five wickets for just runs with only two overs separating them from bad light ending the match.

In Multan, the last five fell for 38 after Pakistan were 290-5. Take away those four boundaries that Abrar hit carrying the brief to go in and throw the kitchen sink after tea and it wouldn’t have been too many more than Pindi.

If Naseem Shah can be trained for hitting sixes in the nets then Mohammad Yousuf has to spend time with the bowlers in defense and tidying up their technique.

To be fair they were facing vastly experienced bowlers (if not in Tests other than Anderson then in years of four-day cricket domestically) probing them every ball. But for it to happen twice in a similar situation within 10 days shows that there is some work to be done on the mental strength side.

Ramiz really must sit down with the team think tank and sort out why we have lost four of the last five Tests we have played this year and three straight at home.

We used to win from less strong positions when we played in the UAE. We pushed for teams to come to Pakistan not just for restoring our image but to be in a better position to beat them on pitches we could manoeuvre and have more control of.

Funnily enough, we have messed it up royally in that sense. We have been on the defensive from the planning stage onwards. That negative mindset of blocking away with the bat and hoping for the touring batters to make a mistake when bowling to them has cost us dearly.

In fact massively. Our predisposition to first play for a draw and then look for a win if the opposition makes a mistake and leaves the door ajar is old-fashioned cricket.

The question now to be asked is whether Saqlain and Babar — and maybe even Yousuf — have contributed to this approach.

The trend through this year and subsequent results plus what we have seen in the selection of the final 11 points to this is the core factor.

Whether we change our approach in the selection, in the picking of the final eleven and on the field with both bat and ball will be on display in the two Karachi Tests, the last against England and the first against New Zealand.

This will signify whether we have learnt anything from Australia and England at home this year, two sides Ramiz so admired for their approach and who were playing in conditions not found on their home grounds. And who have left us with the message: Disparity begins at home.

Sohaib Alvi has been covering cricket at home and abroad for over 40 years as columnist, editor, analyst, TV expert/host. An MBA from IBA he has simultaneously had a 35-year career in the corporate sector, having worked in C-Suite positions. He now advises clients on leadership, business strategy, marketing and organizational planning.