Stepping back to move forward

PCB has moved from one dictatorial regime to another, padded with good intentions and garnished with democratic induction

It’s been a cataclysmic week for Pakistan cricket. Ramiz Raja has been dethroned quite unceremoniously and it seems the cricket is being run by a Seth.

Some whirlwind decisions stuffed down the throat of the captain and coach and no questions were allowed. In effect, the PCB has moved from one dictatorial regime to another, padded with all good intentions and garnished with democratic and grassroots induction.

As I write, the first Test against New Zealand is two and a half days old but already the recall of Sarfaraz Ahmed has paid dividends. Whether Mir Hamza can justify his recall – merited though it has been – will depend somewhat on the pitch if it develops some cracks as the days develop.

However, the opening partnership between Latham and Conway showed that the Pakistan bowling attack is being deciphered effectively as it was by the England batters by the time the third Test had been played out at this same venue.

Along with this bowling in New Zealand’s first innings, the Pakistan cricket team has never had it so bad at home since they started playing in their own backyard.

It was bad enough to lose the series at home to England for the first time after two Tests but to then suffer the ignominy of a whitewash has been tormenting.

Add to that the fact that it’s been four consecutive Test defeats at home this year — could be five if New Zealand have bowled them out cheaply in their second innings — and the second successive series defeat and someone was in line to lose his job. Or stepping down and taking responsibility. In the event, it’s been the chairman and also chief selector with the coaches as good as gone after this tour.

What England did do in Karachi was to ram home the point that if Pakistan had come close to winning or drawing one or both of the first two Tests.

That they were in fact the dominant team on all fronts all through the three Tests. The panache with which they chased down 167 on a low, slow pitch to finish off the match in three days and an hour put paid to any diplomatic jargon that the coach and captain and on occasions the PCB chairman had come up with.

Yes, I had understood that neither should have come out and condemned themselves or their team. Every leader at every level tries to mitigate the worst of disasters and back his men.

That criticism is left to private quarters and you put a brave face up front to keep the morale of the team high, especially with another series coming up. But if you pull up the curators of the pitch in public then some critique can be made on what went wrong and where.

It’s being pointed out that Pakistan were without their three prime pace bowlers against England and now against New Zealand; Shaheen Shah Afridi not available due to injury recurrence and Haris Rauf and Naseem Shah pulled out halfway into the first Test at Pindi.

However, it has to be pointed out that when Afridi and Naseem were available against Australia back in March, what did they achieve? Australia piled on the runs in all three Tests, didn’t they? And all but won 2-0.

It was a selectorial blunder to bring Rauf into the Test camp when he hasn’t played First-Class cricket. You also have to manage your key players, especially pacers.

Both Haris and Naseem had a strenuous World Cup. Their body needed to rest and recuperate especially when it was five-day Tests back-to-back.

For instance, England left out James Anderson when he was willing to play simply because they wanted to avoid any over bowl considering the tour of New Zealand which is weeks away. That is how they are managing the workload of their pacers.

Huge confusion prevailed when selecting the playing elevens too and perhaps led to new selector Shahid Afridi putting his foot down and not just leaving it to the captain. They just kept going for insurance rather than impact.

Mohammad Nawaz was played for his batting assets when slotting in for a left-arm spin. Yet when he took Pakistan close to victory with his 45, they dropped him for Nauman in Karachi.

If he was ineffective, as his Test record had shown, Nauman had been worse this domestic season. If, against England, Nauman took 4 (expensive wickets) on a turner in Karachi so could have Nawaz given a favourable pitch. Remember he had taken a five-fer against Sri Lanka in July. Why judge him on one game?

In Karachi against England, Babar picked Faheem Ashraf, who’s played a handful of Tests himself to pair with the Test debutant Mohammad Wasim Jnr. and hasn’t bowled with a new ball.

Fair enough given the choices available. But then to bowl him for one over in an innings lasting 81.4 overs is ridiculous. In the second he got two. Waqar Younis was equally confused and checked with Faheem if he was carrying an injury. No such thing.

I mean, play an extra batsman or bowler instead. Play another spinner as it was clearly going to be a turner from the time of the toss. Abrar has opened and he could have done it in Karachi too. Zahid on that pitch would have gotten better results than what he did in the first two Tests. Or play Nawaz again.

Such warped thinking is what has been costing Pakistan the games. It seemed in the recently concluded series against the Three Lions, they went into each Test experimenting with their combination and trying out new philosophies.

On the contrary, England showed how they get the maximum out of their resources. Playing on alien conditions they knew exactly what they were doing and who exactly to play and how to use him and when.

They picked Duckett to open given his experience of Pakistani pitches and his command over sweep shots which best counter spin that Pakistan were sure to bowl much of.

They did not rush Mark Wood into the series until they were sure he had got his due rest after the world cup.

They kept faith with Ollie Pope behind the wickets at Multan even though Ben Foakes had recovered from his illness so they could play the extra bowler. Once the series was won, they brought Foakes back into the side as a specialist wicketkeeper and dropped Jacks because they could see Root was bowling good enough spin as a backup to the specialists.

More important they did not get too excited with Rehan Ahmed and saved him till the series was won to avoid putting on too much pressure on the lad.

And give him a helpful pitch to give him maximum support on his Test debut. Now be prepared to see him go back to playing First-Class cricket rather than Ashes Tests as they won’t play two specialist spinners at home. But he will be going on winter Test tours with the English side. That’s how they plan short and long-term.

Stokes intuitive and imaginative captaincy has also shown up Babar. Let’s take Karachi again. Babar, I feel over-bowled his spinners, especially in tandem. Whatever mystery they had for the England batters started to unravel as Stokes and Brook and then Foakes saw so much of Abrar and Nauman that they started to pick the two with ease. Bowling such long spells together also tired out both simultaneously.

Then when England were 4 down for 98, there were hardly any close-in fielders. Just the routine slip and short leg. That lifted the pressure and even when Stokes left run out, and England had less than half of Pakistan’s 304, there was no pressure exerted on Foakes.

Babar did try to copy the English approach and later on kept two short midwickets but the visitors had found their feet again by then.

Babar rued the fact that his side lacked experience but then why didn’t he and the selectors go for Yasir Shah in bowling or Asad Shafiq in batting?

He picked four debutants in Pindi and then debuted Wasim in Karachi with no pace bowler of repute to be beside him.

He could have recalled Abbas or persevered with Mohammad Ali both of whom have more or less the same pace as Faheem Ashraf. That he didn’t show he wanted some batting ability too which shows that he went for bits-and-pieces cricketers rather than specialists. This almost never works in Test cricket.

Also, it’s not necessarily experience that bails you out of tough situations. Saud Shakeel debuted this series and ended with five fifties and an average of over 57.

Abrar took seven wickets in his very first bow at the international level and took 16 wickets in the two Tests.  For England, Brook and Duckett were raw in Test cricket and Rehan is a teenager who took seven wickets in his first Test.

And if he’s talking about experience then whatever he had in Rizwan hardly came through. Rizwan was clearly struggling, perhaps due more to the burden of playing non-stop in all three formats that has tired him out mentally.

He had a good Test record with a Test average in the mid-40s at one time but if you take his last 12 innings he has less than 275 runs at an average of 21 something. His highest during this time has been 46.

Even that would have been bearable had he been coming in after six specialist batsmen or a leading all-rounder, someone the likes of Stokes for example. But he was occupying a specialist batsman’s slot and thus more is expected of him.

Refer back to Ashraf again. If on that pitch Babar had no intention of using him to bowl (one over cannot be an indicator that he won’t get wickets on that pitch), he could have brought in Asad Shafiq (I don’t believe in restricting to the announced squad when it comes to home series, especially after injuries or after losing two Tests) as a specialist batter.

Look, it’s not just a lack of experience. No one asked him to call for so many debutants in this series. The fact is that once he had picked his team, Babar never really used the resources that he hand-picked. Even when bowling he could have called on Salman Agha to bowl longer in the first innings just like Stokes used Root.

Can the new management at Gaddafi Stadium and the new selectors and the incoming coach bring some method in the team’s selection? That is the question of the (new) year.

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.