Food for thought - PCB shuffling and re-shuffling (Part 1)

After some sincere efforts over the past 18 months to revolutionise Pakistan's cricket with the help of Advisory Council, the PCB Chairman was not satisfied with the level of success. In a further move towards progress he has dissolved the Council and replaced it with 5 committees to run cricket in the country.

Since some of the old `advisors' have been retained, the Chairman still hopes to benefit from their know-how. This may be worthwhile for maintaining continuity and one cannot challenge their on field `cricket savvy, however, the fact remains that administering the game is entirely different from playing it. To become better planners and administrators, they need to re-orientate their thoughts and actions.

It is unfortunate that the Chairman who happens to be a diehard cricket lover and a man of good intentions was not provided the right guidance to run the affairs of cricket. There were chinks in almost all fronts, starting from team selection to the administrative functions of the Board. While others suffered from one blemish or the other, Zahid Bashir the Marketing Advisor, was perhaps the only official who distinguished himself by giving a boost to the Board's treasure chest.

During the last 18 months the Pakistan Cricket team has had its ups and downs like some of the other cricket teams. Even the once mighty West Indies and England, the pioneers of cricket have recently performed poorly. Yet, there is no cause for despair and this decay in Pakistan's performance can be arrested with a little re-orientation of policies and preferences.

It is unfortunate during the period under discussion the emphasis remained on undue expansion of the Board. A new structure was put in place and at times it seemed that everything done in the past was thought to be no more than trash. Also there was some over-patronisation of newbies at the expense of experienced players and even cases of over-projection of achievements.

Being an ardent cricket fan and a former Board official who worked for promotion and love of the game and not for the money, I feel frustrated to see my old organisation criticised in the media from right, left and centre. Having served the Board in three stints of over 8 years, the HQ at Gaddafi Stadium is more like a second home to me. The tarnishing of PCB's image for faults and follies that can be rectified with a little imagination and thought, pains me.

Considering the love for Pakistan's cricket like a cherished treasure and the PCB's next objective of winning World Cup 2003 as a national aspiration, I have decided to put across my views on the subject in a series of articles with the hope that they will be given dispassionate thought. I feel some of the comments may taste like a bitter pill but shall have to be swallowed for the good of Pakistan's cricket. So here goes!

First of all I would say that `yes men' are the biggest enemies of any well-run organisation. Real friends or advisors are those who speak frankly and explain what is right and wrong. To prosper from this, the Chairman shall have to alter his thinking from military precision to a sportsman and develop the tolerance to accept disagreements as well as criticism.

Cricket administration is a science, one learns by playing cricket at some level, acquires thorough knowledge of cricket through research and study and gains administrative experience by handling different aspects of the game from club to national levels. The essential pre-requisites being flexibility of thought, administration skills particularly when dealing with the common man, love for the game, dedication and other traits of this nature.

It is a specialised field and just as officials or organisers cannot win test caps, similarly, all test cricketers cannot be good organisers and efficient managers of the game. Those handling affairs of the Board and the newly formed committees must be a blend of players as well as administrators so that they can reinforce and balance each other to hit at the correct solution of a problem. They must be able to bring both sides of a picture to the top management.

Each establishment has its peculiar characteristics, organisation, constitution, aims and objectives, resources, spheres of influence, national as well as public demands, hopes and aspirations. It cannot be efficiently run on the pattern of a radically different and disciplined institution like the army.

We must also try and adapt only those portions out of the ICC structure that fit our own norms and systems in this country.

Just as the present set up took over, the Board's establishment grew disproportionately to its role and the work involved. The offices as well as stadiums were stuffed with many irrelevant people, most of them having no cricket back ground.

To quote one example: a doctor, instead of practicing his skills on the needy, was appointed Media Manager with no qualifications and experience as such. He toured half the world as Assistant Manager with his last stint being Cricket Analyst for the New Zealand tour. Having recently reverted to medicine, he is said to have cost the Board a lot of money and to what avail?

In the old days the Cricket Board was run by half a dozen officials, it has now around two-dozen. Part of this could be explained if there had been a corresponding increase in the amount of cricket played but not really so. Commenting on such an unwieldy establishment, one of the national dailies remarked `the PCB had opened an employment exchange for the job seekers'. Why must the Board earn a bad name for pleasing people who are not specialists for the jobs they hold?

From my assessment and experience of running the Cricket Board, except for increased activity on the commercial side that spins money from sponsorships, nothing else has changed. Moreover, there is no expansion in the field of domestic cricket and even the visits of foreign teams to Pakistan are far less than they were in the past. Thus the expansion in Marketing is justifiable the rest is not.

I would, therefore, humbly suggest conducting `right-sizing' of the Board to reduce expenditure, gain efficiency and save the Board from undue criticism.
(To be continued)