To err is human. To err with the help of technology smacks of gross
incompetence. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that
Inzamam's catch of Aravinda de Silva was not a clean one and the ball
had dropped on the ground before being scooped up. I will not say that
there was any chicanery involved but there was sufficient doubt, hence
the ceaseless replays, for the batsman to have been given not
out. Aravinda was taking control and he was threatening to take the
game away from Pakistan. It is entirely possible that Pakistan would
have got him out but we will never know and I did not rejoice at
Pakistan's win for I felt that Sri Lanka had been badly done by. The
only silver lining was that the third umpire was a New Zealander and
not someone from the sub-continent. As in the case of Javed Akhtar,
his nationality would have prominently been mentioned. As far as the
Kaluwitharna decision is concerned, it too looked dicey and I am
already on record of what I think of David Shepherd, that he is past
it and he had made some costly errors in the World Cup. He may be a
lovable figure but he is no longer the world's "best umpire" as is
bandied about by some television experts, a sentimental judgement
rather than a factual one.
I think the case of Shabbir Ahmed was badly handled, both by the PCB
and the ICC. It would appear that the match-referee for the Toronto
tournament Peter van der Merwe had some doubts about Shabbir's bowling
action. Although he was technically right to report it to the ICC's
advisory panel on illegal deliveries, he could have informally drawn
the attention of the Pakistan manager about his doubts. He chose,
instead, to be bureaucratic. The PCB too should have been alerted that
Shabbir's bowling action may create some problems. It is not unknown
for a team's management to sound out umpires and match-referees, off
the record, if they have any lingering suspicions. I did so myself
though I had no official capacity during Pakistan's match against
Australia in Rawalpindi when it looked like the match-referee,
ironically Peter van der Merwe, might take action against the then
Pakistan captain Aamir Sohail. I had had a quiet word with him and
stressed that something that was spur of the moment did not constitute
dissent, that after all, we can't abolish human nature. He saw the
point. There are always informal channels open. Now an issue has been
made and I really feel sorry for the young fast bowler who has become
a victim because of ineptness on the part of the PCB.
Nor has the Pakistan selection committee exactly distinguished
itself. The team for Australia may be the right one but there seems to
be no logic behind the selection. Aamir Sohail was taken to both
Toronto and Sharjah. Ghulam Ali was taken to neither. How could he
have been preferred to someone with Aamir Sohail's experience? Aamir
Sohail may not be the ideal team-man but then he should not have been
selected for Toronto and Sharjah! Then there is the case of Hasan
Raza. He is young batsman who, at present, is better suited to the
longer version of the game than to one-day cricket. Yet he was picked
for Sharjah but dropped for Australia. Ijaz Ahmed is the right choice
for Australia but was the right choice too for Toronto and
Sharjah. Mushtaq Ahmed was in Pakistan's World Cup squad but did not
play a single match, was not in the Toronto and Sharjah squad but
finds himself in Australia. Again, he might be the right choice but he
can hardly be considered match-fit being hopelessly out of
practice. We have made a fair investment in Shahid Afridi. Given a
chance in a test match against India, he scored a brilliant
hundred. He showed he had the skills and the temperament, apart from
which he is a very fine fielder, probably the best that Pakistan has.
Mohammed Akram was preferred over Waqar Younus for a tour that cried
out for experience and it is almost cruel for one of the selectors to
have said that Waqar Yunus still had a lot of cricket left in
him. Then why wasn't he selected in the first place? He is now in the
team by default.
Pakistan's strength is in its bowling but Pakistan will need runs on
the board and against McGrath and Fleming on those hard, bouncy
wickets, frankly I don't see Wasti and Ghulam Ali lasting too long. If
they do I would be absolutely delighted. Pakistan's batting appears to
be brittle and will rely on Saeed Anwar, Inzamamul Haq and Yusuf
Youhana. Yusuf Youhana appears to be a class act but it remains to be
see how he will cope with Australian wickets particularly Brisbane and
Perth. I am glad that Mohammad Wasim is in the team. But he too is
desperately short of match-practice at the highest level.
He has been messed about with. When he first played test cricket
against New Zealand at Lahore, he scored a hundred on debut and I had
felt that Pakistan had a star in the making. He played copy-book
cricket and would have been an established batsman by now. Instead, he
will, for all intents and purposes be starting all over again. We must
accept our shortcomings but this does not mean that it will not be a
tremendous series. But if Pakistan needed a batting coach, it is on
this tour. I don't think Pybus will be much help when it comes to
adjusting to Australian wickets. It would not have been a bad idea if
Zaheer Abbas had been inducted, if Javed Miandad, for one reason or
the other, was not acceptable. We are all waiting for Shoaib Akhtar to
bowl in Australia. But I'm not sure whether our batsmen are looking
forward to bat, particularly at Perth