Pakistan: A series played without a plan

We must learn to accept defeat but this does not mean that we should make a habit of losing. Pakistan was whitewashed in the one-day series. It is a result that has shocked the cricket public and though Sri Lanka played exceptionally well, it was, as a team, not that much better than Pakistan to warrant such a lop-sided result. This must mean that Pakistan played well below their potential and got their act horribly wrong. While Sri Lanka was bristling with confidence, Pakistan looked dispirited, as if they had other problems on their mind.

There was an element of bad luck. Shoaib Akhtar was banned for the first match and in the second he hurt his groin after bowling five overs and in the final match Azhar Mahmood pulled up with back trouble after bowling only one over and did not take any further part in the match. These were not fatal blows but it meant that the sixth bowler had to bowl more overs than he would have and this cost some runs. These injuries raise some disturbing questions. Were these sustained when they were playing or were these carried into the match?

I don't know how often I have written about the need for a fitness trainer but obviously my word carries no weight. A fitness trainer would have ensured that all the players were hundred per cent fit before going into a match and he would have advised the team management if there were doubts about a particular player. In other words he would have carried out a pre-match fitness test, professionally.

Where Pakistan was outclassed was in the fielding. Compared to the Sri lankans, the Pakistanis looked lethargic and amateurish, as if fielding was an unnecessary burden foisted on them. They looked, in a word, clueless. The South Africans and Australians have set standards we may never reach but they have demonstrated how crucial fielding has become. Once again, I have lost count of how often I have recommended that Pakistan get a fielding coach, someone from abroad, a specialist. Fielding is to just about holding your catches but hanging on to half-chances. It is not just about saving runs but effecting run outs, about putting pressure on the batsmen. Would I be wrong in saying that Pakistan is the poorest fielding side followed closely by India?

Then there is the matter of Saeed Anwar winning the toss in all three matches and opting to field first on each occasion. He has been roundly criticised. But was it his decision alone? Generally it is a collective decision, there is an input from the team management and the senior players, from the think-tank. If it was Saeed Anwar's own decision, he deserves the criticism. But if he consulted others, they must share the responsibility. No captain works in isolation. I have seen Kardar and Imran Khan asking for advice from senior players. This is the main object of team meetings, to devise strategy. I got the impression that Pakistan played the one-day series without any plan.

There is nothing wrong about infusing new blood but any changes made must be for the better and not change for the sake of change. The young players brought in are talented and Yunus Khan in particular looks promising though it remains to be seen how he will cope when the ball seams about. Having brought them in, they should not be summarily discarded. Yasir Arafat played the first match and was dropped. Will we ever hear of him again? Imran Abbas played two matches and looked out of his depth. Faisal Iqbal played only one match and was unlucky to be run out though it appeared to be his own fault. I certainly hope that the policy to keep bringing in new players will continue but not on the principle that is cheaper by the dozen.

At present Pakistan does not have a selection committee, the advisory council does the job. This seems to me to be wrong. I would be interested to know how many members of the advisory council had actually seen the new players in action? A selection committee is a committee of specialists or should be. They are supposed to be familiar with upcoming players which means they have to be watching matches. They are supposed to be experts on getting the right balance, have some idea of the playing conditions and of the opposition. Besides, a selection committee can be held accountable, take some of the blame.

I really feel sorry for Saeed Anwar. His body-language suggested that he was a reluctant captain, someone saddled with the job. His batting form has been poor and he has been on a lean trot. When he had been appointed captain, I had hinted that making him captain was not the best way of getting him back into form. With the top order failing, we need him as a batsman much the way India needs Sachin Tendulkar and the West Indies need Brian Lara. Still, it was good to see Sri Lanka back as the world's most exciting one-day team. One feared for the future of their cricket after their poor performance in the World Cup. It is obvious that they have put that behind them and done so quickly. Which is the way to go.