Australia won the NatWest Trophy because it was the best team, by far,
in the tournament and in the process put to rest the theory that
cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties. Australia came to the
final in no mood to give any space to Pakistan and closed in from the
start and never let go.
This Australian team does not have a single weakness and is a welloiled machine. Steve Waugh is the most ruthless captain and this is
meant to be in praise of him. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that
he is the boss. He did not hesitate for a minute and led his team off
at the first sign of crowd trouble at Trent Bridge and then again when
someone threw a beer can during the presentation ceremony at Lord's.
Naturally, I am disappointed that Pakistan did not win but
realistically, I did not expect them to though one expected that
Pakistan would make a tighter fist of the match instead of just
rolling over. The final was the same mismatch as the World Cup final
in 1999, the same opponents, the same venue, the same high hopes of
the Pakistan supporters and the same let-down.
Waqar Younis did enough on the tour to justify his appointment as
captain. As tours go, there were no reports of discord among players
or confrontation with the management. In all respect, it was a happy
tour and one hopes that this will be the pattern of future tours. The
key lies in clearly spelling out who the supremo is. Yawar Saeed,
obviously, stayed behind the scenes but was effective in a low-profile
way. Richard Pybus strictly minded his business which was to coach the
team and Waqar did not have to look over his shoulder.
But mistakes were made in team selection, starting with the Lord's
Test match where five seamers were played and Saqlain Mushtaq left
out. Imran Nazir did not play a single match in the NatWest tournament
though he managed to field in all of them. If he wasn't wanted, it
might have been a good idea to have sent him to Sri Lanka. He is not
likely to improve sitting in the dressing-room.
That Saleem Elahi was preferred over Shahid Afridi in the final is a
decision that has mystified me. With Steve Waugh employing "umbrella"
fields and Elahi markedly vulnerable to the ball pitched in the
corridor of uncertainty, he was the rabbit caught in the headlights.
His dismissal could have been foretold as well as the manner of it.
Afridi may not have lasted longer but with him one never knows. He
would have chanced his arm and may have got a rapid thirty or forty
and given Pakistan some sort of a start. Besides, he is a utility
cricketer and his bowling would have come in handy and he is a far
better fielder than Elahi.
Besides Pakistan went into the final with only five bowlers, one of
them, Wasim Akram was not hundred percent fit. The Australians won
with such consummate ease that none of this seem to matter. But it
would have, had it been a tighter contest.
The leg-before decision against Inzamamul Haq was patently disgraceful
and he stood at the wicket, not to show dissent but to show disbelief.
The match referee, a New Zealander, has given him a two-match
suspension. It would have been far more just had the umpire, Peter
Willey, received the suspension for gross incompetence. The match
referee should have taken into account that it was the same umpire,
Willey, who had given Inzamam caught behind in Pakistan's second
innings in the Lord's Test, an equally shameful decision.
It has been constantly stressed, to the point of ad nauseum, that
umpires are human. That they are in more ways than just making a
mistake. An umpire can have his likes and dislikes of a particularly
team and there was the report of an English umpire who had been
overheard in a pub in 1992 that he did not like Pakis.
The presentation ceremony was marred when someone threw a full beer
can into the balcony where the teams were lined up. It grazed Michael
Bevan but narrowly missed Inzamam. I think it was a "to whom it may
concern" beer can and the target was not an Australian player.
Yet so much adverse publicity has been given to pitch invasions by
Pakistani supporters, it was assumed that the beer can had been thrown
by a Pakistani. Televisions shots of police and stewards mixing it up
with Pakistanis seemed to confirm it. Prima facie, it has been the
Pakistani supporters who have misbehaved but the book should not be
closed. The police would do well to investigate whether professional
trouble-makers were behind the rowdyism. During a One-day
International at Edgbaston in 1987, a riot had erupted in one of the
stands and a Pakistani supporter had nearly had his throat slit by
flying, broken glass. There was overwhelming evidence that the
National Front had instigated that riot.
It's been a good tour for Pakistan despite the fact that it had been
ill-planed, coming as it did at the wrong time of the year and, as if,
to add insult to injury, the Test series was confined to two Test
matches despite Pakistan having won the previous Test series in
England in 1987, 1992 and 1996 decisively.
Many weak areas were exposed and Pakistan has to do much rebuilding.
The World Cup 2003 may be an objective but we must not forget that
there is a lot of cricket to be played before then and a lot of
cricket to be played after it. We cannot make the World Cup 2003 the
be-all and end-all of our planning. Wasim and Waqar may have played
their last international match in England but the world's a big place
and there are other countries besides England.