Review Report: Tells only half the story?

The just released findings of the Review Committee set up by the PCB to investigate the performance of the Pakistan team at the World up has done an excellent job - of ingeniously shifting the onus of failure away from the Board. That indeed may have been their unwritten mandate, but can shifting of the blame absolve the Board of any responsibility?

To be fair to the PCB, and to General Tauqir, the problems with Pakistan cricket pre-date the recent World Cup, and indeed the present cricket set-up. It is not a question of one match, tournament or a series. The origins of present troubles date back to the match-fixing allegations that surfaced in the early and mid-90s. These sharply divided the team between the whistle-blowers and the accused. The fissures were deepened by lingering rivalries over the captaincy issue along the already existing fault lines and have hung over the team ever since. This is, of course, only part of the problem. The main problem is structural.

Pakistan cricket has alternated between spurts of achievement and periods of stagnation and sterile performance, when either the team was in transition when talent shrank and dried up, or it under-achieved despite its capability.

To an extent, this has been the story of most other cricket teams as well, that is until recently. But world cricket has changed beyond recognition. And Pakistan unfortunately has not kept pace with it, and this is the other half of the story of what happened at the World Cup, which, I am afraid, the Review Committee has missed entirely.

Increasing pressures and opportunities of competitive cricket, the introduction of neutral umpires which has levelled the playing field, and enormous money brought by television and sponsorships is forcing as well as enabling cricket administrators everywhere to organize and run cricket on scientific, efficient and modern lines to stay in the game. It has involved multiple challenges - imaginative organization of domestic cricket, academies and grounds, the appointment of coaches, managers, analysts and physios, training of umpires, and the appointment of selection committees etc. And above all, what is most important, it has helped the delineation and demarcation of everyone's precise and autonomous role to ensure effective coordination and to avoid over-stepping and intrusion of authority.

On a symbolic level it is like all those countless names that scroll by at the end of a movie whose role in the direction, screen play, special-effects, musical score etc significantly contributes to the success or failure of the show. This is not meant to be an extended metaphor, but I am presenting it simply by way of illustration, to make the point.

So how can the Board evade responsibility for what happened at the World Cup?

I have said before, I am not holding General Tauqir personally accountable, some of whose actions have been good, but certainly a major responsibility for the World Cup debacle and what is wrong with our cricket lies at the door steps of the PCB, its set up and method of operation. But as Imran Khan wrote in his article, there does not seem be an adequate acknowledgement or self awareness of what has happened and that does not inspire much confidence about the future.

Our cricket team has been having problems of varying degree ever since the departure of Imran and Miandad. They were extraordinary sportsmen who provided exceptional leadership to the team both with their superior achievement as well as exemplary inspiration and motivation. The team had potential for similar under achievement and infighting then as now but these individuals managed to overcome or transcend these weaknesses.

But times were different. Modern cricket has become fierce and brutal. The ways Australians have used the technology to study weaknesses of the opposing players and launch a relentless attack on them virtually strips them naked and demolishes their confidence. After grinding the opponents psychologically, the battle is half won. The opponents are defeated even before they come to battle. The Australians have turned the game into warfare. It is significant that they themselves are very fond of comparing their approach to a surgical operation, as it has become fashionable with them to use the word `clinical' in describing their match-winning strategy, indeed a term that is now beginning to be parroted by lesser teams as well though not equally convincingly.

In Australia we do not hear the coach, selectors and the chief executive or the head of their cricket board giving statements every day. While in Pakistan, everyone is busy contradicting each other and speaking authoritatively or deciding about issues falling in other people's areas of responsibility. Aussie cricket is being run on professional lines by those who know the game through long and active association. And there is a certain stability, continuity and predictability. Coaches and selection committees, for instance, do not change every day.

It is not like in Pakistan where cricket administrators have always been appointed, as I have said before, on the strength of their personal connections with the political leadership of the day. They have always claimed to have great personal passion for the game, which in some cases has indeed been true. But that is where their qualifications begin and end. We all love the game, but does it qualify us to run the game?

Since this is a piece about the organizational aspects of the game, I have refrained from discussing individuals, whether players or administrators.

I would conclude with a suggestion and here again I am not pointing any fingers of blame or responsibility. I think now that we have had an enquiry into the performance of the team, we need a similar assessment of the PCB itself, especially whether the way it is organized and being run, is it fit to meet the challenges of modern cricket?

The roles of all the constituent units and institutions, specially the chief executive, selection committee, the coach, the manager as well as the method of team selection, have to be examined and reformed, where necessary, and the competence of individual officials has to be appraised, and changes made where desirable.

There is no better person better qualified to head this task than Imran Khan.

Ed: Touqir Hussain is former Ambassador of Pakistan to Japan