SWINGING DRIVES: Will the cricket scene change?

I got a telephone call from BBC World Service last week and they asked me whether I would be prepared to talk to them, on the record, about what was happening in Pakistan with special reference to the cricket set-up. I told them that though I was willing to be interviewed, I had no special insight and as matters stood it was business as usual, that the Pakistan team was in Sharjah and indeed at that very moment I was watching them play against the West Indies on television. They wanted to know whether the change in Pakistan would impact on the tour to Australia and I replied that I saw no reason why it should. The tour would go ahead, to the best of my knowledge. I was asked whether it would affect the players and once again I said that there was no reason why it would. Obviously the BBC got no joy out of me and I am not sure whether the interview was put on air, since no news was good news and good news was no news!

At the time of writing, there is no indication about the fate of the Ad Hoc Committee though I would imagine that since the Chairman, Mr Mujeebur Rehman, was a political nominee and is presently incommunicado, there will be a change. Whatever the change, it will be for the better. Mr Mujeebur Rehman may have meant well but he was inclined to be impulsive in a spoilt-child sort of way taking a cue from the highly personalised style of Nawaz Sharif's government. There was, first of all, the decision to change the logo of the Pakistan cricket team, replacing the star with what looked like some absent-minded scribbling. Sunil Gavaskar had described it as resembling Abdul Qadir's bowling action. There were howls of protest and the media had a field day particularly the cartoonists. There was also mention that the official uniform of the team would be blue blazers and olive green trousers. I have no idea who designed the logo or came up with olive green trousers. But just as well that he (or she) should remain anonymous to save embarrassment.

Mercifully, the new logo which had been introduced with great fanfare was withdrawn, though without fanfare. On India's tour of England in 1936, the team had gone to Buckingham Palace wearing dark suits and light blue turbans. But this was understandable since the captain of the team was a princely ruler, the Maharajkumar of Vizianagram (Vizzy) who had arrived in England with 36 pieces of luggage and two personal servants. The team had been described as his "retinue."

Then there was the decision, out of the blue, to suspend Wasim Akram, Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahmed on the basis of the interim findings of an in-house PCB committee in whose preliminary report, not one of the so-called accused had been examined. And the, equally out of the blue, the lifting of the ban the suspended players had being re-instated and Wasim Akram re-appointed as captain. This was done at a press conference in London! Why London? Presumably to get the best international media coverage, oblivious to the fact that such is the nature of modern communications, the same coverage could have been got had the press conference been held in Islamabad or Lahore. No reason was given for this change of heart. Cricket is something that the people of Pakistan take very seriously and the public was not particularly amused by these whimsical decisions which seemed too personalised.

There may be some uncertainty but it has not affected the performance of the team, though I am a little baffled why the selectors have to travel to Sharjah to pick the team for Australia. The performance of the players in the Sharjah tournament has no bearing on what is needed for Australia. The conditions are as different as chalk and cheese. And the selectors should know this. No one grudges them a junket to Sharjah but the team for Australia should have been selected at the same time as the team was picked for Sharjah. They could have used the Sharjah tournament for fine-tuning the combination and removed any anxiety from the minds of those who may not be sure of their place in the side - one way or the other.

Barry Richards endeared himself to me when he enthused over a "beautiful shot" that went for no runs. Despite there being no run, he said it was a beautiful shot because he was a traditionalist. What he was trying to convey was that one-day cricket need not be a slam-bang affair. Boycott and Gavaskar often make the same point when they talk of the need for playing "correct" cricket shots. Sooner or later, the one-day game will change and there will be a return to the basics. Anyone who thinks that playing "correct" shots cannot be entertaining misses the point of Sachin Tendulkar's batting or Inzamamul Haq's. Improvisation too is a part of classical batting. But if it is sheer entertainment that one is looking for, a much better option is Mr Bean and for those who are looking for action, Dempsey and Makepeace. All that shooting and the car chases. We need to define what we mean by entertainment when it comes to cricket, even one-day cricket!