After my criticism last week of the Pakistan Cricket Board's chop'n'change policy between the first and second tests last week, I was as surprised as anyone to see the replacements perform well; new wicket keeper Zulqarnain Haider gave the England bowlers as much trouble as he did the commentary team trying to pronounce his name with an excellent, fighting 88 (200 balls) and spinner Ajmal took 5-82 and then made 50. Although Pakistan still lost the match by 9 wickets I must admit I had to stop and challenge my own judgements of 48 hours before - had I been too hasty?
I realised that, no I had not. My key complaint of the PCB policy is one of principle and not limited to this instance. The dropping of the two worst players in the first test is not softened by the success of their replacements in my mind. The decision was clearly a knee-jerk reaction under pressure and a short sighted one at that; if they felt it necessary to change the team at least take a moment to make a better informed decision. If they had they would realise first that the issue was the batting not the bowling - just look at this break down of their top 6:
- Imran Farhat: 28 years, average almost halves outside the subcontinent
- Salman Butt: 25 years, average of 22 in England
- Azhar Ali: 25 years and NO experience in England
- Shoaib Malik: 28 years and NO experience in England
- Umar Akmal: 20 years and NO experience in England
- Umar Amin: 20 years and NO experience in England
No, the only conclusion one can make after the success of Haidar and Ajmal is that the PCB is a lucky, rather than a visionary body
It is an old piece of advice about cricket captaincy that you don't simply move a fielder to wear the edge went through or the boundary was hit because you are forever chasing the ball. This is my criticism of the PCB and others may temper their critiques after the second test but I will not.
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
No comments:
Post a Comment