da betsson： Pakistan had gone into the final at Sharjah having won all its leaguematches while Sri Lanka had won only one and had qualified for thefinal by virtue of a better run-rate
Omar Kureishi25-Apr-2001Pakistan had gone into the final at Sharjah having won all its leaguematches while Sri Lanka had won only one and had qualified for thefinal by virtue of a better run-rate. Obviously Pakistan was the firmfavourite. But cricket often confounds the experts. Sri Lanka playedits best cricket and Pakistan its worst, leaving the Pakistan cricketpublic both disappointed and bewildered.Did Pakistan wilt under the pressure of being favourite or was therean element of cock sureness that induced complacency? One thing iscertain. Sri Lanka looked fired up. It also looked a team that haddone a lot of soul-searching and a lot of planning. Pakistan it seemedwas going to play it by the book.Once Sri Lanka got over early nervousness and went on a run spree,Pakistan did not appear to have a back-up plan. Pakistan’s fieldinghad earned it fulsome praise and there was effusive mention of “younglegs” dashing around. There are two aspects of fielding. You are notonly expected to stop the ball but to catch it when hit in the air. Itis this second aspect that seemed to have been forgotten.At a conservative estimate, four catches were dropped plus a couple ofmissed stumping. Forget about the half-chances the Sri Lankans,miraculously, snapped up. You drop a catch and that is unfortunate,you drop two and that is a misfortune but four? That is unpardonable.It represents a break-down of focus and concentration.And they were relatively simple catches and not blinders. GeoffBoycott’s Mom would have caught them! The Sri Lankans did not evenbother to say “thank you” and they took the gift and rode their luckand piled on a score of 298, well beyond their wildest dreams. SriLanka had planned to pace its innings and had started slowly, gathermomentum and then go for the big shots. But with catches beingdropped, the batsmen just made hay as the Pakistan bowlers appeared tolose heart.Still, an asking-rate of nearly six an over was not impossible on thatshirt-front wicket and there was no need for a mad rush. All Pakistanhad to do was to bat sensibly, the urgency needed did not amount topanic not to treat all the 50 overs as slog overs.Shahid Afridi plays the way he does. He hit the first ball he receivedfor six but was “suckered” into hooking and getting a top edge. ImranNazir seems to have his feet in concrete blocks or someone has toldhim that the laws of cricket do not allow a batsman to use his feet.He has no footwork. Surely he would have seen how Marvan Ataputtu andMahela Jayawardena batted. I was surprised to see Humayun Farhat comein instead of Saeed Anwar. Saeed Anwar was the in-form batsman. Heneeded to bat through the innings. He played beautifully but Pakistankept losing wickets regularly including that of Inzamam-ul-Haq, a softdismissal.The team to tour England will have been selected by the time thiscolumn appears but I would certainly have Moin Khan in the team andgive some serious thought to Ejaz Ahmed and even Aamir Sohail. Ipresume that Wasim Akram, Azhar Mahmood and Yousuf Yohanna areautomatic selections. Or are they?This brings me to Shoaib Malik who has been reported for a “suspect”bowling action. Michael Holding made a meal of it while doing thecommentator and he was completely out of order. It is not the job of acommentator to act as judge, jury and executioner. Television sloweddown the pictures, froze them while Holding explained in painfuldetail why his action was illegal.It is the job of the umpire to report the bowler to the match-refereeand until the ICC decides, the matter is sub-judice. Television iswatched by millions of viewers and the commentators would be mindfulof their responsibilities. They are there to describe the proceedingsand they are not expected to be judgmental. There should also be acode of conduct for the commentators.Cricket is already plagued by tabloid or ‘pop’ print journalism. Iexpected better from Michael Holding. Even Ravi Shastri got in a cheapshot when Afridi came to bowl in one of the league matches. Hisfellow-commentator mentioned something about Afridi’s change of paceand Ravi chipped in “and also change of action.”The Indian Sports Minister got all tangled up when trying to justifywhy India was not playing against Pakistan at cricket but was playinghockey. She made the rather alarming disclosure that many of India’sTest cricketers supported the Indian government’s refusal to allow itsteam to play against Pakistan.She did not disclose their names and I am surprised that she was notpressed to do so. I would certainly like to know the names of theplayers who do not want to play against Pakistan. I think she would bebetter advised to say nothing on the subject.Silence is golden. But I am sure the Indian cricket public must havewatched the Sharjah final on television and in their hearts had wishedthat their team was playing. Still, the tournament in Sharjah was ahuge success. And that should give India pause for thought.