Where are the centurions?
Vrat Kohli made his ODI debut in 2008, and since then has scored as many as 15
centuries in one dayers alone, which is more than the combined tally of the Mohammad Hafeez (6), Nasir Jamshed (3), Ahmed Shehzad (2) and Misbah ul Haq (0)
By Omair Alavi

Once again it was Younis Khan who managed to score a double century to rescue Pakistan from a position they shouldn’t have been in, in the first place in Harare during the first Test against Zimbabwe. Once again, the former captain showed the rest of the team that if you spend time at the wicket, runs will flow from your bat and the opposition will panic. But sadly, the teammates are not ready to learn from the batsman who by now has scored 22 centuries in Test cricket which is more than the combined tally of all the other batsmen in the squad!

Before we move ahead, let’s talk about the cricketers with most number of centuries in different forms of cricket. India’s Sachin Tendulkar with 51 centuries in Tests leads the list with South Africa’s Jacques Kallis (44), Australia’s Ricky Ponting (41) and India’s Rahul Dravid (36) following the master blaster. Inzamam-ul-Haq of Pakistan may not have become the country’s highest run scorer in his final Test (he fell short by 3 runs to Javed Miandad’s national record of 8832 runs) but with 25 Test centuries, he is still 3 tons ahead of the still-serving Younis Khan, 2 centuries ahead of Javed Miandad and one triple-figure score ahead of the still undecided Mohammad Yousuf who is retired and available, at the same time!

In the one day form of the game, it’s Tendulkar again with 49 centuries who leads the pack and is trailed by Ricky Ponting (30), Sanath Jayasuriya (28) and Sourav Ganguly (22). Pakistan’s best bit in the ODI century club is Saeed Anwar at 20 tons but he retired after the 2003 World Cup and since then, no one has been able to take over his tally from Pakistan, despite showing initial promise.

Some argue that Pakistan doesn’t have centurions because they don’t get to play matches at home. Fair enough, but that might be an argument, not an excuse. Other teams including Sri Lanka also had to bear terrorism at home during the 80s and the 90s but that didn’t stop their batsmen from going past the three-figure mark, nor did they fail abroad whenever they went. Sanath Jayasuriya scored a double century and Aravinda de Silva a century when they played a powerful English side in England in 1998, unlike Pakistan who had to recall Mohammad Yousuf in 2010 as none of the batsmen had the answer to the ‘alien’ conditions!

There are those who blame that Pakistanis don’t get projection in cricket leagues otherwise they would have matched players like Tillakaratne Dilshan (17 ODI & 16 Test centuries), Chris Gayle (21 ODI & 15 Test tons) and Virat Kohli (15 ODI & 4 Test centuries) for their feats. The first two have been around for more than a decade, but Virat Kohli made his ODI debut in 2008, and since then has scored as many as 15 centuries in one dayers alone, which is more than the combined tally of the Mohammad Hafeez (6 centuries), Nasir Jamshed (3 tons), Ahmed Shehzad (2 centuries) and Misbah ul Haq (none). He must be doing something right, and we must be doing something wrong, right?

As for the projection, well when they did get it, players from this side of the Wagah are found carrying narcotics (unwillingly, of course) on their way back to Pakistan from Indian Premier League, some were reported to have been involved (and later cleared) in match-fixing in the Bangladesh Premier League and one from the ‘brethren’ even fainted while flying mid-air only to be cleared by a doctor who was not even present on the flight! Not that their Indian counterparts are ‘as white as snow’ but when you are representing your country abroad, you have to act as an ambassador, not as a usual suspect!

So, while the players all over the world are scoring centuries at will, Pakistanis are scoring at ‘ill’. Ian Bell was seen crossing the 100-run barrier (it’s a barrier from the men-in-green’s perspective) thrice whereas in the last 5 years, only Younis Khan (7 times), Azhar Ali (4 occasions), Taufeeq Umar, Mohammad Hafeez and Asad Shafiq (3 centuries each) have managed to do so for Pakistan in Tests. In one dayers, the situation is even worse as only Mohammad Hafeez (6 centuries) and Nasir Jamshed (3 tons) are the leading century scorers for Pakistan, those who have done it consistently (2 and less don’t count, we are comparing with Bell’s one-series achievements!).

Besides Younis Khan who has scored 22 Test centuries (and 6 in ODIs) and Mohammad Yousuf (24 in Tests, 15 in ODIs), none of the batsmen has been consistently consistent in both forms of the game. It seems the art of scoring centuries has gone from Pakistan to abroad because the country once boasted of leading century makers like Zaheer Abbas who had scored 7 centuries in just 62 ODIs including the feat of back-to-back centuries in three consecutive matches in 1982-83. By 1993, Saeed Anwar was considered to be a century machine as he had scored 3 centuries in a row in a tournament in Sharjah and by that time, Sachin Tendulkar had no one-day century in his kitty! But things changed after the World Cup 1996. Saeed Anwar managed only 20 ODI centuries (besides 11 Test tons) and Sachin Tendulkar went onto become the first batsman to score 100 centuries in international cricket.

After Saeed Anwar, Mohammad Yousuf seemed the one who could cross 20 centuries but his career was cut short by politics and his own indecisiveness. Younis Khan may not play in one-dayers anymore but his Test form (and acumen) makes him the country’s best bet in Test cricket. Whenever Pakistan needs a century, he delivers; whenever others fail, he passes out in flying colours. But he is nearing 36 years and in a couple of years, he might call it a day because he is not one who would linger around. Who would be Pakistan’s best after that? For a team the captain of which — Misbah ul Haq — doesn’t score a century in one dayers, how can we expect newcomers to cross the 100-run mark!

But Pakistan is a strange place if you are a cricketer. One of the most stylish openers the country produced — Rameez Raja — was once the leading ODI century maker for the country since he had 9 tons compared to Javed Miandad and Saeed Anwar’s 8 each (in 1996). The younger Raja lasted as a Test cricketer till 1997 — leading the side to Sri Lanka — on the basis of his 2 Test centuries against the same rivals in 1986-87, besides his exceptional one-day form.

On the other hand, Imran Farhat’s lone ODI century (besides his 3 Test centuries) came in 2003 when George W. Bush was the American President, Ireland was a minnow in world cricket and no one in his right mind would have expected Misbah ul Haq would one day go on to lead Pakistan cricket team! Yet Imran Farhat continues to be part of the team due to his family connections. He was even selected for the Zimbabwean tour but opted out due to family reasons (thankfully), otherwise he would have just gone and done nothing like always.

Pakistan doesn’t need a batting coach or a batsman who scores fifties at will — the team needs a centurion who can score tons when required. For that, the players will have to broaden their horizon — be it playing county cricket (in their free time), spending time with legendary cricketers or simply asking their teammates for advice. Whatever they do, time is running out. If tailenders like Jason Gillespie can score a double century against Bangladesh or spinner Ashton Agar can nearly score a century on Test debut while batting at number 11, why can’t professional batsmen score centuries? Pakistan has a lot of talent waiting to be tapped. Who knows a Saeed Anwar or Inzamam ul Haq might be waiting for his chance that is being denied to him by these non-centurions who seem to play on, despite not being worth it.

Omair Alavi works for Geo TV and can be contacted at omair78@gmail.com

Pakistan’s insufficient Test share
It’s a pity that the Pakistanis have, in recent times, played fewer five-day matches than all other leading Test nations
By Ghalib Bajwa

It’s true that Test format is the real cricket and that’s why all the Test playing nations try to grab maximum number of matches in the longest format for their cricketers.

Even in 21st century, Test cricket is played and followed with great enthusiasm despite rapid growth of One-day Internationals (ODIs) and Twenty20s. A statistical analysis of the first 13 years of the 21st century shows that there has been no decrease in the popularity of Test cricket.

England and Australia topped the table and played more Test series and matches than any other country. England appeared in 48 Test series and 164 matches. Australia held the second spot with 47 series and 149 Test matches.

India, who are known as the most influential nation of the cricketing world, remained third with 46 Test rubbers and 135 five-dayers. South Africa also participated in 46 rubbers but they got fewer number of Tests (128) than India.

Pakistan, who have won ODI and T20 world titles and Asian Test Championship in 1999, had the most shocking figures in the 13-year cricketing research. They got only 41 Test series (including current Zimbabwe rubber), fewer than all other leading Test nations. Pakistan featured in 102 Test matches, three more than New Zealand, who managed to get 44 Test rubbers.

It is astonishing to note that Pakistan got 62 and 47 Tests fewer than England and Australia, respectively, during these years. Arch-rivals India are 33 Tests ahead of Pakistan.

West Indies grabbed 42 Test series comprising 122 matches, while Sri Lanka had 47 series and 114 five-dayers during the first 13 years of the 21st century. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe appeared in 39 and 24 Test rubbers and played 78 and 45 Test matches, respectively.

It’s true Pakistan has been grappling with security issues, but it is wrong to put all the blame on the security situation. The Pakistan Cricket Board high-ups must find the reasons why Pakistan is far behind in the number of Test matches.  They need to adopt a clever and professional approach like India if they want to give their cricketers sufficient Test cricket.

The cash-rich Indian cricket board (BCCI), which has been dictating ICC for several years, also exhibited its powers recently when, almost at will, it rescheduled its Test cricket series with New Zealand and South Africa and confirmed a brief Test rubber against West Indies at a short notice.

It may be recalled here that Indian authorities were planning to arrange a Test series out of Future Tours Programme (FTP) just to provide legend Sachin Tendulkar a chance to wrap up his illustrious Test career at home.

Using their authority, they invited the West Indies for a tour in November. The addition of the West Indies tour in November means the batting great would now play his 200th historic Test match either at his native Mumbai or Kolkata instead of Cape Town against the Proteas.

India also brought forward the start of a January visit to New Zealand. India told New Zealand Cricket (NZC) to keep their tour as brief as possible. Now India will play two Tests and five one-dayers against the Black Caps between January 19 and February 18. Under the ICC’s FTP, the trip was supposed to include three Tests, five one-dayers and one T20. It is still uncertain whether NZC will receive compensation from India for potential revenue loss after one Test and one T20 were cut from the tour.

India also refused to undertake a full tour of South Africa from November that dashed the hopes of South African cricket enthusiasts. It may be recalled here that South African Cricket Board was interested in a full tour by Indian cricket team and in this regard, they had proposed a 12-match schedule — three Tests, seven ODIs and two T20 matches.

It is interesting to note that Indian officials were unhappy when South Africa released the 12-match itinerary, calling it a “unilateral” action.

On one hand, India declined to commence a lengthy tour to South Africa to give rest to their players while on the other they are ready to complete the five Tests against England within the space of just over a month next year which reflected India’s double standards.

ghalibmbajwa@hotmail.com

Not going, not going, gone!
LOC of course now stands for Love Of Cricket, something both nations share and also fight over
By Sohaib Alvi

Here we go again. The cricket version of Now You See Me, Now You Don’t. It happened a few years ago when the Pakistanis were lined up facing east and then told to walk backwards. The marching orders were given again but thankfully overruled by the Prime Minister of India.

Amazing that our countries have to rely on Prime Minister’s direct permissions overruling Interior Ministry fears. David Cameron will be fuming at the authority Manmohan Singh enjoys.

But if I were the PCB chairman I would have issued a statement on Thursday night that we are now no more interested in your invitations unless pre-approved by government. This is like taking charity, even if it’s being obliged by a PM himself.

But I suppose our PM would be the last person to allow that considering he wants to warm up to economic relations with India. Anything to do with India has to be when, where and how they want it.

This is like not being invited by your fifth grade classmate to his birthday party when the whole class is. And the friend’s father rings up to say you must come. Even if you go, you know you’re not really wanted.

I said it then and I say it now. They don’t want us, fine. The world of cricket has not ended. Maybe a few cricketers would have been less better off and some officials would have lost the opportunity to travel with them. Possibly some former PCB chairmen will now fly in to make an appearance and give the impression that all is under control and that the Indians love us. Making an entrance Sheheryar Khan? You’re doing the track 2 diplomacy anyway, which is always the real thing. In fact it was because of the diplomatic efforts of Sheheryar Khan, then chairman PCB, that the tour of 2003-04 materialised in short time and what a party it was for the elite and stars of both sides. Perhaps, his indirect admission, later denied by him, that Dawood Ibrahim has been chased out of Pakistan (accepting that he has been here) has made him come closer to the Indians. But that’s my assumption. Maybe it was just Manmohan Singh who thought this is a good diplomatic move. But it does make the point that the PM of India believes the players are safe travelling in India while his Interior ministry doesn’t.

LOC of course now stands for Love Of Cricket, something both nations share and also fight over.But let us still glance inward as to why we are being treated this way.

Look, we’re currently messed up as a country and consequently as a sporting nation. Nobody wants us, including ourselves. We have literally defeated ourselves in the World Cup Hockey qualifiers through our in-fighting and the cricket team has struggled against cricketers in Zimbabwe most of whom would struggle to get into an Australian club side. And this after lowering the bar in the Champions Trophy.

The only hope we have is in snooker and that’s probably because it is not a team sport. We’d be one hell of achievers in all fields if we were 180 million states within Pakistan.

We have painted ourselves in a corner with our foreign policy, some of which admittedly comes with the neighborhood. We have to accept that it will therefore impact on our sport as well. Of course the embassies and the Indian External Ministry know that the Faisalabadis are Wolves only by name. But really why should they walk the desert in summer looking for a headache when they have the option of lying by the pool? Unless the PM says to them: it’s my headache that you have to ensure doesn’t occur.

They say no pain, no gain. Here the situation for the Indians is the opposite. What’s to gain with this additional pain?

Their broadcasters have so much money they’re not interested in getting additional money from the Pakistani channels who will earn more if the Wolves are out there in the field. They’ll take the small change coming their way with the product they have; don’t need the big change they can otherwise get.

We should ask ourselves as to whether the Pakistanis would have gone and played in Kandahar today? It’s a peaceful city in many ways but hey, why would the Wolves take the risk, even if the Afghans were to say they’ll be okay; which they won’t if you ask me. Unless they lock the city down and have drones flying overhead to shoot down incoming; or unless it’s worth something to them or to Pakistan.

Even last time, I doubt the Sialkot Stallions would have taken part if the Champions League had not been in South Africa but in India. It was moved because of possibility of monsoon hitting the venues. They’re practical people.

I don’t agree with Shoaib Akhtar when he says PCB should have said ‘No’ to them when they first invited us some months back. Why would the PCB have said ‘No’ after we’re trying every which way to get a match with the Indians. In fact PCB has so far acted decently and made no hue and cry over the initial rejection of visas. It’s the Indian government who had refused the Pakistani players entry, not the BCCI. And it’s the Indian government who’s allowed them in.

But where I do agree with Shoaib is that we should just brush it off nonchalantly and concentrate on our domestic tournaments. Basit is already crying foul that we have switched to Grays cricket balls for our local cricket when we should have continued with Kookabura. According to some it is the extra cost that runs into thousands of dollars that has influenced the decision. Silly reason if that is the case. Just fire one director and play with the Kookabura balls.

I was quite amused when on Thrusday Shoaib asked why there is so much disappointment when all at stake was a couple of hundred thousand dollars from the Indians. Imagine him saying that if he had been refused permission by PCB to go for a TVC shoot that would have paid him that much. The big hearted man that he is, he would have accepted it but after one hell of a fight.

Yes, why should we do business with the Indians, except when we want our book published and launched there? Look this was not as humiliating, if at all, than when the PCB pushed the Indians to include our players for auction some 2-3 years back and there were no offers from the IPL franchises.

Having said that, what the PCB should have done when the groupings were announced was command respect. Why are we clubbed in the qualifying stage with the Kiwi team? We’re the winners of the 2009 World Twenty20, losing finalists in the inaugural one and semi finalists in 2010 and 2012, in the first only by dent of three sixes in the last over off our best bowler.

Our boys are up there with the best. Just because the tournament shareholders are Australia, South Africa and India doesn’t mean that they can degrade the world’s most consistent Twenty20 set of players. They can do what they want to the English or Kiwis or Sri Lankans but not with us; not with the kind of players we have.  Imagine, Trinidad and Tobago from the West Indies has a direct entry!

But such is the clamour for money and the opportunity to play in India that all such self respect takes a back seat at the table. Difficult decision for PCB I know, since it’s a decision they are taking for a domestic side, and players’ potential earnings. This is not the national team which is directly in their control. But I guess with all the confusion of who is running the PCB, this one would have been a bit beyond expectations. They are normally confused over the right thing to do when they have someone at the top with the powers of the king.

To put all this to rest, the best way to command respect is that the Faisalabad Wolves win the 2013 CLT20. So much for Manmohan Singh’s re-election prospects!

Sohaib121@gmail.com

Nadal’s greatest triumph
The Spanish star’s citadel might’ve been in Paris, but it is clear that he is capable of conquests all over the globe
By Khuldune Shahid

Rafael Nadal has made a pretty decent career out of overcoming odds and defying critics. It all started back in 2005 when the Spaniard rose to prominence as that teenager that looked unbeatable on clay, and used to dominate the then invincible Roger Federer like no one thought would’ve ever been possible. Then from being a clay court specialist he quickly jumped to being dubbed the “King of Clay” in the next couple of years.

By June 2008, Nadal had won four straight French Open titles, but they were his only major triumphs. Two runners-up finishes in Wimbledon finals of 2006 and 2007 — his only losses against Federer in majors — meant that success on other surfaces wasn’t exactly light years away. And then came the Wimbledon final of 2008, regarded by many as the greatest tennis match of all time.

Beating Federer at SW19, where the Swiss was the five-time defending champion was then the biggest test of Nadal’s career. By winning that epic battle 9-7 in the fifth, in fading light, Nadal conjured what up till last Sunday was the greatest triumph of his career, and established himself as a major threat outside of his Parisian clay fortress.

When hard court success in Beijing 2008 (Olympic Gold) and Melbourne 2009 (Australian Open) followed, along which came the number one ranking in the world, Nadal had firmly established himself as an all-court player. His citadel might’ve been in Paris, but it was clear that he was capable of conquests all over the globe. But first he had to deal with his first, and to date only, convulsion in his fortress of dirt.

Nadal’s fourth round defeat against Robin Soderling at Roland Garros in 2009 put him on his first noteworthy injury layoff as he relinquished both the French Open and Wimbledon titles. It was the first time the critics tried to force the old lady to sing on Nadal’s career, citing his fragile knees and his extreme style of play. Nadal’s below par return from injury that year, which included being destroyed by Juan Martin Del Potro in the US Open semifinal, further gave ostensible credence to his detractors.

Then 2010 happened.

The year 2010 for Nadal, in many ways, was one of the best years any one as ever had in the open era. He became the first player to win three different majors on three difference surfaces and he won back his French Open title, added a second Wimbledon crown to his glittering trophy cabinet and rounded off a stunning year by completing a career Grand Slam at Flushing Meadows, beating Novak Djokovic in the first of their three US Open finals.

At the end of 2010 Nadal, aged 24, stood at 9 majors, having already become only the second player in history to win the Career Golden Grand Slam (all four majors plus Olympic Gold) along with Andre Agassi and the second to win at least two majors on all three surface after Mats Wilander. As he dominated his closest competitors, Nadal was eying all-time greatness.

But then 2011 happened.

While an injury in his Australian Open quarter-final against David Ferrer prevented the Spaniard from a tilt at holding all four majors at the same time, what happened in the ensuing 12 months was something Nadal had never experienced in his career: Rafa found his bogeyman.

Djokovic’s exploits in 2011 are considered by many as resulting in the greatest tennis season of all time. He won all majors barring the French — which Nadal won — and while he blitzed all before him, none of his opponents was blown away more frequently than Nadal. The Serb beat Nadal in six straight finals — Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Wimbledon, US Open — to go 6-0 against the Spaniard for 2011, who didn’t even look close to beating him that year. 6-0, of course, has a very humbling tennis connotation, and for Nadal it connoted a first: being at the receiving end of one-sided domination in a rivalry.

And then 2012 happened.

By losing the Australian Open final in 5 hours and 53 minutes against Djokovic, Nadal lost three straight major finals to the same opponent. However, this epoch-making five-setter gave Nadal the confidence that despite being 0-7 against Djokovic in the previous seven meetings he was close to solving the Nole mystery. Nadal then beat Djokovic in three straight encounters on European clay, which culminated in his seventh French Open title, and his 11th major. This in turn meant that going into Wimbledon 2012, Nadal looked like returning to his 2010 ways. Nadal’s loss against Lukas Rosol in the second round of Wimbledon sent down shockwaves in the tennis realms, putting him on a seven-month layoff.

And then finally, 2013 has happened.

Since Nadal’s comeback this February, he has posted 60-3, winning 10 of his 13 tournaments this year including two majors, with two runners-up spots and 22-0 on hard courts. While despite such a lengthy injury, his dominance on clay was almost “expected”, it’s his hard court season that has surprised one and all.

If winning Indian Wells wasn’t “shocking” enough, Nadal’s back-to-back-to-back victories in Montreal, Cincinnati and now the US Open have resoundingly upset the applecart. From being the King of Clay, Nadal is now putting up daunting numbers on what for long was his least favourite surface; one he has critised throughout his career as being a major cause behind shortening the careers of tennis professionals. Considering the fact that his North American expedition came following a first round exit at Wimbledon, and taking into note the number of different odds that the Spaniard had to overcome, Nadal’s second US Open title last Sunday, might just have been his greatest triumph.

Nadal’s US Open triumph has put him as the differential in two different tennis troikas. First is his grouping with what has now been slashed down to a Big Three, with Djokovic and Andy Murray, as the three players who should be sharing the major spoils in the near future. This is especially true since Federer’s major winning days seem to be over; the likes of Del Potro, Tomas Berdych, Stanislas Wawrika and Jo-Wilfred Tsonga appear to be perennial “nearly” players and none of the youngsters looking close to breaking the monopoly. Having beaten Djokovic in six of their past seven meetings and holding a 13-5 career edge over Murray — even though the two haven’t met for two years now — means that Nadal heads the Big Three as things stand.

The other troika that Nadal (13) has bulldosed into features Federer (17) and Pete Sampras (14) as the top three major winners of all time. With Nadal’s clay hegemony intact and his newfound dominance on hard, it’s not just Sampras’ tally that is truly under the gun.

With 13 majors, regardless of what Nadal does in Paris, if he can add another Australian Open title to his resume, it would further bolster his credentials for all-time-greatness, giving him a double Career Grand Slam. Furthermore, if he can add a Wimbledon trophy — which seemingly is the most unlikely considering his previous two adventures in London — he’d have at least three majors on all three surfaces. Quite probably Rio De Janeiro 2016 could give in a chance to conjure a double Career Golden Slam with the Olympic possibly being played on clay.

The possibilities for Nadal in the near future are quite astronomical. And it is quite possible that by the time the Spaniard hangs up his tennis boots, he’d have put the Greatest of All Time debate to bed. 

khulduneshahid@gmail.com

caption

Rafael Nadal

Merit: The most abused word in Pakistan cricket
PCB should be run like a business entity where everyone is accountable. Six
chairmen have been changed in the last fifteen years
but no other senior manger has been replaced
By Fawad Mustafa

Whoever has taken over PCB’s chairmanship in the last fifteen years has stated that there would be no compromise and all decisions would be taken on merit.

Merit is the most commonly used word even by those who were themselves not selected on merit. Whenever they are selecting a team, coach or manager, the officials have to say that all decisions were taken on merit.

I have never heard any top official of other Test playing nations justifying their decisions in this way as there is a system in place which allows minimal chance of malpractices.

Cricket is the second most popularly discussed subject — after politics — in Pakistan. At a time when the whole country is fighting a war against terrorism and there have been crises like floods and energy shortage, cricket is the only entertainment available to most of us.

Cricket is the only thing that unites Pakistanis who are otherwise divided into different ethnic and religious groups. No other thing gives us as much joy as winning a cricket match. People still cherish the memory of 1992 World Cup victory and the joy and happiness it gave to the nation.

Since 1999 PCB has been run by cricket fans from all walks of life with no administrative experience. They hired their favourite cricketers as advisors, played around with the system, enjoyed the trips abroad and left the rest to their successor.

It is important to know what the job demands? There is a wrong perception that the chairman PCB’s performance should be judged by the team’s performance. That’s why they spend most of their time in dealing with the team matters instead of improving the organisational structure.

PCB has been showing losses for the last five years. Even the provisional budget announced last month has a deficit of Rs500 million.

Although there has been no international cricket since 2009 still it’s hard to believe that Pakistan’s most popular sports is unable to generate revenue.

PCB’s plan to make profits through bilateral series in India and Pakistan Super League last year was an opportunity lost due to an unprofessional approach. Had it been a private entity the top management would have been fired.

If PCB performs well it will have a trickledown effect on the team’s performance. For more than a decade no external audit has been done or reported to the stakeholders.  All sorts of allegations were levelled in the last fifteen years but no inquiry was conducted.

In July 2013 Islamabad High Court declared Najam Sethi caretaker PCB chairman for 90 days and ordered him to supervise Chairman PCB’s election by October 18, 2013. Whoever takes over after the elections should first of all get a third party audit conducted and make its findings public.

PCB should be run like a business entity where everyone is accountable. Six chairmen have been changed in the last fifteen years but no other senior manger has been replaced.

An organisation is run by a team and a single person is not wholly responsible for the downfall. The time has come to evaluate the performance of the top managers to take the PCB in the right direction.

Pakistan team’s performance is deteriorating. They lost an ODI against Zimbabwe after fifteen years. Pakistan under-23 team, who had four international players, were defeated twice by an inexperienced Indian side in ACC Emerging teams Cup 2013 held in Singapore, which exposed the weakness of our backup pool.

We have already seen the darkest day in Pakistan’s sports history on August 30 when the hockey team, four-time world champions, failed to qualify for the World Cup 2014.

It is hoped that the new government would take notice of the situation and try to get us back to the days of glory.

fawad@hubpower.com

Home|Daily Jang|The News|Sales & Advt|Contact Us|