Bench the Veteran!

So Pakistan has lost what many think is the be-all and end-all of their World Cup dream. Many would take a victory over India than a place in the Finals of the tournament, such is the sentimental value attached to the sport, and it’s most riveting rivalry.

While the loss could have been expected, given India’s dominance over Pakistan in World Cups, there is a feeling that this was probably an opportunity missed, keeping in mind India’s recent woes on their tour of Down Under. But this was definitely not the best Pakistani lineup to come up against India in a World Cup.  

One can hardly call any one the eleven who were selected to be an ODI great. Misbah-ul-Haq and Shahid Afridi might be considered by many as greats, but just as many would disagree!

But not having a handful of greats should not be an excuse for the defeat. In fact there should be no excuses. Granted that the team does not have at its disposal the legends of World Cups past; the team does have enough firepower to defy expectations, and morph into a good ODI unit.

All of Pakistan’s recent problems can be traced back to a couple of events from late last year:

1. The banning of Mohammad Hafeez from bowling in international 
2. The dropping of Younis Khan from the ODI unit for the Australia series, and his tirade afterwards (in Septmeber).

The banning of Hafeez from bowling in internationals was probably the biggest setback for Team Green. Not only is Professor a better opener than Younis, he also provided the team with a genuine fifth bowler option. Hafeez was no part-timer with the ball; he was an attacking bowler with an exceptionally good economy rate, who could open the bowling.

But that happened a few series ago. Pakistan never had a Plan B, a reserve allrounder as good as Hafeez. Pakistan tried making do with Haris Sohail, Ahmed Shahzad and Younis sharing ten overs between them but that experiment never bore any fruit, which forced a rethink of the team’s composition.

It was decided that five specialist bowlers would play. But who would make room for the fifth bowler to come in? Instead of dropping your worst performing batsman, Pakistan chose to get rid of the most specialized position that the sport has: the wicketkeeper, Sarfraz Ahmed.

Not only had Sarfraz done better than Younis recently with the bat (barring Younis’ century against New Zealand which did not result in a win), Sarfraz had also performed decently as an opener in the couple of games that he was handed an opportunity.

That, in turn meant that Umar Akmal would keep wickets for Pakistan. All the Akmal jokes aside, Umar has never been too keen on having the dual responsibility. Moreover, throughout the preceding series, Umar had not kept wickets, and was probably rusty when the time came to step up. You can’t blame a part-time wicketkeeper for a drop, just as you wouldn’t blame a part-time bowler for leaking 80 in 10!

Opening with Younis meant that he himself was playing in a position unfamiliar to him. To do so, in foreign conditions is absurd. To do so against India, in what might be the highest pressure game for the team, is outright crazy.

Not only was the opening partnership new and unsettled, our number 3 was a raw player, who had never played at first drop. Playing Haris Sohail at that position was not only a disservice to the batsman, but also one against the team’s balance and its middle order.

If blame is to be placed on someone, it has to be the management; the captain, coach, and selectors on tour. Their inability and/or reluctance to drop Younis Khan from the playing XI has robbed the team of balance. Selecting Younis does not mean just choosing him over another batsman; it has consequences that go beyond just one position out of the XI; an unsettled opening pair, a raw number 3, a weaker middle order, and a part-time keeper.

No one has ever doubted Younis’ commitment to the team, his patriotism, his fitness, or his work ethic. But more than anything, his form needs to be evaluated. Younis may well be our best Test batsman, and one of our top 5 ever, but his one day record has been ordinary overall, more so of late. It’s time that the management realizes that his use-by date has come and gone, and his inclusion will hurt the team more than helping it. For Pakistan’s fortunes to take a turn for the positive, the stalwart has to be benched. 

The plight of a Pakistani fan

Pakistan has just scripted a comprehensive victory over a resurgent Australian team. Arguably one of the best performances in recent memory by Pakistan, this win should rank alongside Pakistan’s clean sweep of the top-ranked England side. Pakistani fans around the world are delighted, with even higher expectations of the team for the rest of the series.

We have just witnessed a much underrated batsman become Pakistan’s most prolific century-maker. To outdo Javed Miandad and Inzimam-ul-Haq is no easy feat; yet the lack of flamboyance and substance-over-style mentality of Younis Khan may always leave him right below Pakistan’s league of legends.

We have also just seen Pakistan’s backup spin options rise up to the occasion in the absence of their premier twirler. The fact that they bowled left arm orthodox (Zulfiqar Babar) and right arm leg-spin (Yasir Shah) so beautifully in tandem is not lost on anyone.

Also just witnessed was a flurry of centuries. Ahmed Shahzad might have come a long way from the days of carefree strokeplay, but he has proved that his more sedate approach is working. Sarfraz Ahmed might be too raw on the international scene to be termed great, but he is certainly the next best thing. Any gloveman would’ve been better than a certain Akmal, but one who scores consistently against attacks as varied as Australia and Sri Lanka is certainly more than a blessing; he might just be a miracle!

That Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Misbah chipped in was the cherry on top for Pakistani fans. The two pacemen, Imran Khan and Rahat Ali, did what was expected of them. This was as good a team effort as possible, much better than the England whitewash, which was more of an Ajmal-Rehman show.

What does all this mean for a Pakistani fan? While rightly jubilant in their celebrations, they are also wary; never confident in their team, yet always behind them.

The average Pakistani fan of the ‘90s expected a win in every game; the average Pakistani fan now can only hope. A team with the two W’s, the two Y’s, Inzi, Shoaib and Saqi could beat the best in the world; you can’t expect that from a team whose captain divides opinion, whose best batsman has second thoughts about continuing to play, whose spinners have a total of two caps among them and whose opening combination is as steady as a camel ride during an earthquake.

The fan is wary of Pakistan’s tendency to self-combust. The same batsmen who piled on the runs in the recently concluded game against Australia can easily be knocked over for 110-odd by the same bowling lineup on the same surface in the following game.

The fan is also wary of Pakistan’s shoddy fielding. One dropped catch against a player of Warner’s caliber can turn a match on its head, and Pakistan’s fielding is extremely capable of letting a catch, and consequently a game, slip away.

The fan is also wary of the dirty politics that is synonymous with Pakistani cricket administration. The only position that has changed hands more often than our openers has been the chairmanship of the board. The whims of the Patron in Chief constantly clash with the supposed supremacy of the courts in the land of the pure, and who knows when the next clash of the egos will take place, and what or who that clash will bring in.

The fan is also wary of the captaincy merry-go-round that has become the norm in Pakistan cricket. We have involuntarily been trained to accept whoever shows up at the toss as our captain for that game, and no more.

The fan is also wary of the sudden retirements and consequent retractions that have been the result of changes in administration, captain, coaching staff, or the state of mind of the retiree in question.

And lastly, the fan is wary of corruption, namely the next fixing scandal, constantly doubting a player’s failure, a captain’s decision. Every time Pakistan loses from a position of parity if not dominance, whispers of match-fixing start doing the rounds. Every no-ball is looked at with skepticism, every dropped catch with suspicion of malice.

This is a brief period of celebration for the Pakistani cricket fan. Expectations are high, but we have learnt from the past. We might never be able to replicate the success of our past greats, but we will keep looking forward to the emergence of a new one. We will learn to make do with what we have and hope. The typical Pakistani fan will remain optimistic, but only cautiously so!

Let Sport Be Political

When Dwight Howard tweeted #SavePalestine, he drew in equal amounts plaudits and condemnation from the social media. He soon deleted his tweet, called it accidental, and issued a retraction. Soon enough, #Howardthecoward started trending on Twitter. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

A prominent sportsperson, had aired his views on a sensitive political subject, and by issuing a retraction, then failed to stand by them.

Back in 2003, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, had worn black armbands during a World Cup, mourning the death of democracy in their native Zimbabwe. Not only were they NOT criticized, they were lauded for showing courage against tyranny, and putting their careers on the line.

Two superstars from Zimbabwe had protested in a very visible manner and stood up for something they believed in, prompting discussions on an extremely sensitive issue, even if they couldn’t bring about much change in their country’s fortunes.

When the London Olympics decided not to commemorate the 40^th anniversary of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, Aly Raisman of the United States paid tribute in her own way. Her gymnastics floor routine had a Jewish folk song playing in the background, and her statement saying that she would have “supported and respected” a moment’s silence for slain athletes was considered by many as a slap in the face of the organizers.

Raisman was lauded for her audacity and nerve.

Cristiano Ronaldo, perhaps the most recognizable soccer star of this decade, reportedly donated €1.5 million to ‘children in Gaza’. Though that cannot be viewed as a form of political support for Palestine or protest against Israel, his subsequent refusal to trade jerseys with Israeli soccer stars after a World Cup qualifier in 2013 can certainly be termed as an act of protest.

No official reaction was recorded on the part of FIFA, or the Portuguese Football Federation, although the youtube video of the jersey-swap snub was inundated with comments.

Azizulhasni Awang, a Malaysian Cyclist at the Commonweatlh games in Scotland, recently wore gloves that said ‘Save Gaza’. Awang was adamant that his act was a ‘humanitarian’ statement, instead of a political protest.

Awang was severely reprimanded, and a stern warning was issued that another similar transgression will result in him being suspended.  

The sporting boycott of South Africa during the reprehensible Apartheid years was nothing but a political statement against the country’s racist laws. Nations from across the globe, regardless of racial affiliation, refused to play in, or against teams from, South Africa.

Moeen Ali sported wristbands with the words ‘Save Gaza’ during the third Test of the ongoing England-India Test series.

A day after, the ICC informed Ali that the wirstbands need to go. He might even be fined 50% of his match fee, as a reprimand, though that seems improbable.

The Flower-Olonga protest, the Dwight Howard tweet and his consequent retraction, Awang’s gloves, Raisman’s routine music and consequent statement, Ronaldo’s aversion to the exchange of jerseys, the Apartheid boycott of South Africa, and Moeen Ali’s wristbands are all examples of athletes being political.


Why then, do we condemn some and endorse others? Perhaps it is in human nature to laud such politically motivated sporting protests if we agree with the stand taken, and condemn them if they don’t align with our own sensibilities.

Perhaps these double standards have got something to do with the political affiliations of the nations involved. The United Kingdom, in its foreign policy, and ECB as a sporting body, openly denounce Robert Mugabe’s cruel regime. UK’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a little more diplomatic.

As international athletes, celebrities and most importantly, role models to millions of kids, shouldn’t we encourage these political stands? Should we not teach our younger generations that standing up for what you believe in is the right thing to do? Should we not embolden their sense of freedom of speech and expression? Isn’t reprimanding one sportsperson against a ‘Save Gaza’ wristband, and appreciating others for ‘mourning the death of democracy’ sending mixed signals?

Regardless of what our political inclinations may be, let us allow athletes be political (or apolitical if they want to) and set examples that they can be proud of. Let sport be the medium where differences of opinion are not only tolerated, but also encouraged. Athletes endorse politicians and political parties throughout the world; why not let them support a political cause as well! After all, a silent role model is not too much of a role model anyways.

Sport has celebrated its inclusiveness of participants, regardless of race, religion and nationality, as a result of accepting the existence of a problem, and openly discussing it. It is now high time that we afford the same courtesy to opinions, and agree to disagree.

Part of the Flower-Olonga statement in 2003 read: “Although we are just professional cricketers, we do have a conscience and feelings. We believe that if we remain silent that will be taken as a sign that either we do not care or we condone what is happening... We believe that it is important to stand up for what is right.”



Let us allow Moeen Ali to show that he cares! Even if we don’t agree with him. 

This article was first published by The Express Tribune, of the International New York Times, at http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/23470/savepalestine-why-cant-our-sportsmen-be-political/

Solving Cricket's Woes

More than anything else that’s going around in cricket right now, the fixing fiasco in the IPL, the India-SA standoff, the DRS conundrum, the biggest and most serious woe plaguing cricket is the imbalances that the last couple of decades has thrown up. The delta between Test playing nations and Associates, the power struggles between BCCI and ICC, the overkill of cricket for some nations when others play one or two tours a year, and the over-reliance on T20 cricket to generate incomes are all examples of imbalances one way or the other.

The solution is not in reducing BCCI’s clout in the ICC, as that is financially suicidal for cricket’s governing body. The solution is not in expecting people’s attitudes towards Tests to change either. And the solution certainly is not in throwing money at Associates expecting them to improve without giving them something bigger to look forward to. The logical answers lay in a complete overhaul of the Future Tours Program and a Test Championship played in a tiered league format, with relegation/promotion series and a Test Championship series played at the end of a cycle.

The Problem:

The immediate issue facing cricket administrators right now is the preservation of the supremacy of Test cricket.

Cause of the problem:

The root cause of the problem is the pace (or lack thereof) and the contests that Test cricket offers to the audience. A case can be made that pitches nowadays have a role to play in the boring high-scoring draws that have become the norm in some countries. Regulating pitch preparation might be tough; moreover I wouldn’t consider it fair to tell Sri Lanka not to make batting beauties, when we can’t prevent England from preparing seaming wickets.

What the ICC as the governing body can ensure is that contests offered are interesting. Nobody wants to see a three day drubbing of Bangladesh by England; not even the Barmy Army.

The solution:

Tiered groups of 6 teams each, who play each other on a home and away basis, based on rankings calculated over a 4 year period, starting and ending between each 50-over World Cup. Teams ranked 1-6 play in top-tier, and teams ranked 7-10 play in the lower-tier, along with the two leading Associate nations.

The two top associate nations should be given Test status for four years only (one cycle). At the end of each cycle, the bottom team from the lower tier goes back to the Associate status (even if it is traditionally a Test nation), and the top Associate team gets Test status for the next cycle. The Test teams during one cycle get a vote in the ICC much like the Full Members, and get funding from the ICC likewise. Not only will that make them play to keep their Test status, it will also spur them on to do better and keep the financial backing that the Test status will bring.

Giving the top Associate nation Test status, even if it might just be for four years, will solve another problem: the exodus of Test quality players from Associate nations to Test nations. For example, if Ireland had an opportunity to attain Test status in the next four years, the likes of Boyd Rankin, and Eoin Morgan might not have opted to play for England.

It will also give more exposure to Associate players to make a name for themselves, and perhaps land lucrative deals as well, much like the exposure the T20 World Cup offered to players like Kevin O’Brien and Ryan ten Doeschate.

The top team from the lower tier gets promoted to the top tier after each cycle, and the bottom team from the top-tier gets relegated to the lower tier for the next cycle.

At the end of the four year cycle, the top two teams from the bottom tier can compete in a 3-Test series at a neutral venue, or a 3-Test series, with one Test each for home, away and neutral venues. The winner gets promoted to the top-tier, with the bottom team from the top-tier gets relegated to the lower-tier.

At the end of the four year cycle, the top two teams from the top tier can compete in a 5-Test series at a neutral venue, or a 3-Test series, with two Tests each for home and away and the fifth and final Test to be played at a neutral venue. The winner gets crowned the Test Champions.

The promotion/relegation series and the Test Championship can be scheduled to be played concurrently.

How will the tiered system help cricket?

Each Test match will have context. Every Test will be competed against teams of a similar quality. The contests might be even, which will make for interesting games, and hopefully, eventually, more viewers.

These Tests should also form the basis for Test player/batsman/bowler of the 4- year cycle, as that will ensure that you have played against varied opposition in various conditions, and proved your mettle against all.

Fixing the FTP:

Now this may seem like a radical idea, but fixing the FTP is the most logical solution. The FTP is the foundation on which cricket’s international schedule, and hence the sport itself is built upon. One look at the current FTP will tell a fan which teams matter more than the others. And that should not be a problem. India having the biggest audience should get the biggest slice of the pie, and to some extent, have more of a say in the FTP than, say, New Zealand.

But the FTP should be uniform in one thing: the number of minimum series that each country has to play. A four-year cycle gives each team within a Tier to host and tour the other five teams in their tier. That will make a total of 10 Test series that each team will play over a four-year period (5 Home and 5 Away). Pretty reasonable, to say the least. Each series should not be any less than 3 Tests for the top-tier, and 2 Tests for the lower-tier.

Any series other than the Championship should not be penciled in to the FTP, and should be the decision of the Boards involved. This is where India can choose to play Sri Lanka as many times as they wish, and generate as much income as they can. What happens to marquee series like the Ashes? An FTP that ONLY dictates the Test Championships and the World Cups leaves more than enough room for tours to be conducted on bilateral agreements. England and Australia can play as many Tests in an Ashes series as their respective Boards agree upon, as long as they commit to the minimum number of Tests required for the Test Championship. Ashes Tests can also be part of the Championship, if Australia and England are within the same Tier during one cycle.

The FTP should NOT include any ODI or T20 series, with the exception of the World Cups, and perhaps the Champions Trophy. These should be left up to the respective boards, and they can play as much or as little as they want.

The Finances:

The profits from each Test series can be shared by the ICC and the boards involved. Similarly, any losses incurred should be borne by both the Boards and the ICC. Since the ICC shares the profits/losses, they can impose that DRS be used for ALL series, in whatever shape or form the ICC has approved it. Saying that BCCI might not agree to it is moot; they did, after all, let the DRS be used in the World Cup, which they co-hosted.

Any revenue generated from the ODI or T20 series following the Tests is the Boards’ profit. Any losses incurred are theirs to bear as well.

TV Rights sold for any tours should be clearly defined, stating that an “x” amount of dollars is for the Test series (to be shared by the Home Board and ICC), and “y” amount of dollars is for the limited overs leg of a tour, which might not necessarily take place as the Boards concerned can decide not to have any other matches (highly unlikely).

Points scored:

The league stage of the Championship can award points for wins (10) and draws/ties (5). Bonus points can be awarded using the following criteria:

1 point for each wicket taken, an additional bonus point for taking all 10 wickets in an innings within 100 overs.

1 point for every 40 runs scored, an additional bonus point for scoring 400 within 100 overs.

2 points for winning by an innings.

1 extra point for winning each away Test.

In case of teams finishing on the same number of points, the team with the most away wins gets a higher standing.

In case the teams have an equal number of away wins, the team with the least away losses gets a higher standing.

In case the teams have an equal number of away losses, the team with the highest run rate gets a higher standing.

Using the above-mentioned scoring criteria might encourage teams to have sporting declarations, higher run rates, or attacking fields in order to gain the extra points that they might need to stay in contention for promotion/Championship, or to avoid relegation.

Conclusion:

Giving context to every Test match played, putting your overall ranking on the line, and having the hope of always finishing ahead of others might just be catalyst that brings Test matches back to life. The above-mentioned solution can be tailored to have a different points system to better suit the league format, but something along the lines of minimum Tests played home and away, and doing away with meaningless bilateral ODI series just might be the way forward for international cricket.  

What the BPL failed to do for Bangladesh cricket

Another Twenty20 league has come and gone. While the Bangladesh Cricket Board did a decent job of putting on a good show – within a reasonably limited amount of time, and with just enough teams to make the tournament competitive yet not long-drawn – there were more cons than pros.

The first news to come out of the Bangladesh Premier League threatened the integrity of the tournament itself, with Dhaka Gladiators’ Mashrafe Mortaza reporting an approach from a fellow cricketer regarding potential spot-fixing. Later on, there was an arrest made of a man suspected to be involved in fixing in the league. 'Innocent until proven guilty' and all that aside, this seriously put a cloud of doubt over the matches played.
Payments to players had also been raised as an issue, but this is not unique to the BPL. The now defunct Indian Cricket League had similar problems and even the Sri Lanka board had been under considerable pressure until recently to release overdue payments for its contracted players.

What surprised me the most, though, was the general lack of any serious contributions from young, unknown Bangladesh players. Here the unearthing of a ‘star in the making’ was woefully missing, unlike the IPL, which, for all its faults, has given India young hopefuls like R Ashwin, Varun Aaron and Rahul Sharma. Australia’s Big Bash League had some noteworthy local performers as well, like Travis Birt and Ben Edmondson. For sure, it brought some international careers that were considered as good as dead back to life, as in the case of Brad Hogg. But where was any of this in the BPL? Here are the stats:

1. Only one of the top-ten run-getters was local (Shakib Al Hasan at No. 10), three of the top 15 (Shakib, Mohammad Ashraful and Junaid Siddique), and five of the top 20 (Shakib, Ashraful, Junaid, Mushfiqur Rahim and Nasir Hossain), none of whom are new to the national setup.

2. Among the top 20 wicket-takers, there was only one Bangladesh bowler who does not bowl left-arm spin: Mortaza. Again, Mortaza is no stranger to the legions of Bangladesh cricket fans, and is in no way a "find". This just highlights the dependency of Bangladesh cricket on left-arm spinners, the lack of variation in any prospective attack.

3. No Bangladesh player scored more than one half-century in the tournament. At a time when more consistency is needed from the batsmen, this is as bad a piece of news as any.

4. Perhaps the lack of big scores from local players could be attributed to this: in only three innings (for Chittagong in the tournament’s second match, and for Rajshahi in the fourth and ninth matches) out of a possible 66, were both openers local. That is a measly 4.54%.

5. In the four semi-final innings, and the two innings in the final, only Barisal Burners had three local batsmen in the top six. All other teams had at least four overseas players slotted in from No. 1 to No. 6, with Khulna Royal Bengals playing four out of four foreign players from No. 1 to No. 4 in the second semi-final.

The greatest good to come out of the BPL was young local players rubbing shoulders with players of the calibre of Chris Gayle, Sanath Jayasuriya, Muttiah Muralitharan and Brad Hodge. One can say that overseas signings like Ahmed Shehzad, Nasir Jamshed and Shahzaib Hassan were successful, but these players were themselves students in the BPL, not nearly experienced enough to impart any considerable knowledge. Shahid Afridi and Saeed Ajmal, meanwhile, were not available for long enough to have an impact.

Any domestic tournament, like the BPL, looks to produce players for the national setup. Commercial success is usually a secondary aim. The BPL just might turn out to be a commercial success in the long-term but the current format, with five foreign players permitted in the playing XI, hardly allows any local players to make a name for themselves, grab the selectors' attention, or push for a spot in the national team.

This entry was published in the Inbox section of ESPNcricinfo's Blogs:
http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2012/03/what_the_bpl_failed_to_do_for.php

The second biggest moron in Pakistan!

There are three things that Pakistanis are very passionate about: politics, cricket, and religion! Every one of these things overlaps, and more often than not, undermines at least one of the other two. Politics of religion, religious cricket teams, political khutbas every Friday, etc.

But this blog is about the sad convergence of cricket and politics. The sport we all love, and the politicians we all love to hate, have very conveniently come together in the form of the subject of this blog: Ijaz Butt!

Mr Butt has done many things of note, very few of them noble or progressive, since he took over the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) about three or so years ago.

A spat with Javed Miandad, no saint himself, but a worthy cricketer and a better administrator than Butt for sure, started off Mr Butt's tenure. Sure these things had happened before in the PCB, but this dispute went all the way to the Senate, albeit, perhaps expectedly, without a concrete resolution from there.

The attack on the Sri Lankan national team was a disgrace, and not entirely the Board's fault (the security forces should be blamed equally), but Butt's remarks about exaggeration from Chris Broad were uncalled for. Chris Broad had just escaped an attack on his life, and an apology from the Board would have been nicer than the accusations of embellishment.

In light of the aforementioned attack, Pakistan was stripped of its World Cup hosting rights, which was not entirely unexpected. What was unexpected though, was Mr Butt threatening to sue the ICC! When a historically cricket-friendly country like Sri Lanka refuses to tour, who else would you expect to come? And what court of law would side with you??? What were you smoking, Mr Butt? People might argue about the financial compensations promised to the Board for hosting the event. If we were so worried about that, we should have better protected the Sri Lankan national team.

England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) saw an opportunity and invited Pakistan to host their home games in England, perhaps banking on the significant Pakistani diaspora there. A welcome change for Pakistan, and the cricket-crazy Pakistanis! But another Butt (Salman), and two Muhammads (Asif and Aamer) decided that since Pakistan was not playing much cricket anyways, they should bank as much as they could from that short series. Embarrassed, and as is often the case, disillussioned, Mr Butt (Ijaz) launched an offensive against the English team, accusing them of the same crimes. Proof? He didn't have it! Mr Butt does not bother himself with such trivial stuff!!!

Curbing player power? That was Mr Butt's argument in handing out the bans and fines on players. If he had in fact curbed their power, the fines and bans should have been in place now! But unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, they are not.

Nine captains in three years! Disappointing to say the least. Silver lining: I look at it as every Pakistani having leadership qualities!

The latest saga that Mr Butt has been involved in has involved Shahid Afridi, the latest in the long line of sacked captains. He might not have been the best player in the team, but he was more than an able captain. A World Cup semifinal loss to the eventual champions, very nearly the bowler of the tournament, two away series wins; not exactly shabby. But he had his issues. Too many outspoken outbursts to the media was the major one. His sacking is not very unusual and might just have been just, but suspending his contract, and revoking the no-objection certificate (NOC) borders on the cruel. A prejudicial decision, but I guess that is how things get done in the great country of ours.

To all those who are blaming Afridi: what would you have done had you been in his shoes? What the PCB has done is cut off all his sources of income. The contract, which pays him well, has been suspended, which means no money coming from there. The NOC has been revoked, so no chance of plying his trade anywhere else. An athlete only has so many suns to make hay, unlike other professionals... so even a year on the out hurts!

And here is where politics will play a huge part in the tussle between the Pathan and the Butt. Mr Butt is a presidential appointee, but Afridi has approached politicians to push for his case as well. The judicial system will carry out its processes, and a resolution, hopefully, will be reached. Failure to grant Afridi the NOC should be compensated by the PCB, even if his contract is not reinstated.

Mr Butt has a chance to redeem himself, which he will waste, because he has gone senile, has anger-management issues, and is an egotistical maniac. The Pakistani cricket team will go through another mini-turmoil, and get back to its pre-Ijaz Butt mercurial glory. We will live to see another dawn, another drama, another Don, and another moron.

The question remains: who is the guy who trumped Mr Butt, and is THE biggest moron in Pakistan?