Just over halfway into the revamped season of the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy and the problems and concerns that were most visible a month ago are still the ones that are most under scrutiny. In the end perhaps the PCB and the supporters of the revamp can only echo what the current government’s supporters are so fond of preaching: stop expecting a decades long rot to turn around in a matter of months.
How many draws are too many draws?
The second most common complaint regarding the new system has been the sort of cricket it has led to. Halfway through the round robin stage of the Trophy only four of the eighteen matches have elicited a result. Talking to active players there’s been a groundswell regarding the “brand” of cricket that’s been on show. The general perception among them, as among others associated with Pakistan cricket, is that the PCB has over-corrected from the previous malaise – that either the balls needed to be changed from Dukes to Kookaburra, or pitches needed to become batting friendly, not both as has been the case.
In this I disagree with that perspective. The state of Pakistan cricket and the quality of the First Class game had led the country’s cricket to such a point that revolution, not evolution, was the need of the hour. To get Pakistan cricket back to what it once was – able to produce pacers and spinners capable of taking wickets on the flattest of decks – will require sacrifice and changes. The bowling charts, for instance, tell an obvious story: until the last round of games, top of the charts was the man most used to taking wickets on slow flat tracks in the country, Yasir Shah. Meanwhile as rumours abound of the death of fast bowling thanks to these surfaces, the highest wicket taker among pacers is Naseem Shah, who has taken 18 wickets at an average south of 20. Perhaps that’s because unlike his contemporaries he hasn’t yet been spoiled by the system that came before. Perhaps the other fast bowlers in the country ought to learn from the youngest among them.
My Kingdom for a Union
The concerns about pitches have been second most common, but they are a fraction compared to what has troubled domestic cricketers the most. In one fell swoop the income of domestic players in the country was reduced significantly. For most department players (and department players represent the vast majority of the shortened player pool) their income this year will be half or less of what it was last year. For some, like the captain of the national Test team, their income is likely to be a tenth of what it was prior to the domestic overhaul!
The aim of the new system was to reduce the number of players, increase competition and professionalism in the domestic game. How do the authorities expect an increase in professionalism when most players can no longer afford to be professionals? The media has been concerned by those that were left behind by the overhaul, but even those who are part of the new system are earning a pittance compared to what they once were. With just one factor the PCB might have undone all the good the new system can produce.
In a recent chat with one of the current (non Islamabad United) players he mentioned that prior to PSL4 he had spent US $ 3,000 on a trainer in just two weeks, the reason behind this being his determination to be in peak physical condition for the PSL. The question that you ask immediately is how many players can even afford to do that? Guys who have played leagues around the world, and are thus catching up to the professionalism standards that are being set, can afford to do that. But someone who’s still only playing domestic cricket is not going to spend his salary of seven months(!) on a two week long fitness camp. When a high-quality bat costs as much as your monthly salary how many big hitters do you expect to produce?
In a normal country this is a state of affairs that would have never even happened. But that is because normal countries have collective bargaining as part of most employer-employee relationships. The past month has seen Bangladeshi cricketers take a stand, while Yuvraj Singh has echoed those sentiments for Indian cricketers. Meanwhile Pakistanis, with perhaps less control over their careers than cricketers from any other nation, have yet to take that stand. The general consensus among younger players seems to be that they will follow their elders in this regard; while senior players are all waiting for the junior players to take a stand as it is they who are suffering the most right now. In the end, much like Pakistani batting in difficult foreign tours, it appears that no one is going to stand up.
How Do We Judge Players?
This is a question I’ve been pondering over the past fortnight. I spent the National T20 tournament last month as part of the staff of the Southern Punjab team. Along with deconstructing players from that squad, some players from other teams asked me for clarification of their numbers and roles too. Among those was Umar Amin.
Now the opinions over Umar, among both the cricket fraternity and the fanbase, can range from the most laudatory to the most insulting. But his numbers present a pretty intriguing case study into how we judge players.
On the surface his career List A average of 37.2 does not appear to be good enough. But here’s another way to look at it: in 50-over cricket Umar averages over 40 (with 85+ SR) batting at numbers 3 and 4, compared to under 31 batting everywhere else in the order. He has played 16 ODIs in his career; in only four of those did he bat at one or two down.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Scratch a bit further and another interesting thing pops up. His numbers are dependent on the stage of his career too. Prior to January 2015 Umar scored 1,206 runs batting at numbers 3 and 4, averaging 30.9 while scoring at a strike rate of 84. Since January 2015 he has scored 1,721 runs batting at those two positions, averaging 57.4 at a strike rate of 89. Prior to January 2015 he played 15 ODIs, since then he has played one. By the time he reached his peak and started to figure out the sort of player he was, by the time he nearly doubled his one-day average, he had already been declared not good enough for the highest level.
That is not to say whether I think Umar should or shouldn’t be in the national team (but with the retirements of Malik and Hafeez his case ought to be considered surely?), after all those are questions that are to be answered by people far more astute and knowledgeable than I am. But one does wonder that for how long will Pakistan continue to think that throwing in the latest batch of youngsters is going to solve decades long issues. For how long will we ignore players at their peak because we have already declared that the jury is in on them already?
Umar is just one of the around 220 players that have played in senior domestic cricket this year. Each of those players has his own story, his own career arc, his own development via maturity. By not doing a deep dive on them, we do them a disservice. They deserve better than what we have given them.