desiman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 3,957
- Reaction score
- 0
How to approach this politely? Ian Chappell was pretty polite. "If his batting was as good as Don Bradman's," he said on air, "he couldn't score enough runs to make up for what he costs them with his keeping."
Osman Samiuddin in Pallekele
Kamran Akmal will be under intense scrutiny after his miserable performance in the first Test, Edgbaston, August 5, 2010
Despite consistently letting his side down, Kamran Akmal has been a mainstay of Pakistan's team over the last few years
How to approach this politely? Ian Chappell was pretty polite. "If his batting was as good as Don Bradman's," he said on air, "he couldn't score enough runs to make up for what he costs them with his keeping."
There are many ways in which the depth of denial in Pakistan - in all spheres of life - presents itself to the observer. No better example of it exists than the continued presence of Kamran Akmal in the side, the man to whom Chappell refers so politely. The world knows the worth of Akmal as a wicketkeeper: to be short, he is not one anymore. He is, to steal and twist the wonderful sledge Jimmy Ormond dished out to Mark Waugh once, not even the best wicketkeeper in his family. He's not even the second-best: Umar Akmal has looked safer than him on the occasions he has kept.
Yet as Pakistan has changed everything about its cricket over the last four years - captains, selectors, chairmen, players, coaches - Akmal has remained unchanged, unchallenged in his incompetency. Until the beginning of Pakistan's last summer in England, when there was still a will left to count, he was fluffing comfortably more than one chance per Test: 32 in 25 Tests. His ODI rate cannot be far behind.
There appears no sane reason for it and even an insane one right now would be handy. Shoaib Malik thought him the second-best wicketkeeper-batsman behind Adam Gilchrist during his captaincy, a hallucination rather than delusion. The pair are close, so nepotism was as good a reason as any. But what were the reasons for Younis Khan, Mohammad Yousuf, Salman Butt and now, Shahid Afridi to persist with him?
After every show of calamity, when the question is put to anyone in charge, the response is to say it is only one match, that everyone drops a catch occasionally, or the line Waqar Younis trotted out today, that we can't just blame the one person. We can at least blame those who keep selecting him. Those who argue that he compensates with his batting will kindly direct themselves to the brutality of Chappell's verdict: no amount of runs can make up for the matches, and as importantly the moments in matches, he has lost.
The few times he has been dropped in the last four years - for the Asia Cup 2008, after the Australia tour last year, during the English summer - the performances leading into it have been so monumentally negligent that not dropping him might have risked the kind of revolution in Pakistan seen in the Arab world. It would probably take that still to shift him.
In any case he has returned back to the side at the first opportunity. Whether they forget or choose to overlook his errors is irrelevant: it is criminal in both cases. He sneaked into this squad only after being cleared by a board integrity committee. A wicketkeeping committee might have been better placed to rule on it.
Akmal's three misses - two off Ross Taylor - set the tone for the rest of the innings, Pakistan's most bedraggled performance in the field in this tournament so far. Their last one, against Sri Lanka, was sparked incidentally by two missed stumpings.
Short of injuring Akmal and sending him back, the only option Pakistan could explore is to play the younger Akmal as a wicketkeeper. In keeping with the cautious nature of the team's leaders, that seems unlikely. Asked whether they would consider it, Waqar Younis said, "After the World Cup maybe we can think about it, but we are in the middle of the tournament and I don't think we can make such a change. We have five days off in which we will try to rectify his mistakes because in such a short time we can't rectify all mistakes. We can't kick him out at the moment, we can try to make him better for the next game and make sure he won't make the same mistakes."
Meanwhile, the state of denial Pakistan remains in about the balance of its side should also take a few knocks here, hopefully. They persist in playing a specialist bowler short to buffer their batting. Playing a batsman at eight - Abdul Razzaq may open the bowling but he is no opening bowler, as tournament figures of 21-4-111-1 testify - has not helped their batting much in their last two games, precisely the situations the strategy is aimed at. Razzaq's 62 will, no doubt, be used as justification at some point in the future.
When Umar Gul had to be bowled out during the batting Powerplay - and his fine bowling will not even be a footnote - it left the last four overs to be bowled by someone who wasn't Gul. Those four overs, shared by Razzaq, Shoaib Akhtar and Abdur Rehman, went for 92. Razzaq's four overs of the day went for 49, "a bit off-colour" Waqar said: a little yes, like black and white.
Yet the top order collapse seemed to confirm to Pakistan they need the batting. "We were 120-7 so we were short of batsmen," Waqar said. "I think 300 was chaseable. We can't afford to have another bowler in the side, as we are playing with six if you consider Mohammad Hafeez and Razzaq. I don't think we can manage another bowler."
New Zealand v Pakistan: Calamity Kamran seems undroppable | Cricket Features | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
Osman Samiuddin in Pallekele
Kamran Akmal will be under intense scrutiny after his miserable performance in the first Test, Edgbaston, August 5, 2010
Despite consistently letting his side down, Kamran Akmal has been a mainstay of Pakistan's team over the last few years
How to approach this politely? Ian Chappell was pretty polite. "If his batting was as good as Don Bradman's," he said on air, "he couldn't score enough runs to make up for what he costs them with his keeping."
There are many ways in which the depth of denial in Pakistan - in all spheres of life - presents itself to the observer. No better example of it exists than the continued presence of Kamran Akmal in the side, the man to whom Chappell refers so politely. The world knows the worth of Akmal as a wicketkeeper: to be short, he is not one anymore. He is, to steal and twist the wonderful sledge Jimmy Ormond dished out to Mark Waugh once, not even the best wicketkeeper in his family. He's not even the second-best: Umar Akmal has looked safer than him on the occasions he has kept.
Yet as Pakistan has changed everything about its cricket over the last four years - captains, selectors, chairmen, players, coaches - Akmal has remained unchanged, unchallenged in his incompetency. Until the beginning of Pakistan's last summer in England, when there was still a will left to count, he was fluffing comfortably more than one chance per Test: 32 in 25 Tests. His ODI rate cannot be far behind.
There appears no sane reason for it and even an insane one right now would be handy. Shoaib Malik thought him the second-best wicketkeeper-batsman behind Adam Gilchrist during his captaincy, a hallucination rather than delusion. The pair are close, so nepotism was as good a reason as any. But what were the reasons for Younis Khan, Mohammad Yousuf, Salman Butt and now, Shahid Afridi to persist with him?
After every show of calamity, when the question is put to anyone in charge, the response is to say it is only one match, that everyone drops a catch occasionally, or the line Waqar Younis trotted out today, that we can't just blame the one person. We can at least blame those who keep selecting him. Those who argue that he compensates with his batting will kindly direct themselves to the brutality of Chappell's verdict: no amount of runs can make up for the matches, and as importantly the moments in matches, he has lost.
The few times he has been dropped in the last four years - for the Asia Cup 2008, after the Australia tour last year, during the English summer - the performances leading into it have been so monumentally negligent that not dropping him might have risked the kind of revolution in Pakistan seen in the Arab world. It would probably take that still to shift him.
In any case he has returned back to the side at the first opportunity. Whether they forget or choose to overlook his errors is irrelevant: it is criminal in both cases. He sneaked into this squad only after being cleared by a board integrity committee. A wicketkeeping committee might have been better placed to rule on it.
Akmal's three misses - two off Ross Taylor - set the tone for the rest of the innings, Pakistan's most bedraggled performance in the field in this tournament so far. Their last one, against Sri Lanka, was sparked incidentally by two missed stumpings.
Short of injuring Akmal and sending him back, the only option Pakistan could explore is to play the younger Akmal as a wicketkeeper. In keeping with the cautious nature of the team's leaders, that seems unlikely. Asked whether they would consider it, Waqar Younis said, "After the World Cup maybe we can think about it, but we are in the middle of the tournament and I don't think we can make such a change. We have five days off in which we will try to rectify his mistakes because in such a short time we can't rectify all mistakes. We can't kick him out at the moment, we can try to make him better for the next game and make sure he won't make the same mistakes."
Meanwhile, the state of denial Pakistan remains in about the balance of its side should also take a few knocks here, hopefully. They persist in playing a specialist bowler short to buffer their batting. Playing a batsman at eight - Abdul Razzaq may open the bowling but he is no opening bowler, as tournament figures of 21-4-111-1 testify - has not helped their batting much in their last two games, precisely the situations the strategy is aimed at. Razzaq's 62 will, no doubt, be used as justification at some point in the future.
When Umar Gul had to be bowled out during the batting Powerplay - and his fine bowling will not even be a footnote - it left the last four overs to be bowled by someone who wasn't Gul. Those four overs, shared by Razzaq, Shoaib Akhtar and Abdur Rehman, went for 92. Razzaq's four overs of the day went for 49, "a bit off-colour" Waqar said: a little yes, like black and white.
Yet the top order collapse seemed to confirm to Pakistan they need the batting. "We were 120-7 so we were short of batsmen," Waqar said. "I think 300 was chaseable. We can't afford to have another bowler in the side, as we are playing with six if you consider Mohammad Hafeez and Razzaq. I don't think we can manage another bowler."
New Zealand v Pakistan: Calamity Kamran seems undroppable | Cricket Features | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
