A Test in name only

Test cricket earns its name, presumably, because it is the ultimate test of skill, temperament, character and spirit. The demands made upon the protagonists are like none other in a battle of wills that can stretch across five gruelling days. In many ways, at least to the converted, it is the ultimate sporting contest.

By that criteria, the Australia v Pakistan first-class match that started last Friday and finished 147 overs later on Saturday was a Test in name only. Of skill, it was exhibited only by one side. Of temperament, by just one batsman. Of character and spirit, there was none to be found by one batting line-up. Thus occurred just the second two-day Test since 1946, the two lowest-ever scores in Pakistan's 287-Test history, and cumulatively the fourth lowest total in Test history.

Australia's first Test demolition of South Africa in February, one-sided thrashing that it was, was still a perfectly played match by one side against strong (although they did not show it) opposition. Australia-Pakistan in the second Test was just uncompetitive; a fairly joyless, incredible walkover. Tellingly, even remorseless competitor Steve Waugh, one of the last people likely to show sympathy for a wounded foe, admitted the result "feels a bit hollow". The Australians love a good fight, and while they can rightly take pride in their execution, it's not much fun when the opposition doesn't punch back.

Weakened side that they presently are, Pakistan should not be that bad. Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar and Saqlain Mushtaq certainly represent a highly respectable bowling attack, and no blame is to be apportioned there. It was Pakistan's young batsmen who were exposed, the absence through injury of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Yousuf Youhana leaving them vulnerable to the inconsistency of inexperience. Imran Nazir, Taufeeq Umar, Misbah-ul-Haq and Faisal Iqbal showed in the first Test that they have the confidence and ability to make Australia work to beat them. But Test cricket is about more than that, and it must be disturbing that none showed the necessary application on a slow pitch that required graft.

The genesis of the debacle that was the second Test had to be found in the first. In confounding expectations of a one-sided contest and running Australia close, Pakistan must have surprised themselves. If anything, the dismal showing in the second Test was a result of complacency, not lack of ability. Former Pakistan great Hanif Mohammad told Dawn : "(The) youngsters were overconfident after their good showing in the first Test." Why that should have been so is difficult to fathom, but complacency does indeed appear to have been a factor.

In searing heat, application was the need of the day. Matthew Hayden grafted his way to 119 -- seven more than Pakistan's two innings combined -- and was the only batsman to pass 44. Patience and endurance were the primary requirements, but Pakistan's batsmen, in between a fairly gallant bowling effort, lacked the dedication for a fight.

Pakistan nevertheless remain a tough team, and it is worth recalling that after Australia bowled West Indies out for 51 in 1999 they proceeded to lose the next two Tests. Apart from a certain Brian Lara, one difference now is that Shane Warne is fit and bowling with confidence and craft, against his favourite opponents.

When we think of Warne's bunnies, South Africans and Englishmen come to mind, but it's not as well acknowledged how poorly Pakistan have fared against him. Pakistan actually has the worst record against Warne, with the leg-spinner now having taken 68 wickets in 11 Tests against Pakistan at 18.88 compared to 118 in 23 against England at 22.82, suggesting it is a fallacy to list Pakistan alongside Indian and Sri Lanka as the foremost players of slow bowling simply because they are a sub-continent team. In reality, the only real difference between Pakistan and England vs Warne has been confidence. Whereas England have typically sought to play him defensively, Pakistan rookie Faisal Iqbal had the inherent confidence to combat him aggressively, which is naturally more effective against a bowler used to dominating.

In addition to the injured Inzamam and Youhana, Pakistan would have been aided by the presence of Saeed Anwar and Wasim Akram, for whose absences there are conflicting explanations. Some reports claim they asked to be rested, others say they were ousted. Considering they both played in the commercial off-season event in England, one has to assume the latter is true, and that the PCB disguised their omission by claiming they had asked to be rested. The loss of at least one experienced batsman, then, is self-inflicted.

Prevented from self-inflicted departures in the wake of the defeat were PCB chairman Tauqir Zia and director Chishty Mujahid. The temporary resignations appear to have been a charade, designed to give the officials a noble appearance of accountability and self-sacrifice. Why they should have considered themselves directly responsible for what occurred on the field in the first place, to the degree that their jobs hinged upon it, is not clear. Players aren't held accountable for what happens at Board level -- or at least, they shouldn't be -- so why should Board members feel directly responsible for what transpires on the field? In the bigger picture, of course, they are, but not on a match-by-match basis.

If PCB officials were considered to have selected the wrong team, or failed to implement the necessary structure and environment conducive to the success of the side, then genuine resignations would be justified. However, once a team is selected and the processes are deemed to be correct, what occurs on the field, positive or otherwise, should not affect Board positions. If Zia and Mujahid are unfit for the job, then they should not be there in the first place, irrespective of what happens against Australia. The resignations now seem to have been nothing more than face-saving gamesmanship, just another minor incident in the long history of convoluted cricket politics.

Waqar Younis, of course, would have seen it all before, and his young charges are now receiving an initiation in the consequences of losing badly. If they are not scarred by the experienced then, paradoxically, they may eventually be better for it. That is, if they are not the next target of Board shenanigans.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw