We have often heard that the country is going through a “critical phase” from our childhood to now. Although this sentiment remains, the impact on our cricket has been minimal over the years. The current situation, however, can be described as cricket going through a “critical phase.” Few fans of my generation have witnessed such a decline in the sport.
In our time, when Bangladesh defeated Pakistan in the World Cup, it was seen as a catastrophe. Now, if the U.S. also beats us, it barely makes a difference. The current era has proven disastrous for domestic cricket, marked by consistent failures against Zimbabwe, Ireland, the U.S., Afghanistan, and Bangladesh in the past 2-3 years.
Surprisingly, certain faces have remained constant through these defeats and are still the darlings of the fans. We failed to learn from one loss before facing another, and now, Bangladesh has whitewashed us in a Test series at home. The humiliation in the World Cup led to promises of improvement through surgery, but nothing materialized, resulting in severe defeats against Bangladesh.
A meeting is scheduled for September 22, and it’s expected that changes will be made, including a potential change in captains. Babar Azam, who has faced repeated failures, should have stepped down from the captaincy. Instead, he waited, hoping people would forget past losses by the next series. However, this did not happen, and his chances of leading the team during the Australian tour seem slim.
Similarly, in Tests, Shan Masood has achieved what no Pakistani captain has before, becoming the only captain to lose five consecutive matches. It seems that both he and Babar Azam will likely play as ordinary players in the future. However, will these changes alone bring extraordinary improvement in the national team’s performance? It doesn’t seem likely. Given the extent of our team’s decline, it will take a lot of time to recover.
We often criticize players because they are an easy target, but we should also look at the board. Frequent changes have caused more harm than good. In contrast, India has had the same J. Shah for many years. In our country, there have been numerous chairmen, and their collective impact on domestic cricket has been detrimental. The result has been a decrease in the influx of new players.
Some blame also falls on Babar Azam. While he was captain, he didn’t give many players the opportunity to advance. Those who did get a chance vanished after limited opportunities. While Babar was in good form, the gaps were not as noticeable. Now, everyone is under scrutiny, and if we want to fix our cricket, we need to start by addressing PCB’s issues. The chairman should be given full authority and time to focus exclusively on cricket, which will surely lead to improvement.
Currently, we often find a new chairman unsatisfactory after a few months, and then we long for the previous one. When changes occur, we tend to idealize the old setup. Mohsin Naqvi is a talented individual who wants to fix domestic cricket, and his integrity and intentions are unquestionable. However, his main problem is the lack of time. Given the current conditions in the country, we cannot expect him to prioritize cricket over other responsibilities.
Naqvi himself must know that cricket is declining, but his pride in holding the board position may not allow him to step down. He will always be haunted by the fact that under his tenure, the team lost to the U.S. in the World Cup and faced initial Test defeats to Bangladesh. Cricket has plunged into decline, and he will continue to strive for improvement, which he is capable of doing.
In a year or two, when we visit stadiums like Gaddafi Stadium or National Stadium, we may find ourselves praising Naqvi for his contributions. However, to improve the cricket team’s performance, exceptional measures are needed. If Naqvi has decided to handle both roles simultaneously, he should first appoint a capable deputy, not a former or current minister or a DC, but a competent person through a thorough process. This deputy should be given full authority.
Board officials should not wait a week for approval from the CEO (or whatever title is used) but should seek approvals directly. Appointments should be based on merit in international cricket, high performance, and domestic cricket sectors. Old officials may not be up to the task, and Naqvi should recognize this. Distributing millions to former cricketers is not beneficial; we need individuals who aim to enhance the country’s talent pool, not just their bank balances.
If merely distributing money could fix domestic cricket, we would have been World Champions by now. The Champions Trophy is undoubtedly important, but what about the series against England? Shouldn’t it have been given more attention? Wouldn’t a few four-day matches have been better for national cricketers than the Champions Cup? Anyway, what’s done is done, and we need to focus on the future. If we want to restore cricket to its former glory, tough measures are required. Hopefully, Mohsin Naqvi will take such steps. And by the way, there’s also the PSL tournament; it would be good to get updates on that as well, as its current state seems concerning.