As more information from Sunday dribbles through, the Pakistan Cricket Board are being asked increasingly difficult questions in Pakistan and for them, something is about to hit the fan

Osman Samiuddin24-Aug-2006

‘Shaharyar Khan, chairman PCB, told Sky TV that his team’s protest was to last “a few minutes”. Immediately a contradiction was set in place’ © Getty Images
Blame for what happened at The Oval and its aftermath can – and has been – liberally flung in several directions. Darrell Hair’s eventual and Inzamam-ul-Haq’s initial obstinacy, the ICC match referee Mike Procter’s haphazard communication skills and the Pakistan Cricket Board’s less than firm handling of the crisis.As more information from Sunday dribbles through, the last named in particular are being asked increasingly difficult questions in Pakistan and for them, something is about to hit the fan. Inzamam can still count on public support, given the inclusive nature of his protest (he was defending the country’s honour), but it is looking difficult for his board to expect the same.Ex-officials and players are rarely happy with successors but there appears genuine cause for grief. As a fiasco unfolded on Sunday, Shaharyar Khan, chairman PCB, told Sky TV that his team’s protest was to last “a few minutes”. Immediately a contradiction was set in place; “a few minutes” was considerably more and doubts appeared about the team’s intent.Khan giving a statement was questionable enough (not more though than him appearing in a Pepsi commercial last year), given that the team’s manager Zaheer Abbas was hired for just this sort of situation (Journalist Khalid H. Khan, in asked why Zaheer Abbas was seen doing little more than chatting on his mobile phone, walking in and out of the dressing-room). The next day, the PCB only shook up more dust. They were wrong in claiming that the ball was roughed up because Kevin Pietersen was spanking sixes – those came after the ball was changed.They were ambiguous in their stance on Hair; “he was a good umpire” but their team had problems with his attitude. They were contradictory in their explanation of what happened in those crucial minutes after tea and before the game was forfeited. The fate of the ODIs wasn’t decided though their captain and coach were already publicly threatening cancellation. As Inzamam’s hearing is now postponed, they still can’t find one voice through which to speak – do they want hearings postponed or do they not?

‘As Inzamam’s hearing is now postponed, they still can’t find one voice through which to speak – do they want hearings postponed or do they not?’ © Getty Images
Arif Abbasi, chairman of the PCB through the ball tampering and match-fixing crises of the ’90s and no mincer of words was appalled by the management’s lack of knowledge through the events. “It was a shambles. No one appears to have known the laws regarding forfeiture as the crisis was occurring. The manager Zaheer Abbas went missing, the chairman was making comments about things he didn’t know and there was no communication at all between Pakistan and the umpires. As a study in crisis-management, it was as poor as it gets. Since then, it appears as if they haven’t done their homework on anything.”Others have been similarly scathing. Aaqib Javed was in the 1992 side in England, during which a ball was also changed, with considerably less hoopla. “It’s not the first time it has happened. In 1992 while we were playing, our manager Intikhab Alam told us not to worry, he would handle everything while we should just play on. Afterwards, he sent a letter protesting. Where was the manager now and did anyone know the rules? Let’s not forget though that Hair was correct in all the actions he took and he should be lauded for those decisions.”Javed also raised concerns that Shaharyar hadn’t been firm enough, in his capacity as chairman, with the players or match officials. “One player in the dressing-room told me that all decisions were being taken by Inzamam about the protest. Shaharyar’s very nature is of compromise, once a diplomat, always a diplomat. Not being clear and firm on issues is natural. When they convinced Inzamam to come out, it actually made Pakistan and Inzi look more foolish.”That observation wasn’t a stray one; in an article for , columnist Shahed Sadullah questioned the PCB’s decision, together with Mike Procter, to convince the team to return. The gesture was humiliating as well as pointless, “totally compromising Pakistan’s stand. You either protest or you do not; you cannot hedge your bet both ways. That takes away the moral high ground completely and that is what the PCB’s actions have done.”

Khalid H. Khan, in asked why Zaheer Abbas was seen doing little more than chatting on his mobile phone, walking in and out of the dressing room © Getty Images
One well-placed source close to the board painted a none too flattering picture: “They were like a whole group of Inspector Clouseaus, all bumbling through without knowing quite what they were doing, without knowing the law, making one statement after another, each one contradicting the last.” The list could go on; both Imran Khan and Javed Miandad have also registered their concerns over the board’s handling. But as the source acknowledged, “it’s been such a big cock-up that questions will most definitely be asked when they get back.”For one, the Senate is likely to pounce. Since the 2004 loss at home to India, the standing committee for sports has hounded the board – through wins, losses, draws – over their finances, the lack of a constitution (the board has operated ad-hoc since 1999) and any other topical controversy. This is heaven-sent. The tour is drawing to a close but the PCB’s headaches aren’t. In fact, on return, they are likely to turn into a migraine.