Stani Army

In his latest piece on cricinfo, titled ‘Why Modi is like Sehwag’, Ian Chappell continues his obsession with criticising Mohammad Yousuf. Yes, I know, the piece is titled  ‘Why Modi is like Sehwag’, but he does well to finish by bringing Mohammad Yousuf into it. The PCB has announced that there will be a new captain after the Australian tour so maybe Chappell should leave the guy alone now.

And whilst mentioning the run out between Salman Butt and Mohammad Yousuf in the 1st innings of the 3rd Test, he writes:

“This move has the potential to replicate either a brilliant attacking masterpiece by Sehwag or the chaos of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salman Butt gesturing at each other after having failed to complete an easy single”

Inzamam Ian? You mean Yousuf right? Concentrate now, criticise one Pakistani at a time. This disease is similar to the one Tiny Greig was showing symptoms of during the ICL when he kept referring to the Lahore Badshahs as ‘Pakistan’. Very professional I must say. O the burden of ignorance!

An old face but a young captain

Mohammad Yousuf came in for a lot of criticism from all corners for his field placements in the second Test against Australia when Peter Siddle and Michael Hussey were at the crease. How much was Yousuf to blame for this and was this the real cause of Pakistan’s defeat?

Many writers held Yousuf solely responsible, and had you been listening to the Australian commentary on that 4th day then it would have been easy to follow suit. Bill Lawry, Tony Greig, Richie Benaud, Mark Nicholas, Michael Slater, Mark Taylor, and last but definitely not the least, Ian Chapell, were all at it. Ian Chapell in particular, did not talk about anything else apart from Mohammad Yousuf in his 4th day commentary stints. I have an automatic dislike of people that are too sure of themselves and Ian Chapell is one.

If you are still firm in the belief that Yousuf got the field placing wrong, then you have to accept that it cannot have been his decision alone. After the close of play on day 3, strategies must have been discussed in the Pakistan camp and all the support staff, including the head coach, must have had an input. Also, the fact that Hussey and Siddle stayed in for so long showed that Yousuf did in fact read the track well, in that it was a relatively easy one to score on. So, would an immediately attacking field have been a good thing or a bad thing?

Had we started with an attacking field, this would have left more scoring opportunities for both Hussey and Siddle. Yes, it may have increased our chances of removing them but did our bowlers honestly look like getting anything on the 4th day? At one point, the camera followed Asif on his run up and he looked flat as a pancake. So if an attacking field didn’t yield us the wicket, the Australians would have got off to a flier and we would have then had to have resorted to a more defensive field but only after giving away easy runs.

Read the rest of this entry »