In a week famous for sixty-fourth anniversaries, India and Pakistan
might wish to reflect on the fruits of those intervening years of toil
on the cricket field. When midnight’s chimes created two nations in 1947
greater concerns about the division of land, people, infrastructure,
and wealth preoccupied people’s minds than partition of cricketing
abilities.
Today, India stride the upper echelons of cricket both in running the
game and performing on the field, despite this summer’s disappointing
effort. Pakistan, meanwhile, are struggling to avoid outcast status and
soon will do battle with Zimbabwe at the foot of the international
table. These might turn out to be transitory positions but at the moment
there is a hint of permanency about them.
The 1947 distribution of cricketing talents has given rise to broad
generalisations, which have to some degree held true. Pakistan has been
blessed with fast bowlers of world class, from Fazal Mahmood, through
Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, and Waqar Younis, to the cursed pair of Shoaib
Akhtar and Mohammad Amir. Even now, Pakistan’s young breed of Wahab Riaz
and Junaid Khan are offering hope that the line will continue.
India’s pacemen have been more sporadic and less dominant. Kapil Dev,
Javagal Srinath, and Zaheer Khan have fought lone battles. Hypotheses
for this disparity have been many: genetic differences, climate, even
diet. None are satisfactory or barely plausible. Is there much
difference between Delhi and Lahore? The migrations at partition will
have made the region more homogenous not less.
Indeed, Pakistan’s fast bowlers weren’t especially formidable before
Imran Khan, who was greatly influenced and motivated by the speed
sensations he encountered during World Series Cricket, the formidable
Australian and West Indian pacemen of his era. They were Imran’s role
models, driving him to higher speeds and achievement. In turn, Imran was
the inspiration of the many Pakistani fast bowlers who followed, and
soon he was joined by Wasim and Waqar who created their own legacies and
legends.
This role-model theory helps explain the different routes taken by
cricketers of both nations. India has a regal history in batsmanship,
from the masters of bygone days through Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip
Vengsarkar, and Mohammad Azharuddin to today’s holy trinity of Rahul
Dravid, VVS Laxman, and Sachin Tendulkar. These batting riches are
beyond the dreams of Pakistanis who have had to be satisfied with a
disintegrating line of Hanif Mohommad, Zaheer Abbas, Javed Miandad,
Inzamam-ul Haq, and Mohammad Yousuf, a heritage which ends in
nothingness.
While bowling is a natural skill that tolerates imitation, batting is
more technical and it is not possible to simply rely on following your
hero’s example. Success in batting requires advanced technique and a
cricketing infrastructure to support the maturation of batsmen. A
supportive infrastructure is dependent on the cricket board creating a
stable environment for its players. It is here that the failings of
Pakistan’s successive cricket boards have had the most damaging effect,
and the explanation why batting has become a lost art in Pakistan
cricket while fast bowlers emerge unhindered.
The success of Indian cricket as an enterprise offers it an
opportunity to overcome weaknesses in fast bowling if it chooses to
invest in the development of wicket-taking Test fast bowlers rather than
breeding run-stoppers for the Indian Premier League. As unlikely as
that prospect might be, notwithstanding the way India’s bowling has been
exposed on this tour of England, the plight of Pakistan’s batsmen
appears far bleaker.
Yet the joyous celebrations that marked Pakistan’s Independence Day
were a reminder that hope can remain strong even in the face of near
calamity. Indeed, the best international performance by a South Asian
this summer has come from Pakistan’s Asad Rauf. Both Rauf and Aleem Dar
have shown that excellence is achievable whatever the circumstances.
Admittedly, ICC’s governance of the elite panel has helped nurture them
away from the clutches of the Pakistan Cricket Board. Rauf and Dar have
helped banish the ill-repute of Pakistani umpires, a reputation that was
well earned, as it was too by umpires of the cricketing powers of
Australia, England, and India.
So, 64 years has brought us fearsome fast bowlers from Pakistan and
wizardly batsmen from India. It has brought us innovative spin bowlers
and disastrous fielders from both nations. But it has left us with
serious challenges. What can Pakistan cricket, and its batsmen
specifically, do to flourish again? Is survival even possible? What can
India do to remedy its weakness in fast bowling, and what on earth has
happened to Indian umpires? Do they still exist?
Perhaps we are witnessing another fine example of Darwinian thinking?
Indian batsmen and Pakistani fast bowlers, Indian administrators and
Pakistani umpires, this is survival of the fittest.
