Inzamam admitting Shoaib is not a team man (the cat finally comes out of the bag)

[workkey]

Inzamam told The News. "There is no doubt he is our best bowler and one capable of taking wickets and winning us matches. I don't care what he does off the field as long as he performs for the team. But the problem with him has been that he wants to play according to his own terms and conditions which is unacceptable to me. Yes there have been occasions when I have told the selectors and board, I don't want him in the team because his behaviour has a bad influence on the younger players. But I again repeat there is no doubt I would like to have him in my team as he is a matchwinner. Tell me which captain or coach would not like to play their main strike bowler. But he has to learn to play with discipline and according to the team requirements.

I totally agree with inzi on this,no doubt he is the main striker but he is useless if he is not playing for the team and instead just projecting himself as the fastest in the world and i feel that our team is doing more good without him since he came back from australia.
We reached the finals of vb series and have fought very hard in the two test matches that have been played.
In my opinion he should only be selected if he is ready to play according to the plan of the team not on his own.

[Rachael]

Now.. if only this line had been taken in the UK over the last 30 years....

Of course.. at least Shoaib is just one loose canon: there was a time in the 80s when the lunatics pretty much took over the England asylum with the entire team being deemed "ungovernable" :-)

The most encouraging thing about this is the message it sends out to aspiring players: "no-one is indispensible" and "we have no room for prima-donnas" is being broadcast very loudly indeed.. and with so many relatively young and inexperienced players entering the fray (and so few chances for many of them to play seriously professional 1st class cricket as Wasim Akram did).. the rewards could be great.

If Shabbir Ahmed, Umar Gul, Salman Butt and the rest emerge as more professional and committed team men as a result of this then the short term cost is surely worthwhile.

[Beny]

So what will prince shoaib say about this?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Now.. if only this line had been taken in the UK over the last 30 years....

Of course.. at least Shoaib is just one loose canon: there was a time in the 80s when the lunatics pretty much took over the England asylum with the entire team being deemed "ungovernable" :-)

Rachael, maybe that is a slightly different case though. In Shoaib's case, we have one supremely gifted player who is "ungovernable", and is often referred to as a prima donna. The captain would ideally not have his influence on the team, and can put out a more cohesive unit if Akhtar is on the bench, but the lack of bowling resources makes that a difficult decision. In England's case, if you say many players were deemed ungovernable, then surely the fault was with the administrators, team management and the captain; either all these players should have been set straight early on, or their grievances were indeed merited and they were justified in not kowtowing to the party line.

In general, it is the captain's responsibility to lead, and to manage all the disparate personalities under him. Asif Iqbal, when leading Pakistan on the tour to India in 1978/79, excluded Sarfraz Nawaz due to the latter being "difficult to handle" or "ungovernable", but in the end, the team suffered on the field, and Sarfraz was recalled by Imran once Asif had resigned, a beaten man. In Imran's view, only a weak leader would exclude a player they could not get along with on that basis alone. A good leader on the other hand, would know how exactly to motivate everyone under his command, and this is what Imran would do even with very obdurate or recalcitrant team members. If a player is good enough to play, he should be in the team, unless he does not want to play himself, which is a different matter entirely.

In this specific instance though, I agree this sends just the right message to the younger players. Shoaib may have been performing okay himself, but he was detrimental to team morale and a negative example to the youngsters. As the captain and coach clearly do not have any moral authority with Akhtar, and we do not have any alternate, more effective leadership, this was the correct approach in this one instance.

[Zainub]

I do not believe Shoaib is 'ungovernable'. He is a world class bowler who is difficult to handle. Not impossible to handle.

And this attitude of his, that he gets criticised for every other day, its not something that has developed over night, the same Pakistani people who now demand his exit from the national side were once his biggest admirers ... he has been spoiled. The managment has to take as much blame for how he is now as dose Shoaib him self. I remember in the early days of his career we were singularly obsessed with him, PCB at that time went all the way to make him feel like he was indeed a prima donna. Now they must be prepaired to bare the consequences.

[flanflinger]

I have to say that I agree 100% about this...

Shoaib Akhtar is a far more intimidating prospect, make no mistake, but he lacks even a smidgen of the commitment that has made Naved tower over every other bowler in this one-day series. But for the Ahmedabad game, where the Indians went after him in a big way, he has managed a stunning haul of 14 wickets on pitches designed specifically to break the hearts of his fast-bowling tribe.

And he hasn't done it with buffet bowling that induces the careless mistake, but with subtle changes in pace and canny use of swing and seam. The credit has to go to Bob Woolmer, who has stuck by Naved and given him the new ball in blatant violation of the machismo code that has held Pakistan cricket back for so many years. This unwritten tradition elevates pace to near mythical status, while not being unduly bothered with niceties such as line, length and control of swing.

If some of Woolmer's critics – and they're more obtuse than most in a country where a leading correspondent once labelled the coach part of a Zionist conspiracy – had their way, some untested slinger like Mohammad Irshad, who has nothing to commend him but pace, would have been playing in place of an unfashionable worker-ant like Naved. Glamour and image are after all more important than the winning of matches.

Sorry I included so much but have tried to highlight a few things which I think are key...

http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_datab...15APR2005.html

PS Rachael ldespite being in the Pakistan section you had to knock England!! http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_datab...15APR2005.html

Originally Posted by Steve Waugh

"When I first started in the mid-80s the bowling depth was very strong and each team had at least two or three strike bowlers. But it's very thin at the moment with the exception of Australia and, to some extent, England."