It is disheartening to note that our cricket team's recent performance has closely measured my predictions and fears. We lost miserably against everyone except weak teams.

We had a lucky victory against New Zealand, where we had to chase a formidable target of 401 runs which proved challenging. However, thanks to an extraordinary performance by Fakhar Zaman and the intervention of the D/L method due to rain, we secured an unexpected win. Had we lost Fakhar at an early stage of the match, the 401 mark would have been too daunting for us.

There is a prevailing sentiment among many cricket enthusiasts that had Fakhar Zaman played a more substantial role in the last match against England, we might have emerged victorious. I contend that even if Fakhar had done better, with Babar and Rizwan playing for 15 to 20 overs, the outcome would have been unfavourable for us. Their playing style appears to prioritise personal milestones over team success. Rather than exhibiting a match-winning approach, they seem fixated on achieving individual records. Time and overs seem of little consequence to them, with their primary focus on attaining a half-century or a century. The entire nation sank into depression when the English team, which had struggled in various matches recently, managed to convincingly triumph over Pakistan.

Babar Azam, who has resigned after the World Cup debacle, was fully exposed as lacking the strategic acumen required to lead a team at the World Cup. The ‘Friends Eleven’ proved itself to be a club level side pushed to face cricket giants in an international tournament.

The question that needs to be answered is whether we were adequately prepared for the World Cup. It is unfortunate that the answer is a resounding "no." The players honed for the fast-paced 20-over format and bowlers tailored for brief spells of 4 overs faced a formidable challenge when confronted with the demands of a 50-over ODI World Cup.

Haris Rauf is lethal in the 20-over format, in which he has to bowl only four overs. In this World Cup he established a world record of conceding 527 runs in 9 innings, which is the highest so far for any bowler in a single edition of a World Cup. The stamina and excellence of our bowlers is barely enough to bowl 4 overs.

It is imperative to scrutinise the team's performance for the World Cup beyond the surface. Were our players exposed to the rigours of international ODI matches or Tests on diverse wickets as a preparation step? Had it not been for the exemplary batting prowess of Sarfaraz Ahmed, we would have almost lost the Test series against New Zealand. A critical aspect contributing to our subpar performance is the systematic dismantling of first-class cricket in Pakistan.

Once boasting 18 teams, this number was inexplicably reduced to 6 by Imran Khan. The abolition of departmental teams greatly undermined the cricketing structure.

The neglect of vital tournaments such as the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy and Patron's Trophy by our top-line players deprived them of the necessary stamina-building experience and to have a feel of cricket beyond 20 overs.

The players in our team play none of these trophies and instead go to different countries to play T-20 and T-10 leagues for the sake of earning. This is because they are pre-selected in this team, a ‘Friendship 11’. Talented players like Abrar Ahmed who is a skilled spinner, and Zaman Khan, a proficient fast bowler were kept in reserves and were consistently overlooked. Instead, non-specialist players like Iftikhar and Nawaz were given the opportunity to play, leaving the team without a specialist spinner.

Additionally, consistent performers in domestic cricket, such as Saim Ayub, Sarfaraz and Imad Wasim were neglected. The selection of the players was driven more by personal relationships than merit.

The inclusion of Haris, who only occasionally hits, raised many eyebrows. Speculations suggest his selection was a tactical move by Babar and Rizwan to block the inclusion of Sarfaraz, who recently won the Quaid-e-Azam cricket trophy proving his mettle as a consistent batsman and demonstrating his leadership qualities. Unfortunately, Sarfaraz appears to have fallen victim to internal group dynamics, leading to his exclusion.

The omission of Imad Wasim, a highly skilled left-arm spinner and a useful batsman adds another layer of perplexity. It appears that his and Abrar’s exclusion was orchestrated to favour Shadab and Nawaz. In this narrative, Inzamam-ul-Haq appears as a pawn executing the directives of Babar and Rizwan. This raises concerns about the transparency and fairness of the selection process, as it seems to be driven more by personal preferences and friendships than objective criteria, least expected from a person of Inzamam’s calibre.

In the middle of World Cup, a cloud of controversy enveloped the team with revelations of a scandal involving Rizwan and Inzamam establishing a company ‘Yazoo International’ in England in collaboration with one Talha Rehmani.

Although Inzamam resigned from the selection committee, the absence of Rizwan's resignation or removal raises questions about accountability and transparency. If Inzamam was held accountable, a similar standard should have applied to Rizwan.

The company not only managed international contracts and franchises but also dictated external endorsements, with Babar's involvement further intertwining the team with this questionable enterprise. This drew parallels to a notorious scandal in the early ‘90s when a captain established a bank favouring players who deposited money in that bank.

What next? What solutions can be implemented? A crucial step would be to mandate that players cannot participate in the Pakistan Super League (PSL) or represent Pakistan unless they have first proved their mettle in domestic first-class cricket such as the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, Patron’s Trophy, or regional tournaments.

The eligibility for the national team should be based on having played domestic or first-class cricket in Pakistan.

Hanif Muhammad, who scored 337 in the West Indies, had scored 499 in a trophy tournament, having developed his skills through the rigours of four-day cricket. This historical precedent highlights the importance of preparing players for the challenges of longer formats.

A critical analysis of Babar's captaincy reveals a consistent adherence to a predetermined script, with no adaptability whatsoever to the developments on the field. In critical moments, Babar appears reluctant to deviate from pre-planned strategies, while Rizwan keeps making field changes in the presence of Babar who just stares as a silent spectator. The team's approach appears to be a leisurely and fun outing among friends rather than a serious international cricket endeavour. This sentiment is reinforced by their limited bowling capacity where they are unable to sustain beyond four overs, succumbing to cramps, and frequently retreating off-field to rest during fielding.

In essence, to revive Pakistan cricket, a paradigm shift is imperative. First-class experience before representing Pakistan should be made mandatory, coupled with a reassessment of leadership roles, ensuring that team selection is based on pure merit rather than personal friendships and relationships. A strong administrator with cricket knowledge should head PCB with a fixed tenure. The selection committee should comprise persons with stellar records headed by a dominating chief.