Pakistan's World Cup Exit Blamed on Mike Hesson's Grip: Was It Too Much Control or Just the Right Amount?
The Men in Green's early exit from the T20 World Cup has sparked intense debate, with many pointing fingers at head coach Mike Hesson's leadership style. While the team's performance was below par, the controversial decisions made by Hesson have been the main focus of criticism. Was it a case of too much control, or was Hesson simply trying to lead the team to success?
During Pakistan's practice sessions, Hesson reportedly took on the roles of selector and captain, leaving Salman Ali Agha as a mere figurehead. This led to a situation where the real decisions were made by Hesson himself, and the players were left to adapt to his ever-changing strategies. The selection committee's initial decision to exclude Babar Azam from the squad was overruled by Hesson, who insisted on his inclusion. This set the tone for a series of decisions that would later be questioned.
Messages were sent to the captain during matches, creating unnecessary pressure. The decision to drop Fakhar Zaman for the opening matches and delay Usman Tariq's bowling in different games were also attributed to Hesson and bowling coach Ashley Noffke. When Mohammad Rizwan made on-field decisions independently during the West Indies tour, Hesson was said to have been displeased. This suggests a pattern of micromanagement and a lack of trust in the players' abilities.
The PCB has received a report regarding the coach, but has not made an immediate decision. Instead, Hesson will accompany the team on the Bangladesh tour. His position beyond that, however, appears uncertain. The team's failure to progress beyond the Super Eight stage of the T20 World Cup has led to widespread criticism, with players facing fines of Rs 5 million each. But the responsibility does not lie solely with the players; Hesson's role in the team's decisions has also been called into question.
Highly reliable sources claim that Hesson not only assumed the role of selector but also effectively that of captain. PCB Chairman Mohsin Naqvi had granted him authority, but he allegedly overstepped his limits, and the team paid the price in the form of defeats. Before the World Cup, the selectors' chosen squad did not include Babar Azam, but Hesson pushed strongly for his inclusion, arguing that the middle order looked weak during the Asia Cup and required an experienced batter. This decision backfired, as Babar endured a disappointing tournament.
Despite consistent failures, Saim Ayub continued to be played, which resulted in Fakhar Zaman being sidelined. Similarly, the decision to promote Salman Ali Agha to number three also proved counterproductive. The coach was reportedly heavily involved in decisions regarding the playing XI and even what to do after winning the toss. Salman Agha was described as a weak captain who failed to assert his own views. Hesson's control extended to deciding which bowler would bowl when and which batter would be sent in at what stage.
In the match against India, the decision to delay Usman Tariq's bowling was taken by Hesson and bowling coach Ashley Noffke. They also dropped Abrar Ahmed to allegedly avoid threatening Shadab Khan’s place in the team. In the match against England, when Usman Tariq took a wicket with his very first ball, it was surprising that instead of giving him another over, the ball was handed to Saim Ayub — a move reportedly directed by the coach. Salman Agha's mistake was complying with all of Hesson's instructions. Previously, during the West Indies tour, when then-ODI captain Mohammad Rizwan received similar on-field instructions from the coach, he refused to follow them, which reportedly angered Hesson.
Some senior players were also unhappy that the coach never explained the reasons behind their omission from the team. The PCB has received a report regarding the coach, but while no immediate decision will be made and he will accompany the team to Bangladesh, his position after that tour appears far from secure. Will Hesson's leadership style be re-evaluated, or will he be given another chance to prove himself? The debate continues, and the comments section is open for discussion. What do you think? Agree or disagree?
