Pakistan Cricket: “Internal Investigations” — What Is Really Going On?
There is something increasingly strange about the way Pakistan Cricket responds to failure.
A team loses. Questions are raised. Criticism explodes. Suddenly, there is an “internal investigation”, a reshuffle, a disciplinary issue, a press conference, a new explanation — and before long, the conversation has moved away from why Pakistan cricket is structurally failing and towards which individual should carry the blame.
That is not reform.
That is narrative management.
And what we are witnessing right now during Pakistan’s disastrous England tour deserves to be examined through precisely that lens.
Internal investigation — or another distraction?
After Pakistan went 2–0 down to England, the PCB made an extraordinary mid-series intervention. Seven players were sent home, head coach Sarfaraz Ahmed and bowling coach Umar Gul were removed, and the squad was substantially reshaped before the third Test. Former Pakistan coach Jason Gillespie subsequently criticised the instability and the way some players reportedly learned about decisions through the media or acquaintances.
Then came another development: an internal investigation into player discipline and conduct.
According to reports, two players had their mobile phones confiscated as part of the inquiry. The PCB has maintained that the investigation is being conducted according to standard procedures and that those involved will be given fair consideration.
Let me be clear:
If players have breached discipline, investigate them. If they are guilty, hold them accountable.
There should be no argument about that.
But there is a much bigger question that the PCB cannot hide behind an investigation to avoid:
Why does Pakistan Cricket repeatedly arrive at a point where the crisis is treated as an individual misconduct problem rather than a systemic problem?
That is where the real debate begins.
The easiest person to blame is rarely the real problem
Pakistan's cricket problem did not suddenly begin because somebody broke a team rule.
It did not begin because one player failed to score runs.
It did not begin because one coach made a tactical mistake.
And it certainly cannot be fixed by sending seven players home halfway through a Test series.
Pakistan has now entered yet another cycle where personnel changes are being used as a substitute for structural correction.
The third Test at Edgbaston only made the point more painfully obvious. Pakistan were bowled out for 133 on the opening day despite introducing several new players, while England quickly established control.
So what exactly was fixed?
The names changed.
The system did not.
And that is the distinction the PCB needs to understand.
This is where “fifth-dimensional warfare” comes in
When I use the phrase “fifth-dimensional warfare”, I am not talking about some literal military operation.
I am talking about warfare through perception.
The battle is no longer restricted to what happens on the cricket field.
There is another battlefield:
The narrative.
Who is blamed?
Who is defended?
Which story dominates the headlines?
Which failure becomes the central issue?
Which inconvenient question disappears from the discussion?
And, most importantly:
Who controls the explanation of what went wrong?
This is where modern sports administration can become dangerously obsessed with optics.
A poor performance produces criticism.
Then comes a major announcement.
Then a press conference explains the announcement.
Then public attention shifts towards personalities.
Then another defeat happens.
Then another change is announced.
Then another explanation follows.
And the cycle starts again.
Poor performance → public criticism → major change → explanation → personality debate → another defeat → another change → another explanation.
At some point, we have to stop calling this reform.
It becomes a mechanism for continuously managing failure.
The problem is not accountability. The problem is selective accountability.
I have no problem with accountability.
In fact, I strongly believe in it.
But accountability means everyone answers for the responsibilities they actually control.
Players should answer for their professionalism.
Coaches should answer for coaching.
Selectors should answer for selection.
Management should answer for management.
And the board itself should answer for the environment it creates.
You cannot demand professionalism from players while continuously changing structures around them.
You cannot demand consistency from a team while repeatedly changing leadership.
You cannot demand long-term development while judging everything through the result of the next match.
And you certainly cannot blame individual players for every structural failure while the institution itself escapes scrutiny.
That isn't accountability.
That is accountability moving downward while authority moves upward.
Look at the bigger picture
Former captain Azhar Ali has already pointed towards deeper problems, arguing that Pakistan cricket cannot be transformed in a year and highlighting inconsistent management, revolving leadership and the absence of a coherent long-term vision. He has advocated investment in domestic cricket, coaching pathways and longer-term reform.
That is the conversation Pakistan Cricket actually needs.
Not:
Who should we drop?
But:
Why are we repeatedly producing the same problems?
Not:
Which coach should replace the current coach?
But:
Why does our system repeatedly fail to provide stability to coaches in the first place?
Not:
Which player violated discipline?
But:
Why does our professional culture repeatedly require disciplinary intervention instead of preventing these problems through a properly functioning system?
And not:
How do we defend Pakistan Cricket today?
But:
What are we building for Pakistan Cricket five years from now?
That is what a cricket board is supposed to answer.
Character development versus public relations
This is something I have learned from my own experiences as well.
When someone tells me that I have a weakness, my first reaction should not be to manufacture an excuse.
If my communication needs improvement, improve it.
If my knowledge is incomplete, learn.
If my performance is inadequate, work on it.
There is nothing humiliating about acknowledging a weakness.
The humiliation comes when a person knows the weakness exists and chooses to defend his image instead of correcting it.
Character development is uncomfortable because it requires admitting that you are not perfect.
Public relations is much easier.
You simply construct a better explanation.
Pakistan Cricket appears to have become increasingly comfortable with the second approach.
The PCB needs to look in the mirror
A serious cricket board should work through a completely different sequence:
Identify the structural problem.
↓
Diagnose it using evidence.
↓
Create a multi-year intervention.
↓
Implement it consistently.
↓
Measure the results.
↓
Hold the responsible people accountable.
↓
Adjust the strategy if necessary.
That is administration.
That is governance.
That is institutional development.
An internal investigation can be part of that process — but it cannot become the process itself.
If misconduct occurred, investigate it.
If misconduct is proven, punish it.
But after that, return to the fundamental question:
Why is Pakistan Cricket repeatedly finding itself in the same position?
Because if every crisis produces another investigation but no institutional learning, then the investigation is merely another event.
And if every failure produces another press conference but no measurable structural improvement, then the press conference is merely another performance.
Pakistan Cricket does not need another narrative. It needs a system.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with the culture of Pakistani cricket discourse.
We are too obsessed with individuals.
One day it is the captain.
Then the coach.
Then the selectors.
Then the senior players.
Then the youngsters.
Then the chairman.
Then the previous chairman.
Then somebody's attitude.
Then somebody's fitness.
Then somebody's discipline.
Meanwhile, the system quietly escapes the courtroom.
That cannot continue.
Pakistan Cricket has enough talent.
What it lacks is the institutional consistency to convert talent into sustained performance.
And that is precisely why the PCB needs to stop behaving like a crisis-management and public-relations machine and start behaving like what it is supposed to be:
a cricket board.
The job is not to win every match.
The job is to build an environment in which winning becomes a sustainable consequence of good cricket administration.
Because if the only time the institution becomes energetic is after another disaster, then we are not witnessing reform.
We are witnessing reaction.
And reaction without structural correction is simply the same failure wearing a different shirt.
That is the real fifth-dimensional battle in Pakistan Cricket:
not merely what happens on the field — but who controls the narrative about why it happened.