The Ashes: it's the big one © Getty Images

When England's cricketers arrive back in London this week at the end of a dismal Champions Trophy campaign, it is likely that they will be greeted by a chorus of indifference. As we have suspected all year, there's only one contest in the pipeline that matters to English fans, and it has nothing to do with one-day cricket.

A survey conducted by Cricinfo has revealed that a massive 91.3% of English respondents would prefer their country to retain the Ashes than win the World Cup. Only 8.4% believed that the World Cup, which takes place in the Caribbean in March and April next year, was the more significant tournament.

For all their excitement about the Ashes, however, the respondents to the survey were a pretty pessimistic bunch. Only 28.6% believed that England would win the series outright, compared to 47.3% backing Australia to reclaim their crown. But, and it's a big but, 24.1% favour the draw (something that hasn't happened in an Ashes series since 1972) and that would be enough for England.

Nobody's expecting a bore-draw though. Of the predicted scorelines, the most favoured by England fans is 3-1 to Australia (21.1%), while 19.4% back a repeat of last summer's 2-1 triumph. The smart money might well be on the 2-2 draw, however, which has been predicted by 17.4% of the English respondents.

As for the top-scorers and wicket-takers, English uncertainty is reflected in the scattergun nature of their predictions. The favourite in the batting stakes is Andrew Strauss, on 36.6%, but Ian Bell, Alastair Cook and Kevin Pietersen all picked up between 17.4% and 18.4% of the votes, while Andrew Flintoff, curiously, was nominated by less than 1% of the respondents.

Flintoff is, however, backed by 30.4% to be England's leading wicket-taker, with Monty Panesar (22.8%), Steve Harmison (22.4%) and Matthew Hoggard (14.5%) also rated highly.

The dangermen in the Australian team are rather more clear-cut. Ricky Ponting is backed by 55.8% of Englishmen to lead the run-scoring, with Mike Hussey bubbling under on 22.6%, while the bowling is a total no-brainer. A whopping 82.4% back Shane Warne to repeat his heroics of 2005.

by Dileep Premachandran

'The short-pitch virus afflicted S Sreesanth as well, and his second spell was emblematic of an infuriatingly inconsistent display' © AFP

This rout summed up India's season so far. For most of it, the bowlers have acquitted themselves with credit while the batsmen have been clueless. Today, when the batsmen played smart cricket, the pace bowlers had a collective brain failure. Having strained every sinew to post 249 against the most formidable attack in the world, India gave it away within the space of 14 appalling overs that cost a whopping 101.

There have been many voices in the recent past calling for India to appoint a bowling coach. But there's not much that a Troy Cooley or a Dennis Lillee clone can do if the bowlers refuse to engage their brain cells. Shane Watson plays his domestic cricket at the Gabba and Adam Gilchrist at the WACA, both surfaces renowned for their bounce, and India's new-ball bowlers decided to test them with the short ball. The results were predictably disastrous.

There's nothing wrong with the odd bouncer if you bowl at Brett Lee or Makhaya Ntini's pace. But when you're kissing the deck at just over 80mph, you may as well run in with a placard that says: Hit me. On the very few occasions that Munaf Patel and Irfan Pathan actually pitched it up, the batsmen were in trouble. It made you wonder what they had been watching from the dressing-room in the afternoon, when the incomparable Glenn McGrath bowled six overs with the new ball for 12 runs and the wicket of Sachin Tendulkar.

The short-pitch virus afflicted S Sreesanth as well, and his second spell was emblematic of an infuriatingly inconsistent display. First he got hammered for four after dropping short to Ricky Ponting, merely the best player of the pull shot on the planet. Then he adjusted his length and beat him with a beauty that left the bat. The next one was even better, taking the outside edge on its way to slip. Sadly for India, the entire sequence could have been written around the words 'bolted', 'horse' and 'stable'.

Shane Watson plays his domestic cricket at the Gabba and bowling short to him is a no-brainer © AFP

It was all the more disappointing to watch because the batsmen had done a sterling job on a pitch where strokeplay was never easy. Virender Sehwag set the tone with an innings that owed as much to luck - a dropped catch, and an inside edge that flew past the stumps, not to mention numerous statuesque swishes - as it did to swashbuckling drives through the off side.

It didn't help that he had to do it all on his own early on, with Tendulkar appearing incredibly out of sorts. Once a pillager of Australian attacks, his recent woes against them are perhaps indicative of slowing reflexes. He was never comfortable, wearing one on the helmet from Nathan Bracken's medium pace, and his exit for 10 took his aggregate from the last six outings against Australia to 66 runs. When you consider that he had a century, four 50s and a 45 in the six innings prior to that, it's easy to see why some critics speak of a decline against quality pace bowling.

It was left to Rahul Dravid to show the way instead, and he took a ball less than Sehwag for his half-century, despite never once chancing his arm. Mohammad Kaif played his part in a valuable 60-run partnership, and there were vital late interventions from Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Irfan Pathan. Those who considered it 30 runs short could probably argue that sending Pathan ahead of Raina could have made the difference, but there is no discounting the quality of the bowling. Brett Lee was carted around in his first two spells, but his third was fast bowling at its finest - fast, accurate and with more than a hint of movement.

In the final analysis, the rawness of India's pace resources was their undoing. Between them, Pathan, Munaf and Sreesanth can point to 99 ODI caps, while Lee alone has 140 stashed away. In this kind of match, with everything at stake, that chasm was far too wide to bridge.

Andrew Miller

Kevin Pietersen upstaged Chris Gayle with 10 boundaries in his 90 © Getty Images

When taken in isolation, and given the rash of low scores that this tournament has thrown up, it seemed a pretty impressive performance from England's cricketers and Kevin Pietersen in particular - doubtless he'll be first off the plane, strutting his stuff as if the World Cup is already in his hands, when the team skulks back into London later this week.

But, as we have been repeating ad nauseam in this tournament, there is no isolation available to England at the moment. Far from being the dawn of a brave new world, this was a hollow victory in a dead rubber against opponents already guaranteed a semi-final berth, and no amount of positive spin can disguise that fact. Pietersen was as magnificently belligerent as only he can be, the flaws in the rest of England's performance were manifest, but hey, sod it. The Ashes are around the corner and our boys are back in the groove. Got any more of that bunting?

If you do, why not drape it over Andrew Flintoff's shoulders? His cheery performance may not have reaped many runs or any wickets, but for the first time since his ankle operation in June, he looked like a leader with a full armory at his disposal. He shook off several layers of rust with the ball while cranking his pace up towards 90mph, and until the moment he drilled Chris Gayle to cow corner, he was a batsman in control of the situation and, more pertinently, in control of himself.

Talking of Gayle, he was desperately unlucky to end up on the losing side. To judge by the solemn musings in his recent tour diary, he's not a man who's much enamoured with Ahmedabad - his idea of a good evening's entertainment is "chilling out in the hallways with Marlon [Samuels], Wavell [Hinds] and Sars [Sarwan]," and playing love songs down the phone to his "queen" back in Jamaica.

But he certainly found his release on the cricket field, turning in a coolly brilliant allround performance. His high-profile spat with Michael Clarke last week was a rare glimpse of his fierier side, but today he needed no histrionics to laud it over his opposition. Nothing epitomised his play better than Andrew Strauss's dismissal. For the second week running, Strauss descended into a blind panic as soon as the pace was taken off the ball. He should have been plumb lbw two balls before he was bowled, and when he did depart the crease it was with the same heavenward glance he had given in the last match against Australia. He knew, and England knew, that a collapse was just a faint nudge away. They are that sort of paranoid shambles at present.

And they are not being aided by the lumpen presence of Michael Yardy in the middle order.
Despite the facial wound that leant an air of menace, Yardy has to be the least notorious and dangerous Yardy that Gayle and his team-mates can ever have encountered. His performance was meek from start to feeble finish, from the steepler he dropped off Ramnaresh Sarwan to his decision to walk off the pitch despite Dwayne Bravo looking every inch like a bloke who'd just claimed a bump-ball catch.

And then there's Chris Read. He has been on a one-man mission to oust himself from the team and today's pitiful innings should ensure just that. Back in the Sky Sports studio in Isleworth, Geraint Jones was being smugly diplomatic about his rival's travails, but given that he was just beginning to escape the stigma of that slower ball in 1999, Read's hopeless performance against Bravo can only have battered his confidence back out of shape. After popping countless such deliveries into no-man's land, the inevitability of his demise was tragic to behold.

And so, England end a dismal campaign on a pyrrhic high. Pietersen pulled this match off with a performance that, ironically, will have reinforced the sniffiness with which the one-day game is viewed in England. All it takes is one inspired player and a decent support cast and you can achieve the impossible. It is a blessed mercy that we are able at last to shelve the debate, at least until January and the start of the VB Series.

by Ravi Shastri

Is it time to end the experiment of Irfan Pathan batting at No.3? © AFP

India's decision to go in with four medium pacers in the match against West Indies was a strange one. Playing four medium pacers in Indian conditions is a luxury even a Maharaja in his pomp would turn a blind eye to. Excessive use of medium-pacers on Indian turfs, an obese, overflowing middle order and the serial quarrel over Irfan Pathan at No.3 which the team picks up with the nation every time it takes the field - the Indians are only refining their finesse to shoot themselves in the foot.

We all know the soil in western India has a reddish tinge. In cricketing parlance it means a ticket to party for the spinners at the start and end of a cricket season. Yet India dispensed with Ramesh Powar and picked up four medium pacers. I can understand if you have pacers who can bowl at 140kmph but that isn't the case. Just picking up right and left-arm bowlers doesn't mean variety. There was too much sameness. All you end up doing is under-bowl a few of them and turn to the Sehwags and Yuvrajs. Fifteen overs between them is an admission that the team woke up to the reality late in the game. Sometimes wisdom comes to us when it can no longer do any good.

Now take the case of India's packed middle order. Besides the ones who played, Dinesh Mongia and Mohammad Kaif were resting on the bench. Compare this with the options they have at the top of the order. If some unfortunate injury was to happen to Virender Sehwag or Sachin Tendulkar, India don't have an option to give the team a thrust in the Power Plays. Who are the alternatives they have thought of for such an eventuality?

Clearly, the Indians must, without any further delay, get an absolutely clear idea of the 15 they are going to pick for the World Cup. In my squad, Gautam Gambhir will be a must. You can't sideline players who can take a good helping for themselves in the Power Plays. It is an area where India don't seem to take a heavy toll of bowlers. Even in Ahmedabad on Thursday, they should have promoted Yuvraj Singh to make the most of the field restrictions, or even Suresh Raina, who needs to be given a stage to establish himself as a top-order left-hand batsman rather than allow him to languish at No.7.

Gautam Gambhir must find a place in the squad for the World Cup, argues Shastri © AFP

Despite all the problems at the top, India keep thrusting Pathan at No.3. Bull-headedness is one thing but carrying on in the same vein is foolhardiness. I believe the time has come for Dilip Vengsarkar, the chairman of selectors, to impose his will early in his stint and be hands-on when the playing XI is being selected or the batting order is being pencilled down. Otherwise, the ship, already in stormy waters, is bound to run into rocks.

I can't believe this is the same side which stirred my heart six months ago. The quality of players hasn't worsened drastically, but poor selection and mismanagement of batting positions has seriously hampered the side. More of it and the bottom will come apart.

The pitch for their match against West Indies wasn't a 220-run kind of surface. Even this total was possible due to Mahendra Singh Dhoni's sensible batting. As I said, there are too many men queuing up for a place in the middle order while at the top there aren't enough hands to pick up the riches of the Power Plays.

India are now left to pick up the pieces. Around the same time last year, they staged a revival. Sometimes acknowledging your erroneous ways is the first step to redemption. Hopefully common sense will prevail and Dinesh Mongia will be thought of as an option in the do-or-die game against Australia.

Dileep Premachandran

'What does it say of a man that he keeps getting out the same way time after time?' © AFP

On the eve of this game, one of India's many TV channels broke a story about Greg Chappell having harsh words for his wards before a practice session. In a country where analysis of sport on TV remains laughably slapstick, such things make news - a coach actually having a go at his players? Perish the thought! But after this shambles of a performance, some of those players should be profoundly grateful that they don't play for an Alex Ferguson or a Vince Lombardi. If that had been the case, cups and saucers or boots would surely have been thrown around the dressing room, with one or two repeat offenders banished into the frozen
tundra forever.

The litany of woe started right at the top with Virender Sehwag. What does it say of a man when he plays in the same team as two of the greatest batsmen of all time - and coached by another - that he keeps getting out the same way time after time? Does it show an unwillingness to learn, a man so deeply entrenched in a comfort zone that he can't even make the effort? Or is he another Jerry Lee Lewis, who once proclaimed: "If I'm going to hell, I'm going there playing the piano", the difference being that Sehwag doesn't seem to be able to manage more than a few notes before the curtain rushes down.

The cameo is something that comes naturally to Suresh Raina as well these
days. If he wasn't making a run, you could just write it off as bad form,
or bad luck. But when a batsman manages to get a start, and then throws it
away in a variety of ways, it reveals a deeper malaise. The way
he's being utilised also needs to be looked at carefully. If the
contention is that Raina offers a greater matchwinning option than
Mohammad Kaif, who had three 50s in his last 10 outings, then he should be
batting at No.3 where he has the time to construct an innings.

With teams having exercised caution during the Power Plays thanks to the
prevalent conditions in this tournament, Irfan Pathan's big-hitting
capabilities would surely have been more useful lower down the order. In
conditions that cried out for attritional disciplined cricket, batsman
after batsman chose the Bollywood option. But for Rahul Dravid's splendid
49, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni's wonderfully restrained 51, it was an
abysmal showing, one that would have had Brett Lee and friends licking
their lips up country. Later in the day, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Ramnaresh
Sarwan and Runako Morton showed how it should be done, with
beautifully paced innings that made easy work of a challenging target
before the inexplicable wobble at the finish.

With the exception of the dogged Munaf Patel, India's bowling with the new
ball was just as woeful. Pathan got some swing, but offered up a four-ball
every so often, while Rudra Pratap Singh's shoddy display merely made the
selectors look foolish for having left out S Sreesanth. An
atrocious bit of fielding on the rope, and two tennis-ball bouncers that
Chanderpaul pulled contemptuously for four summed up his evening.

Both Pathan and RP Singh could have learnt so much from Ian Bradshaw and
Dwayne Smith, who recognise their own limitations and the state of the
pitch far better than most. Bradshaw is one of one-day cricket's invisible
stars, a man who almost guarantees you two or three wickets in the course
of a miserly spell. As for Smith, he slips easily into the sort of role
that Gavin Larsen once performed with such distinction for New Zealand.

And then there was Jerome Taylor, long-limbed and languid in the best
tradition of West Indian quicks. His sterling display, both with the new
ball and later in the innings, was proof if any was needed that there's
always a place for genuine pace. On paper, it may not be the most lethal
attack in the world, but the way Brian Lara, and Sarwan against Australia,
shuffle the pack around has been an object lesson for many.

India's foibles extended to the field as well, with Raina's drop of Chris
Gayle proving extremely costly at the start. A batsman of the calibre of
VVS Laxman has been excluded on the grounds that his fielding isn't up to
scratch, but when those that replace him aren't worth more than 15 or 20
runs with the bat, it makes you wonder about the wisdom of sidelining a
man who has one-day hundreds against Australia and Pakistan.

Harbhajan Singh's continued excellence with the ball made defeat appear
respectable, but in reality it was anything but. Having got their bad game
out of the way in an inconsequential tie against Sri Lanka, West Indies
are looking ominously good in defence of their title, while India look
every inch a side that misplaced their self-belief sometime during the off
season. The chances of rediscovering it on a bouncy Mohali pitch against
Australia must be rated very slim indeed.

John Stern

Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan: consultant and managing director of England © Getty Images

Peter Moores, England's academy director and one of the favourites to succeed Duncan Fletcher, believes a coach has two choices: change the team or change himself.

Football managers like Sir Alex Ferguson, who has been running Manchester United for 20 years, can and do change the team on a regular basis with transfers. Cricket coaches, at club or international level, do not have that luxury. It is a more organic process. Cricketers' careers last longer than footballers' and winning teams tend not to change much.

Everyone knows what a football manager does. They pick the team, decide the tactics and live or die by the results. The nature of cricket is different. It is impossible and undesirable for the coach to have complete control. The captain is the man who calls the shots on the field and in most cases is the primary interface between management and players.

Fletcher, who has been a successful businessman in a previous life, likened Michael Vaughan's role to that of the company managing director while the coach is a consultant. For the traditionalists and the sceptics (eg: Geoff Boycott), this analogy is a screen behind which an unsuccessful coach can hide. In reality, it is a legitimate articulation of a complex and unique
sporting relationship.

Unless the coach has total control over every aspect of team affairs (as a Ferguson-type manage would) then it seems logical to think that they have a shelf-life, that players switch off because they've heard it all before. But most cricket teams do not work this way. Cricket does not work this way. A rousing, tub-thumping speech might get everyone going for a 90-minute
football or rugby match but it's a pretty pointless exercise if the captain has just won the toss, decided to bat and nine of the players are about to put their feet up.

Fletcher's England makes the captain centre stage. Fletcher is the
strategist, the back-seat driver. He heads up a coaching team; it is not
just about one man.

Fletcher has been England coach for seven years so he may well be coming to
the end of his natural span. It was generally assumed that he would go after
the World Cup but the timing of Boycott's comments this week is bizarre, not
to say destabilising just as the Ashes hovers into view.

Although the target of Boycott's criticism is the appalling run of one-day
form, the underlying tone of his newspaper column was that Fletcher was
presiding over a group of players who had become cosy and complacent, also
that Fletcher himself is now beyond reproach.

Unusually for a man in his position, Fletcher is not on a fixed-term
contract. He is a permanent member of staff at the ECB. When he ceases to be
England coach, it seems likely a position would be found for him should he
wish it.

I don't believe Fletcher has exhibited complacency. He has though shown
exceptional loyalty to the players who won the Ashes, even the ones who have
barely played since. He has appeared reluctant to embrace the inevitable
changes. He clung to Geraint Jones until his position became untenable and
he was initially suspicious of Monty Panesar. It is believed that Andrew
Flintoff was not his preferred choice as captain.

Football managers always get the team they want. Maybe Fletcher needs more
power not less.

Dileep Premachandran

It was only a few years ago that cricket fans were holding demonstrations against Mohammad Azharuddin © Getty Images

It ended with a flick off the pads, the stroke that had captivated millions of fans for close to two decades. This time, under the floodlights at the Bangabandhu Stadium, instead of racing away to the square-leg fence, it looped to the fielder positioned for the shot. We weren't to know it then but that would be the last stroke Mohammad Azharuddin would play in a 16-year-career that spanned 99 Tests and 334 one-day internationals.

His Test swansong had been a cavalier century in a hopelessly lost cause and, by the time he arrived in Dhaka for his one-day farewell, the air was thick with stories of his involvement in the match-fixing scandal that had seen Hansie Cronje's fall from grace. When the contents of the CBI report and the BCCI-instituted Madhavan inquiry were made public, Azharuddin's transformation from authentic hero to arch villain was complete.

Over the following months, he did himself few favours. The first significant interview after the life ban handed down by the BCCI included cheap shots at the likes of Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri and even Sachin Tendulkar, and his insinuation elsewhere that he was being persecuted for being a Muslim met with the derision it deserved in a country that he had captained for 47 Test matches.

The latest episode, in which the BCCI's new dispensation seeks to rehabilitate Azhar, has a lot to do with the ICC and little to do with the man himself. The squabble between the ICC and the BCCI, over matters ranging from the Members Participation Agreement to the function on November 4, is characterised by as much one-upmanship as that between two kids arguing over whose mother is prettiest.

More than a year later, he was the only one of 16 nominees not to be
present at Wisden's Indian Cricketer of the Century awards. That slight is
said to have hurt him deeply, as did the angry reaction from Ehsan Mani,
then ICC president, when Azhar was invited to the 2004 Asia Cup by a TV
channel.

Those justifying his rehabilitation point to Shane Warne and Mark Waugh,
and the light rap on the knuckles that Cricket Australia gave them for
their involvement with a bookmaker. But one wrong shouldn't beget another,
and it's regrettable that the BCCI, which was in a minority when it came
to investigating such misdemeanours, should try to undo its own good work.

The decision to honour Azhar casts it in poor light. The ban had been its
idea, based on plentiful circumstantial evidence unearthed by the CBI,
Madhavan's interviews and even the King Commission. Paul Condon's report
on corruption within the game praised the CBI inquiry, and the idea of
felicitating a man whose name crops up each time anyone investigates
match-fixing will be deeply discomfiting to many in the cricket community.

No one denies his contributions to the game as a batting
artist, or his role as captain in India's many successes on home soil in
the 1990s, but all of that is obscured by what followed. Cricketers have
slipped up before, but those like Herschelle Gibbs, and even Cronje
himself, admitted to their mistakes -- at least in part -- and sought
forgiveness. In Azhar's case, there has not been a single admission of
wrongdoing. If he's as innocent as he claims, and it is germane to point out
that he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law, it begs the
question why so many of his former team-mates, including some of the game's greatest
names, haven't bothered to stay in touch with him.

While he still protests his innocence, in most people's eyes he committed
the gravest crime of all, far worse than popping a diuretic or injecting a
steroid. He was seen to have betrayed the fans, whose faith sustains the
game as much as any heroics on the field. He should be allowed to get on
with his life, and live with his mistakes, but any attempt to gloss over
them will only set an appalling precedent for the future of a game whose
beauty has been marred by one scandal too many in recent times.

IS Bindra: a scathing response to newspaper article © Getty Images

The tensions that currently exist between the Indian board and other members of the cricket-playing world have been laid bare by IS Bindra, the former President of the BCCI, who has issued a scathing response to an article by the veteran Australian journalist and Indophile, Mike Coward.

Writing in The Australian on Saturday, Coward accused the Indian administrators of "brash and bolshy [behaviour that] beggars belief", and suggested that the BCCI was aiming to use its "obscene" wealth to usurp the ICC as the game's ruling body. "India must decide whether it wishes to remain a part of the international cricket family," he intoned. "It is as fundamental as that."

The BCCI might have been tempted to let such trenchant opinions pass by unnoticed, but coming from Coward - a man whom Bindra has "known for over two decades ... and respect[ed] for his invariably temperate views" - they instead felt compelled to respond in kind. In doing so, they have given a fascinating insight into the sort of conflicts that hitherto have been taking place only at boardroom level.

"He has just poured his venom and vitriol," wrote Bindra, after Coward accused his organisation of caring only for "naked ambition and the power of the purse". "I really wonder what is it that we have done to invite his unbridled ire," he continued. "I am both amused and aghast at some of his objectionable observations."

In particular, Bindra bridled at Coward's use of the word "bolshy" - a word that once had left-wing connotations, but now is more commonly used as a synomym for "obstreperous" or "stroppy". Ironically, it soon becomes clear that both alternatives would aptly describe his response.

"As students of history both Mike and I have read and understood Marx, Lenin and the Bolsheviks well, I think," continued Bindra. "How can the Indian Board be Bolshy when he is accusing us of using our money power to control the game! Is it his argument that we have unleashed a terror against upper classes or what he says countries like England and Australia? We Indians are passionate about cricket, but that doesn't mean we wish or talk ill of others."

Bindra insisted he didn't want to extend the Marxist dogma further "lest it is interpreted using dangerous analogies", but then ploughed on regardless. "How can cricket or even India survive without the countries which he insinuates we are out to subjugate? Yes, in a way he is right, like Bolsheviks our Board is full of revolutionary ideas as we believe in equality and we want every cricket-playing nation to prosper by replicating the Indian system so that cricket becomes a truly global sport. To call us imperialists sounds funny as we have never showed the imperiousness of absolute monarchs!"

The next meeting of the ICC executive board takes place in Mumbai on November 3 and 4. "It is bound to be one of the most rancorous meetings in the ICC's 97-year history," wrote Coward, who even questioned whether the organisation would still be standing by the end of it all. Bindra, however, insisted the game would survive what he termed these "aberrations and hiccups", although his wider response did little to allay any pre-meeting concerns.

"[The] ICC is not grinning and bearing it, it is the other way round," wrote Bindra. "It wants us to accept all its unreasonable diktats. The ICC may have made itself impotent and irrelevant, but the day it addresses all the issues raised not only by us but a host of others, it will be a vibrant apex body for international cricket. We are looking at a buoyant cricket world, not indulging in what he calls in any brinkmanship."

Coward pulls no punches in his forthright article, suggesting that the Indian board is reaping what was sown several decades ago by an Anglo-centric ICC whose "imperialist, paternalistic prattle [was] at best, dismissive and culturally elitist and, at worst, racist". But Bindra dismissed this notion. "We have long forgotten that as a bad dream," he wrote. "I don't know how many minds he has studied in the subcontinent to come up with such a profound psycho-analysis."

On his colleague, Lalit Modi, whom many critics of the BCCI single out as the most abrasive influence in the current dispute, Bindra was disarmingly honest. "[Coward] is obviously referring to [Modi's] excessive zeal and volatility he occasionally exhibits when the other side is refusing to see reason." For the sake of the game, here's hoping some reason can be reached at Mumbai next week.

by Bob Woolmer

Herschelle Gibbs meets Delhi police again © Getty Images

There are not many days that go by in the subcontinent where innuendo and speculation end up making a newspaper piece or invite TV comment. For Pakistan there is a sign hanging over us: "Normal service will be resumed soon".

However, what normal service is has yet to be defined, although the cricketers have made it clear that focusing on the game is the most important issue and they want to leave all the baggage behind. Yet controversy, as I said, is the food of the Indian media and without a word of warning it all started again with an article suggesting that Scotland Yard will now be called on to look back at the 1999 World Cup.

This comes after the recent Herschelle Gibbs interview/interrogation with the Delhi police in Mumbai. KK Paul, the Delhi police commissioner who raised the alarm in 2000 with the Cronjegate tapes, chatted to Gibbs, and suddenly poor old Derek Crookes, the South African spinner, was implicated. Now you have to know Crookes - and I do as we have been on at least two tours together - and I remember him being adamant against any dealings with bookies while playing on the 1996 tour.

It was in Kanpur that Hansie Cronje was invited by Mohammad Azharuddin to meet a keen cricket fan; I was present when they were introduced in the lobby and then they went off to a room. What happened then has been recorded at the King Commission held in 2000 in Cape Town.

During the early years of speculation, people looked for any signs that money might have exchanged hands. The Pakistan against Bangladesh game [during the 1999 World Cup] at Northampton was a case in point.

The first games looked at were those slating minnows against the big boys, and now recent newspaper reports suggest that South Africa's game against Zimbabwe at Chelmsford is suspect because Zimbabwe beat us. On the day Zimbabwe played better cricket and we were extremely disappointed - in fact Cronje and I had an argument over the way we had prepared for the game, having gone to Holland for the match before, which he felt was disruptive.

Our travel plans were poor and we stayed in a hotel miles out of town. The dressing-rooms at Chelmsford are too small for touring teams and the net bowlers were poor at practice. A lot of small things started to conspire against our preparation.

By the time the Zimbabwe game arrived we were all pretty ratty. That, more than any other reason, was why we did not perform to our best. Also, in those days Zimbabwe were a good team and not the complete underdogs they are now. They were quite capable of beating anyone in the tournament. There was no question of any betting or bookie involvement that I knew about.

Even more bizarre is that the detectives have been asked to take a look at the earpieces (and microphones) that were used at Hove during the game against India. I say bizarre because, quite frankly, the earpieces were used for one hour and ten minutes before we were instructed to stop by the match referee.

The players then did not have any microphones or transmitters with them - it was only one-way communication, from the coach to the player. The practice has since been banned by the ICC. Allan Donald and Cronje were wearing the two earpieces but any suggestion that we were using them for betting purposes is mere speculation and far removed from the truth.

I guess that my career as a coach will go down as one with its fair share of controversy and trying to explain exactly what really happened. At the same time, it is very disappointing that Cronjegate has resurfaced after six years.

More importantly I need to concentrate on the cricket that we [Pakistan] are playing. Normal service has to be resumed.

Duncan Fletcher: 'the job comes with a shelf-life ... and Fletcher has just reached the end of his' © Getty Images

Boycott's comments came in the aftermath of England's defeat by Australia in the Champions Trophy. He said that Fletcher, who has been in the job for seven years, had reached the end of his shelf-life.

"If you talk to people like John Wright and Bob Woolmer, successful coaches with a lot of international experience, they will tell you the job comes with a shelf-life," Boycott wrote in his column for The Daily Telegraph. "And Fletcher has just reached the end of his.

"I'm not saying he is a terrible coach. In fact, I think he has done a good job. But, after a while, I believe a coach runs out of new ideas and the players get comfortable and complacent with him. He almost becomes too familiar and the players stop listening."

Boycott argued that Fletcher's weakness had always been in the one-day game, where in more than 150 matches since he took charge, England have won under half. In the last 12 months the results have been dismal, with only six wins in 26 ODIs.

He pointed out that Fletcher's constant tinkering with the batting order has not helped. "What is he doing with Michael Yardy? This is a left-arm spinner with just a handful of internationals to his name. And he went in at No 3 against India and No 5 against Australia. It's crazy.

"If I were playing for England and the team sheet went up and Yardy was batting in front of me, there would be hell to pay. I wouldn't let it happen. How do you think it makes other batsmen in the team feel? What sort of message does that send out if a left-arm spinner who bats a bit goes in ahead of you?"

And Boycott was equally scathing about the bowling, singling out the handling of the out-of-sorts Steve Harmison whose action, he claimed, needed remedial work. "But if it is so obvious to all of us ex-players," he added, "what are our coaching staff doing?

"Somebody needs to shake Harmison out of his malaise, but this set-up just seems to be too cosy for anyone to make that happen."

And he aimed a couple of shots at the senior management in the ECB as well, who he described as being "too comfy". He concluded: [David] Morgan (the ECB's chairman) may think Fletcher has a job for life, but that is just a recipe for stagnation. The time to move on is now. The dressing room needs some new personnel with fresh ideas and the ability to stimulate the players."

Fazeer Mohammed

	Chris Gayle ain't happy with Michael Clarke © Getty Images

The table tennis ball bounced past, blissfully uncontested, as I was still rejoicing in the magnificence of following through on a fearsome smash, utterly convinced that the point was already mine.

"Don't try that again if you not prepared for it to come back," said one of my uncles, a better-than-average table tennis player and cricketer who was using my grandmother's dining table to teach me an important lesson that remains as fresh as the day it occurred more than 30 years ago.

Last Wednesday's verbal clash between Chris Gayle and Michael Clarke in Mumbai brought home the relevance of that bit of advice, and also reinforced the belief that when it comes to the concept of "do so ain't like so", Australia's cricketers are the unrivalled world champions.

In his tour diary entry on the incident, Gayle inferred that Clarke was the instigator of the confrontation, and while conceding that his protracted tirade against Clarke deserved some form of punishment, it was disappointing to see the man who triggered the whole thing - at least from the Gayle's perspective - get off scot free.

It also did not go unnoticed that the match officials made no report of the incident until the next day, by which time Ricky Ponting, the Australian captain, had already passed his judgement in implying that the only way the credibility of the disciplinary process would be upheld was if Gayle was brought to book.

Of course, from the moment the matter came within the purview of match referee Mike Procter for investigation, the issue was no longer if Gayle should be disciplined, but what would be the nature of the censure. It was not surprising either that Clarke was absolved.

An outstanding allrounder that he was, Procter clearly lacks an even hand in arbitrating matters that involve Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. An outrageous charge you say? Well, what other conclusion is there after his response to journalists' queries that the Aussies were getting away with an abundance of excessive over-appealing in last November's series against West Indies, stating that players from those countries are more aggressive, and that had to be taken into consideration? In other words, there is one rule for those three and another for everyone else.

It was heartening to hear Ramnaresh Sarwan - who led the side superbly in the field in the absence of the injured Brian Lara - in his post-match comments alluding to the Gayle-Clarke tete-a-tete and suggesting that players who like to dish out should be prepared to get some back.

Sarwan knows only too well how to give back, his instant response to Glenn McGrath's malicious remark on the fourth afternoon of the Antigua Test in 2003 causing McGrath to completely lose his cool. I wonder if John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, would have been so eager in rallying to the defence of McGrath in the furore that followed the incident if he knew what his compatriot had said in the first place.

Every team in every sport, at one time or another, engages in baiting the opposition, winding them up to try and trigger a loss of concentration. But it is more than a little annoying that, having legitimised and institutionalised an underhand practice as "mental disintegration" (the pretentious terminology of former captain Steve Waugh), the Australians recoil in self-righteous indignation when they find themselves on the receiving end.

Which is why, in the sporting context, if you want to upset the best in the world, sometimes to have to fight fire with an inferno. The opponent strikes a match, you respond by burning down his house. It is an overreaction, but an overreaction with a purpose - to let him know in terms that he can best understand that you're not taking any foolishness.

Lara is a past master at being both an instigator and flame-throwing responder, especially against the Australians, which is why they fear him so. They will always speak in the most glowing terms about Sachin Tendulkar because they think they have his measure as far as beating them off his own bat. But they can't handle Lara, what with the ability to dissect and destruct with his scything blade, while at the same time sallying forth with enough caustic lyrics to keep them on edge.

In this context, I'm reminded of Javed Miandad's attempt to test the sweet spot of his bat on Dennis Lillee's head during Pakistan's 1981-82 tour of Australia. Miandad was no doubt saying more than a thing or two to the fiery fast bowler, which was a bit of a reversal for Lillee, who was accustomed to having the last (very strong) word, especially against timid players from the Indian subcontinent.

Put off his stride by Miandad, Lillee kicked him on the back of the legs on the way back to the top of his mark. As anyone with any sort of broughtupsy would know, to kick someone, even lightly, is just about the lowest form of degradation towards another human being.

It necessitated a strident reaction, and as Miandad drew his blade back in a backlift higher than anything ever managed by Lara, the presiding umpire stepped in to save Lillee from the response he deserved. Do so really ain't like so, and they need to be reminded of that occasionally, even if it costs 30 per cent of a day's pay.

Scenes of jubilation after West Indies thrilling come-from-behind win against Australia in Mumbai © Getty Images

It was like the first lunar landing all over again. Everyone in the house wanted to stay up on Wednesday night to catch the highlights of West Indies' 10-run Champions Trophy victory over Australia.

Even those struggling with the symptoms of the latest flu virus sweeping the country (what's the nickname by the way-Duck-and-Run? Manningitis?) delayed applying more of the old Vicks VapoRub so that they could be alert enough to see the regional side upset the most consistent and efficient unit in contemporary international cricket.

Not that we are all aficionados of the game. Far from it, but as has been reinforced many times over for decades, the fluctuating fortunes of the Caribbean side are a matter of intense interest within the region, even for those who think that Brett Lee and googly are blood relatives.

So chalk up one for "The Lost Boys". As in their last major tournament on the Indian subcontinent ten years earlier, a tense victory over Australia has followed on the heels of a crushing disappointment. Still, it is asking for serious emotional distress to start piling too much expectation onto the back of that battling effort in Mumbai, given that this team redefines the term "wildly inconsistent".

In fact, the best thing is to just savour the experience and hope that the momentum can be sustained in the seven days before the next match against India in Ahmedabad. By then, Brian Lara's back spasms should have eased, Shivnarine Chanderpaul would have gotten over the latest stomach bug to hit the side, and Corey Collymore ought to be back in harness after returning to Barbados to be with his wife for the birth of their first child.

It is anybody's guess as to who will have to make way for the senior returnees, but two who must be assured of their places for some time to come, barring injury, are Runako Morton and Jerome Taylor.

Once again Morton delivered impressively when called upon in yet another makeshift position. It certainly helped to have the assured Lara as mentor and partner in the rebuilding effort from 63 for four, but the manner in which Morton has resurrected what seemed a blighted career is as striking a lesson as can be identified on how any young person can turn his or her life around with the right attitude, guidance and opportunities for redemption.

He finished high and dry, ten runs short of a third one-day international century this year, although the disappointment of missing out on that milestone, especially against the Aussies, would have long been forgotten amid the celebrations that followed the victory.

Clearly the Man of the Match adjudicator had not overlooked him, even if the temptation must have been very great to go with the flow and nominate hat-trick hero Taylor for the award.

The lithe Taylor continues to make his mark with pace and accuracy - two potent weapons - especially in the tense final overs of an ODI, as Mike Hussey, Lee and Brad Hogg discovered off consecutive deliveries. As the first West Indian to claim a hat-trick in one-day internationals - in itself a surprising statistic given the plethora of quality bowlers who have represented the region in the past three decades - Taylor has assured himself of an unchallenged place in Caribbean cricket history.

Now, like so many of his team-mates, he must resist the temptation to rest on those laurels and appreciate that the job gets even harder in seeking to maintain or possibly exceed those standards if he really wants to be a part of the long-term turnaround in the side's fortunes.

But maybe the most significant aspect of Wednesday's victory was the confirmation, once and for all, that Ramnaresh Sarwan - for all of his apparent reluctance to take on the responsibility and generally casual attitude - has the makings of a good captain. Sarwan not only marshaled his troops and brought the changes effectively, but also regularly consulting with team-mates on tactics. After leading Guyana to victory in the Stanford 20/20 earlier this year, his performance makes it crystal clear that he is the man for the full-time job, possibly after the World Cup when Lara will be signing off on his ODI career. Lara is likely to remain in the Test squad as senior statesman and mentor, not to mention star batsman still after all these years.

Again, it bears repeating that the defeat of Australia in the cauldron of a prestigious competition, as hugely encouraging as it is, may yet prove to be just another crest in the endlessly turbulent sea of West Indies cricket.

Next Thursday's clash with India will be a much clearer indicator of whether they have taken their game up to another level in terms of consistency and commitment, and if, as the years go by, we will look back on the win as a brief, bright spark in the vast emptiness of contemporary Caribbean cricketing misery or a giant step towards reclaiming a glorious legacy.

Houston, we want to believe.

'Tom Moody insisted that our mental attitude had to change if we were to satisfy our own high ambitions' © Getty Images

There is one simple word that best describes why this Sri Lanka team has changed for the better: It's called "attitude". There has been a sea-change in the way we all are approaching cricket thanks to the efforts of Tom Moody, Trevor Penney and the rest of the management
team. Their greatest success has been to shake us out of our comfort zones and introduce a new culture of self-improvement and dynamism. The changes have been seismic and have ensured that we are now growing stronger by the day.

After Tom's arrival in Sri Lanka we quickly settled into a successful groove. We defeated (a weakened) West Indies, won the Indian Oil Cup and brushed aside Bangladesh. With hindsight I think we were lulled into a comfort zone. We thought this was the best we could be and expected victories to come our way. But the tour of India proved a rude shock to the system. We were still grappling with the Powerplays and Supersub regulations and in the end we were hammered in both the ODIs and the Tests. Suddenly it sunk in that other teams were improving much faster than us.

This was the context in which Tom started to usher in changes to the team, by altering our "attitude" to not just matches but to net practice, fitness training and even our lifestyles. We were one of the fitter teams in the world and we'd always had our fair share of skilful players. But we'd lost sight of the fact that there is always room for improvement. Tom insisted that our mental attitude had to change if we were to satisfy our own high ambitions.

It started with a special emphasis on physical fitness that was tailor-made to individual needs. We had worked hard previously but within limits. We realised that we could be fitter and that we could do things differently. We pushed our boundaries and looked to exploit
every advantage we could, from our actual running and turning techniques to building up much greater endurance levels. We were given minimum fitness levels to qualify for selection and soon the pride of the players pushed them to reach these and, then, to go further.

We were very lucky too to have the help of Sandy Gordon, one of the world's leading sports psychologists. In my mind his inputs have been instrumental to us. Through a series of informal one-on-ones on cricket and our lives in general he offered customised advice to each individual. In short, he gave us options on how to improve ourselves and helped reinforce the message that we could improve ourselves. I remember one thing he told me very clearly: "The only direction you can cruise is down".

Sandy had an impact on us as individuals and also as a team. He pointed out the little details that get lost: the details that we may have thought unimportant but actually go a long way to forming the mental make-up of the team. He made us conscious of how an innocuous negative remark in a dressing-room environment can snowball into a problem. He identified situations where we might be subconsciously limiting ourselves by apportioning blame rather than accepting collective responsibility.

This all led to us as a team putting our core values down on paper. We discussed as a team the characteristics that we cherished within the group - like commitment, discipline, pride and enjoyment. These core values stretched from the field to the dressing-room and into our lives. We wanted the dressing-room to be a neat and positive environment that reflected our professionalism and commitment. We wanted our lifestyles outside to be healthy and well-balanced. We wrote it all down so we would not lose sight of it.

He also, of course, worked on our skills. When I look back now with hindsight on my batting I can see I was in a comfort zone. I was not thinking about broadening my range of strokes. I was subconsciously saying to myself, "this is as good as you are going to get so just
work on your shot selection." But Trevor changed all that. He looked at every single scoring option and stroke with every player. His energy was amazing. We broke down our games and practised on each different aspect.

The impact has been huge. From a personal perspective I can see just how much my game has developed. I used to find it hard to tick things over during the middle overs of one-day games, especially against the spinners. But I worked hard on the sweep and now it is giving me quick scoring opportunities. I have learnt how to drop the ball for singles better and how to guide the ball down to third man. Three simple areas have been vastly improved.

It was all a case of accepting logical analysis. Trevor and Tom were saying "I think you are a good player but I think you can be better, why don't you look at these strokes to reduce pressure?" As players it was about not coming up with excuses and saying to ourselves "this is an avenue worth exploring." We had started a journey but lost our way.
However, we were now pushing out of our comfort zones.

There was a massive attitude shift and now we are looking to capitalise on every single delivery: the simplest theory in cricket and one that had worked so well for us in the past. The extended Powerplays have encouraged this and we strive to capitalise on top and then maintain momentum with smart cricket

One of the huge conundrums with Sri Lanka's cricket has traditionally been the absence of the question "why?" We are generally spoon-fed from an early age. The senior players are expected to know best and you can easily get caught-up in a herd. Nobody thinks of how
things can be changed. An intelligent, questioning attitude is quietly repressed. But to stay ahead you must diversify. What we need is a system from grassroots to the national team that is continuously evolving to make you better. We need to free minds.

During the England tour it first became evident that we were turning the corner. The groundwork had been laid, the processes were in place and without us even realising it all started to come together. The prime example was the Lord's Test where we had the inner strength and confidence to rescue ourselves from a perilous position. It was hugely
satisfying to save that game and a source of great pride. Even though we lost at Edgbaston, we had begun to believe that we were an equal match to England, and were ready as we ever were to win on English soil.

Then, right after the final Test at Trent Bridge, we had a meeting and discussed what Sri Lankan cricket was all about. Pre-1996 we had played a brand of cricket that was not our own. We were respectful to the game's traditions and techniques but it was an alien tradition that we were trying to conform to. Then in 1996 with that emphatic World Cup victory we established our brand of cricket, our own cricketing identity that was positive, aggressive and exciting. As we sat there in England, we realised as a group that we had lost sight of this brand.

I think we had become too passive a one-day team, waiting for our opponents to falter. We were masters of the slow strangle, especially with our spin-heavy attack in the subcontinent. But we now had a diverse and balanced team capable of playing a more aggressive game and we made a conscious decision to go back to that more explosive old
brand. There was a massive attitude shift and now we are looking to capitalise on every single delivery: the simplest theory in cricket and one that had worked so well for us in the past. The extended Powerplays have encouraged this and we strive to capitalise on top and then maintain momentum with smart cricket.

It's been a refreshing period to be in the side and it's wonderful to feel the hunger for success all around you. Right now we are inspiring each other and feeding on each other's confidence. It's exciting and I believe we are well on the way to playing a brand of cricket that will not only be successful but that will allow us as Sri Lankans to be proud.

by Anand Vasu

Runako Morton's innings of 90 has certainly re-established his credibility in the West Indies side © Getty Images

Life's come a full circle for Runako Morton and put him down in a good place. It was with the Champions Trophy, in Sri Lanka, that his name became known internationally, and now the same tournament has given a platform to close some chapters and open fresh ones. His unbeaten innings of 90 inspired West Indies to a famous victory against the Australians, who fell short of 235 by only 11 runs in a thriller. But what Morton did, was give a large following of fans something to remember him by, besides the events far and near, neither of which are particularly flattering. It's said that the incomparable Lawrence Rowe had so much time to play the ball that he whistled to himself as he cover-drove; if Morton had a song on his lips on the day, it would have been that Bob Marley anthem, Redemption Song.

The first thing Morton will be keen to erase is the memory of what happened in the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka in 2002. Although selected to play in the squad, he excused himself, and left, after telling the team management that his grandmother had died. It was subsequently learned that one of his grandmothers had died sixteen years earlier, and another was very much alive. Morton, who was also expelled from the St. Georges Cricket Academy in Grenada in 2001 for reasons of indiscipline, served a one year ban from participating in activities that took place under the auspices of the West Indies Cricket Board. Having sat out, he returned, only to be involved in a stabbing incident less than a month after the end of his ban, about which little is known. It all just seemed a bit too colourful for anyone's good.

But what he made headlines with most recently, was anything but colourful. In the DLF Cup in Malaysia, against these very Australians, he came in to bat at No. 3, facing the second ball of the innings after a Brett Lee yorker had nailed Chris Gayle in front of the stumps. Morton then played the most inexplicable innings you could hope to see in one-day cricket, carefully blocking 30 balls - without ever getting off the mark - before the 31st put him out of his misery, and he was lbw to Nathan Bracken. He had spent almost an hour at the crease, recording the longest duck, in terms of balls faced, in the history of one-day cricket.

Now, after playing an innings of character from a position of 63 for 4 where West Indies were in serious danger of folding up meekly, Morton can genuinely hope that he's put his colourful past behind him, and be remembered purely for reasons cricketing.

The talent has always been there for all to see - hundreds against New Zealand and Zimbabwe were already in the bag - and on the day a reminder came first ball. Shane Watson pushed one in a touch full, outside the off, and Morton gave it the treatment, thumping it back down the ground for four. Still, with wickets having fallen at regular intervals, and Brian Lara batting as low as No. 6, Morton had a significant role to play, and he did the job with panache.

A punch off Brett Lee through point here, a flick through fine-leg off Andrew Symonds there, and Morton was onto his half-century - the first milestone of the day. An appreciative crowd applauded, and there was relief and joy in equal measure for Morton, who held his bat up in acknowledgment. But the job was not quite done yet. Lara's decision to bat at No. 6 meant that a couple of quick wickets at any time could lead to a situation where he could run out of partners.

Morton ensured that it never came to that - apart from one mis-hit towards cover where Ricky Ponting dropped a catch he would take nine times out of ten - playing smart cricket. Lara and Morton put on 137 for the fifth wicket, pushing the score to 200 when Lara played a tired shot and was dismissed for 71. Morton, though, continued on, and ended unbeaten on 90, taking his team to 235, a score that they defended with admirable enthusiasm and nous.

At a press conference in Ahmedabad, very early in this tournament, Lara was asked about Morton's chequered past. His answer was unequivocal, "Morton is one of the most popular members of this squad," he'd said, adding that all that happened was well in the past, and bore little relevance to the present. Those words would have gone some way in cleaning the slate, but it's actions - like those of Morton's today - that will do the job once and for all.

Preserving their cool: Abdul Razzak and Shoaib Malik after seeing Pakistan home © Getty Images

On the day Pakistan landed in India for the Champions Trophy, in Delhi on
October 8, Younis Khan and Bob Woolmer addressed the media. In the
previous 24 hours, the country's cricket captaincy had been changed twice
and the chairman had changed once and one would have expected them to be
discussing serious matters before the press conference took place. For
most of it, the two communicated by scribbling messages on a piece of
paper but don't be fooled into thinking they were matters of national
interest. It was simply a discussion about whether to grant a television
channel an interview.

On the day before Pakistan's opening encounter of the Champions Trophy, in
Jaipur yesterday, the same duo addressed the media. In the previous 24
hours, the team's two premier fast bowlers had failed dope tests, nobody
knew what the future held in store and one would have, again, expected
them to be discussing serious matters before addressing the press. Before
they began the press conference, both - coughing intermittently -
communicated some thoughts in hushed tones. Surely this time it was
serious. Instead they were trying to out-guess each other on the number of
questions that were likely to be posed. One of them said 60; the other
reckoned it would be 70.

These may appear insignificant incidents but they convey quite a bit about
how this bunch managed to stay cool when the roof had blown off. Over the
last week, of the seven teams that visited Jaipur, it's been Pakistan who
have, ironically, appeared most relaxed. People spotted them in
restaurants, movie halls and tourist sites. It was a side that appeared to
be thoroughly at home with their surroundings, thriving amid the fans and
banter.

Younis spoke passionately about the period, adding that it had no doubt
helped alleviate the pressure. "We've had a lot of fun over the last
week," he said at the end of a thoroughly satisfactory day. "We played
hard cricket, practised hard and had some competitive games amongst
ourselves. What I couldn't do as a youngster, I wanted my boys to do. I
encouraged them to see movies, to have fun. We missed Inzamam a lot and
spoke a lot about him, about his captaincy and his professionalism. But we
wanted to forget the pressures. One day before the game we got another jolt
but I always felt the boys were fit and wanted to play good cricket. For
me, before this game, winning or losing wasn't important, all I wanted
them to do was to play good cricket. And we did."

And good cricket they played. A packed house of neutrals rejoiced in
Pakistan's fightback with the ball before cheering every run in their
run-chase. Their very unpredictability, their sheer bloody-minded
bounce-back ability, was a joy to watch. Just when the tension reached the
highpoint, they found in Abdul Razzaq a matchwinner who sliced through it
like a Rajasthani sword through silk. The standing ovation they granted
Pakistan after the triumph was in direct contrast to the afternoon's
events when the Shiv Saniks, a Hindu fundamentalist organisation, held
banners asking Pakistan to 'Go home'.

Younis Khan didn't make much of a contribution with the bat but his cool
countenance no doubt proved crucial. "There was definitely a bit of
pressure," he said, "but I don't normally put myself under pressure. Of
course, if we'd lost people would have got a chance to say things against
us. But the boys stood together, even though they were under pressure. I
was asked at the toss if I'd slept OK and honestly I slept very well.
Whatever pressure was there, it didn't affect my sleep."

Over the last few years, Inzamam-ul-Haq's monk-like cool, with an emphasis
on religion, has played a vital part in keeping the side together. It came
as no surprise when the side got together for a namaaz after the
game, thanking the God almighty for this fine win. Younis mentioned the
importance of faith, he added that their religious beliefs always kept
them strong. He didn't mention it but sometimes you wonder what this team
would do if controversies decide to take a back seat. The more the
trouble, more the joy.

by Osman Samiuddin

Abdul Razzaq celebrates a remarkable victory © Getty Images

One-day wins aren't supposed to mean this much are they? Or even engage as emotionally as this? Certainly not piddling opening round games of tournaments. But if Australia were watching proceedings at Jaipur tonight, players such as Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds might have smiled to themselves knowingly and thought, "Ah yes, but they often do".

Over three years ago, on the eve of their opening match against Pakistan at the 2003 World Cup, Australia lost Shane Warne, the muse of their 1999 triumph, to a drugs ban. They were four down for not much early on before turning on Symonds's own redemption innings and winning comfortably. Pakistan did something similar here and they might have done so with greater odds stacked against them.

Between their last international and this one, they had seen three changes in the team leadership and one in that of the board. A tour of England, disastrous on and ultimately off the field, was only just past. Bereft of their regular captain and leading batsman, losing two of their best bowlers on the eve of this match, in such dramatic fashion, running into a red-hot Sri Lankan side, careening head first into a bloodthirsty Sanath Jayasuriya; they needed all this like you and I would need a hole in the head.

And yet, here we are. Many people will be genuinely dumbfounded. Others will coolly claim they were expecting Pakistan to pull off something as audacious as this precisely because of the turmoil that has hounded them. It is, they claim, just what they do. But inside even they will have been surprised, if only because the extreme turbulence of the last couple of months was exacting even by Pakistani standards.

The nuts and bolts of this win are not, ultimately, as significant as the result itself though they are worth recalling. Coincidentally (or otherwise), as was the case through last year, when Shoaib Akhtar was out with injury and Mohammad Asif plying away for Sialkot and Pakistan A, many contributions stood out. Feel free to choose your own critical one; Abdul Razzaq's late bursts with ball first and then bat, Pakistan's trio of spinners (not quite the golden Indian quartet but you can imagine them being successful in an ODI-kind of way here), Imran Farhat's chancy surge as Pakistan began their reply or even Mohammad Yousuf's composure for all but the 78th ball of his innings.

Personally, I'll jump for Shoaib Malik's masterpiece of pace, intelligence and nerve. He's had a rough few months himself, hopelessly out of form and shuffled out of his favourite position up the order by Younis Khan. He began his innings as if acutely aware of all this so that when Yousuf was out, he had meandered uncertainly to only 13 off 29 balls. But as he has shown repeatedly, the nuances and delicacies in timing a pressure chase in these conditions are not lost upon him. He only hit two boundaries but the sweetest - a six off Murali to bring up the 200 - was the moment when a win became tangible. Surreptitiously, an itchy start turned into a hustled finish.

All put together, it made for a deeply stirring spectacle, one that tugged away at the very soul of those watching it. There is something just so incredibly attractive about watching triumph in adversity, and nothing captures it better in life than sport. It is the type of allure that draws in support from neutrals irrespective of nationality. That the match was tense will have relieved many in a tournament lacking atmosphere thus far but that Pakistan won it will please many more. The air over Pakistan cricket has been lately funereal and the support feels like that reserved for the bereaved.

As a footnote really, they have started the tournament with a win. Not much should be said about their chances for the rest of the tournament, though the bubble of feelgood within which they were floating on the field - to Younis Khan's eternal credit - will be duly noted by South Africa and New Zealand. For the next few, precious days, they can rest easy, having reminded a whole lot of people - and it really needed reminding - that despite being eternally good value for drama in cricket, when they want to, they play one hell of a game too.

	Scoring 47 runs more than Graeme Smith, his South African counterpart, Stephen Fleming won the match for New Zealand and came off as the better captain in this encounter between the two © AFP

by Anand Vasu

The strangest thing happened at the Brabourne Stadium. A batsman slashed hard at a short ball outside the off stump, the fielder at point flung himself attempting to catch the ball - a small but voluble crowd roared - the ball went past, the crowd sighed and was silenced as the ball sped to the boundary. Aren't crowds supposed to applaud the fours and sixes and boo the wickets? New Zealand and South Africa played some tough cricket on a tricky pitch - supposedly good pitches are only those that are good for batsmen - and it was much appreciated.

The story of the day was a tale of two captains. First was the man who stands so tall that you have forgive headline writers when they said: Stephen Fleming stood tall among the ruins. Put in to bat, he read the pitch exceptionally well, and that was a good portion of the job done. He ensured two things - first that he was going forward, or aiming to go forward, at all times, and second that he stretched his front foot out fully, for good measure getting it outside the line of the stumps when possible, as he met the ball.

Fleming is an unusual batsman in that his cover-drives - every bit as handsome to the populace at large as he is to a growing female fan following in India - can startle you with their purity of execution, but are often sandwiched between the ugliest inside edges to fine leg. In this innings there was only one cover drive, and it was not a classic, but rather a walk down the pitch to Andrew Hall that was slashed over cover. Off his pads, though, Fleming was completely in control, driving, flicking, and whipping the ball away in the arc from mid-on to fine-leg.

When you see that Brendan McCullum's 21 was the second highest score of the innings, Fleming's 89 assumes importance far in excess of the 46% of the total that it constituted. It put a score on the board, on a pitch where New Zealand had the bowlers to prey on the minds of South African batsmen who are bred on hard tracks with plenty of bounce in them.

This South African team chased 434 against the mighty Australians only seven months ago. Surely 195 against the lesser cousins from across the Tasman Sea should have been achievable. Lesser cousins, maybe, but certainly not a lesser captain. Fleming knows a thing or two about leadership, and Smith has learned that the hard way in the past.

It was in 2004, when South Africa toured New Zealand, having never lost either a Test or ODI series to the Kiwis, that Smith encountered Fleming. Going into the game at Eden Park, in Auckland 1-3 down, South Africa needed to win the last two games to keep their record intact, and looked set to do so as New Zealand managed only 193 batting first. Just as South Africa began their response, with Smith opening, Fleming launched into a full-frontal verbal assault, cleverly before the cameras had really turned their attention to the middle. Smith, a high-strung chap at the best of times, responded with a tongue-lashing of his own. Visibly upset, he was out for only 15, South Africa lost that match by 2 runs via Duckworth-Lewis, and the series 5-1. When asked about the incident Fleming showed little remorse, saying he knew what it was like to be in Smith's shoes - a young captain - and exploited it to the max. All through the series, Fleming and Smith exchanged barbs in press conferences, and only when it was finished, did Smith accept Fleming's invitation to dinner.

When New Zealand next toured South Africa, in 2005, Smith was ready to give it back, as you'd only expect. There was the odd mention of real tough cricket on hard, bouncy pitches, not the soft stuff on New Zealand's tracks, and the sarcasm flowed unabated in press conferences as the two captains went after each other. This time though the contest - on the pitch at least - went emphatically South Africa's way as they blanked New Zealand out 4-0, with one game rained out.

And so it was with the Fleming-Smith scoreline tied on one apiece that they took the field in this Champions Trophy match. Smith and Fleming, both intelligent and thoughtful men, one the belligerent boxer the other a nimble fencer, would have been aware of this. And after Fleming had shown the way with 89, Smith had his chance. He began slowly, but with determination, and a typical punchy drive past mid-on, uppish but firmly hit and safe, brought him his first boundary. Wickets fell, but Smith stuck stoically around, and consecutive boundaries off Jacob Oram - the first carved over cover, and the second times off the toes - kept South Africa in business.

One boundary later, Smith's attempt at a forcing shot at Oram failed to clear Vettori at mid-off, and he was gone for 42. The rest of the South Africa's batting card was virtually identical to New Zealand's. Fleming made 47 runs more than Smith, and that was enough to seal victory by 87 runs. The old fox, you'd have to say, outplayed the young pretender once more.

by Dileep Premachandran

Good times are here again for Irfan Pathan © Getty Images

Less than a month ago, Irfan Pathan's nascent career appeared to be in danger of slamming into the buffers. While his team-mates finished practice and went into the dressing room to prepare for a winner-take-all match against Australia at the Kinrara Oval, Pathan was encouraged to bowl at one stump with Jeff Thomson in attendance. His body language was poor, and there was no zip in his bowling, and the little spell in full view of the media and the crowd fuelled endless debate about whether he should be retained in the squad.

Luckily for him, the 14 for the Champions Trophy had been named much earlier, and Pathan, despite bowling six insipid overs for 54 runs in Malaysia, had a berth at the expense of Sreesanth, lively and hostile in the one outing he was given. Pathan's slump was all the more perplexing because he had enjoyed such a stellar season in 2005-06, contributing weightily with the bat and almost guaranteeing a breakthrough each time he was handed the new white ball.

He had cut a swathe through top orders, picking up 49 wickets from just 25 games, but the long journey to the Caribbean appeared to take away his allround mojo. In seven subsequent matches, he could score only 88 runs, and his seven wickets came at a cost of 33.28 apiece. More worryingly, the economy rate had ballooned to 6.13, and he was struggling to nudge 75mph on the speed gun.

Though they wisely rested him for the last two matches in Malaysia, the team management needs to be commended for not giving up on an individual whose fortunes are inextricably linked to India's one-day form. When he bats and bowls well, he gives the team enviable balance and potency, amply illustrated by 21 wins from 29 games last season. With no other quality
allround replacement on the horizon, benching him necessitates weakening either the batting or bowling, and against teams like Australia, that doesn't bear thinking about.

It needs some spring sunshine to alleviate a winter's depression, and for Pathan, the glimmer of hope was perhaps a sighting of Andrew Strauss, who he had perplexed consistently on England's tour of India earlier this year. From the first delivery he bowled, he was swinging the ball away, with the speed gun showing figures closer to 80 than 70. The combination
of uneven bounce and swing was a dangerous one, but it still needed a wicket to put the spring back in his stride.

When it came, it was the most priceless one of all. Andrew Flintoff had come up the order to try and inject some life into England's Egyptian-Mummy Power Play displays, but when he played all around Pathan's stock ball into the right-hander, the sense of relief was palpable. With
the burden partially lifted from his shoulders, Pathan then troubled Kevin Pietersen as well, cramping him for room with deliveries that darted in, and beating the outside edge with the odd one that moved away.

Though he didn't get his man, the dismissal of Strauss had something of the pre-ordained about it. Throughout his forgettable 32-ball stint in the middle, Strauss had been moving about his crease like a shoeless man on ice. The Light Brigade charge summed up his desperation, and epitomised the team's cluelessness on a pitch that demanded the sort of application
shown by the admirable Paul Collingwood.

The only way Pathan's day could have improved would have been with a dashing 50 in a perfunctory run chase. But though he played three peachy drives, that wasn't to be. And it was perhaps just as well, given that it would only have invited the sort of "He's back" headlines and hype that he can well do without.

In any case, it wasn't as though he had scripted the win all on his own. It helped immensely that Munaf Patel was so incisive at the other end. Having done nothing to inspire confidence in his first few outings in coloured clothes, Munaf has been a revelation since, dropping a little
pace and gaining much by way of control. He was a real handful on a tricky surface and while Ian Bell's wicket might have been fortuitous, his McGrath-esque refusal to give the batsmen anything to hit helped Rahul Dravid tighten the noose.

The captain played his part, on a day when pretty much everything clicked on the field. Even when Pietersen threatened a revival with his muscular approach, Dravid kept a slip in, and the combination of Munaf and Sachin Tendulkar rewarded him suitably. By the time both new-ball bowlers had left the fray to gulp down energy drinks on the boun