Mohammad Yousuf has replaced lazy elegance with lofty elegance © AFP

Yousuf dealt with this particular comparison expertly by stating his own reverance for cricket's greatest master blaster. I agree with Yousuf: there is no comparison.

The second comparison foisted upon Yousuf is the one Inzamam-ul Haq discussed in his newspaper column. Yousuf, said Inzy, is the best ever Pakistani batsman, better than Javed Miandad, and better than Inzy too. Can this be true?

For help I turned to Saad Shafqat, my friend and co-author of Javed's autobiography. Saad offered the following analysis:

"Is MoYo better than JM?

Well, it's always treacherous comparing batsmen from different eras, but I can think of three important comparisons between MY and JM in which JM comes out ahead.

First, JM has played some phenomenal innings - Sharjah 1986, Georgetown 1988, Colchester 1981 - that have cast a longer shadow and created more ripples than anything MY has done so far.

Second, at the top of his game JM was for a while considered first among equals within the elite batsmen of his day - Gavaskar, Crowe, Border, Gooch, Gower, and Richards. (Actually Richards was perhaps always a bit ahead of the pack but JM easily rubbed shoulders with the rest.) MY, in contrast, is still not considered in the same league as his elite contemporaries - Dravid, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, and even Inzy. MY could still get there, but he has yet to prove himself against this group.

Third, JM brought a lot more to the side than his batting. He was and is a tactical genius and he knew better than anyone how to fight the good fight. His legacy for Pakistan is not just in the batting stats he has left behind but in fact he transformed an entire nation's psyche and made it believe in it's own possibilities.

Oh, and of course JM had mastered the basics like running between the wickets, an area in which MY is a trainwreck."

I agree. Javed was a true master who erased any doubts about his record against the best teams in that 1988 series and in the way he almost single-handedly held together Pakistan's batting in the 1992 World Cup. He also hit the world's most famous six. Viv Richards once said that if he ever had to choose anybody to bat for his life it would be Javed. There can be no higher compliment.

In cricket there are statistics and then there is influence. Influence in cricket, like influence everywhere else, is hard to measure. In my view, Javed influenced more games than any other Pakistan batsman. Yousuf has begun to be more and more influential but he is still well behind Javed and even Inzy.

This doesn't mean that Yousuf does not deserve the utmost respect. He has conducted himself with remarkable honour and modesty. And he is right to point to his innings at Lord's this year as his best. I was lucky enough to be at the home of cricket to see the innings, possibly the most perfect innings ever by a Pakistani batsman. For the brilliance of that double hundred alone he deserves to break the record.

But whether or not he surpasses Viv Richards, Yousuf is a winner today. As some of you have pointed out already, Yousuf's success is a triumph of humility in an age of hubris. Let's hope the Karachi crowd gives him an appropriate reception.

In one of this blog's irregular forays into foreign territory, allow me to apply a different Pak Spin to the interpretation of Ricky Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow-on in Brisbane.

Cricket Australia, unlike the Pakistan Cricket Board for example, has been monitoring injuries in domestic and international cricket for over a decade. All credit to the people working on this research programme. One of the conclusions of that research--see Cricket Australia's Injury Report 2005--is that enforcing the follow-on in international matches can increase the risk of injuries to bowlers.

The authors of the report suggest that one of the factors leading to a drop in injuries in 2004-5 was: "the decision to be more conservative with decisions such as not enforcing the follow-on in Test matches in 2004-5." More data are required to test this hypothesis further, and it is not entirely clear whether or not Cricket Australia had a deliberate policy of not enforcing the follow-on. But it does suggest one important reason why--particularly with the age and recent injury profile of Australia's bowlers--Ponting chose to bat again.

Ironic, then, that it was the Australian captain who picked up an injury.

	Mohammad Sami is a cat who has had his nine lives © AFP

Mohammad Sami, who most people want to bowl like the wind, has lived through something of a twister in the past few months. He began the England tour as Pakistan's premier (fully fit) fast bowler and ended it as if he had ended his international career. He watched helplessly as he was first overlooked for the Champions Trophy--even once Shoaib and Asif returned in shame--and then was bypassed for the West Indies series. With nowhere to go, Imran Khan's most advocated bowler, hit some form in domestic cricket. In England, Sami had lost his fire and his confidence. But the logic of his late introduction into the squad is that he is certain to play, otherwise why bother?

Sami is a cat who has had his nine lives. This is an unexpected opportunity for the lost Pakistani paceman. His selection, though, sends several signals. First, Sami has been rewarded for a blip of form in domestic cricket. Second, the Pakistan coach and captain have little faith in Samiullah Niazi, else why call up Sami? Third, there is no real talent waiting to burst through and lead the Pakistan bowling attack, else why not experiment now? And finally--and this is a possibility I find most fascinating--perhaps the selectors don't need to blood anybody new because Asif and/or Shoaib will be returning sooner than expected.

Sami, though, needs to send some signals of his own. The smoke that rises from Karachi must say: "I am Mohammad Sami, Pakistan's lost paceman. I have returned with fire in my belly, passion in my heart. My mind is focused, my thinking clear. I will release the shackles that have bound me. I am Mohammad Sami unbound, Pakistan's rediscovered champion. I have returned as Sami the Spearhead not Sami the Sloth. West Indies must beware and Lara will tremble." It might be a long shot but hope is eternal. Is there a final twist to Sami's tale?

	Mohammad Yousuf needs 149 more runs to cross Viv Richards's record of 1710 runs in a calendar year © AFP

Before any of you point out that more Test cricket is played these days, Viv set his record in 19 innings, Yousuf is on 17. Whether or not Yousuf's transformation from a gifted wastrel into a grafting wonder is anything to do with his religious conversion is a moot point and something that it will never be possible to prove convincingly. But it is clear that Yousuf has become a phenomenon.

With Inzamam's dip in form in Test cricket, Yousuf has emerged as a serene and silky leader of Pakistan's middle order. His batting has acquired a surreal quality whereby his calm state of mind dominates proceedings. Yousuf's touch and timing is such that his bat caresses and kisses the ball to the boundary, a sharp contrast to the wonderful brutality of Viv Richards.

No doubt Yousuf's zen-like performance in 2006 has won him a seat at the high table of Pakistan cricket. For much of his career he was dismissed as a flat-track bully and a man who would shrink to the occasion. But the last two years have seen Yousuf firm up his resolve and thrive under pressure. Multan may have been as flat as a paratha but it was a pressure cooker situation. On a final day when Pakistan are prone to disaster, Yousuf summoned up his will and fought a mental battle to guide his team to safety. The technical battle has rarely been a problem for him.

Yet one doubt hangs over Yousuf, just as it does over his fellow troopers in Pakistan's middle order. To raise themselves to the level of true world masters, Yousuf, Inzamam, and Younis Khan must show their class on pitches that don't favour batsmen, on pitches that spit and bounce, and against balls that swing and seam. Such a test is fast approaching in South Africa. Let's hope the final judgment is a favourable one.

In the meantime, it is fair to celebrate Yousuf's achievements of 2006, a stunning performance by a batsman of such grace and poise that he seems unfit for this age of biff and bang. Of all the mishaps in the world, a spot of bother in the nervous 190s is a nice problem to make your own.

The opening slot has been Pakistan's most troublesome, and in the recent past has been hogged by a series of left-handers, the legacy of watching Saeed Anwar and Brian Lara. Unfortunately for Pakistan, no left-hander has hinted at permanency. Salman Butt has lots of time to play his shots. Taufeeq Umar is sometimes capable of great application. And Imran Farhat looks the most accomplished--but only before he gets anywher near the crease for an international match. The failure of openers has been held as the biggest failure of Bob Woolmer. The reasons are complex. There is plentiful ability but inadequate learning. Cricket, as we all know, is a game of the mind as much as it is a game of hand and eye. It may be time for the rule of the left to give way to the might of the right.

One half of the problem, at least, looks to be solved. Mohammad Hafeez has been impressive and influential since his return to international cricket and has quickly established himself as the more secure of Pakistan's openers. Hafeez has shown the right attitude, a willingness to scrap when he needs to.

This strength of Hafeez has been a failing of Imran. Pakistan's most frequent opener is an impressive and stylish cricketer. He has an astonishing array of attacking strokes with which he can seize the initiative in a trice. But he can lose it just as quickly. Imran is only ever a moment away from madness. He has squandered a glorious start too often with a needless swish or a hopeless swipe.

Perhaps the sad conclusion is that this talented young man does not have the right mindset for international cricket. Whether he plays at Multan or not, Imran must be running out of chances. The return of Yasir Hameed is imminent. A right-handed opening combination of the two Hs, Hafeez and Hameed, is the one Pakistan must try out quickly. It is one that could do the job in both forms of cricket. Yasir's aggression might well compliment Hafeez's application.

The question, of course, is whether or not Yasir Hameed can return as impressively as Mohammad Hafeez? We need to find out sooner rather than later.

You might wonder why Pak Spin has strayed into foreign territory but I have two dogs in this fight. First, I'm a British Asian like Monty. Second, calling somebody a "stupid Indian" is abuse that crosses national boundaries simply because it is more about colour, culture, and religion than it is about nationality. If the Australian who abused Monty had called him "stupid" or a "stupid Brit/Pom/Steelback" he might have just about got away with it. But the reference to Monty's Indian roots is a reference to race and I'm afraid, Mr Sutherland, that it is a racist comment.

On the same day that the UK minister for sport urged a war on racism, in the same sport that, according to the ICC, has a zero tolerance policy towards racism, and on the back of an embarrassing tour by South Africa, it is highly improper for the chief executive of Cricket Australia to dismiss the racist taunts at Monty Panesar as "not too much racist."

James Sutherland owes Monty and the England team an apology. He also owes the ICC an explanation. Let's hope one is demanded of him.

	What's the rush? © Getty Images

"Rush to Judgment" might be the title of a book about the conspiracies surrounding the assassination of JFK, but it's a phrase that also neatly sums up the first hearing into the alleged drug use by Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif. Now that lawyers have been called in by all sides--an eminent one by Shoaib, an English one by the PCB, and an ex-cricketer by Asif--the process has inevitably been slowed down. The fact that Shoaib's lawyer is asking for more information from the PCB underscores the point that he and Asif were underrepresented at the first hearing. The fact that the PCB has appointed its own lawyer makes you wonder about the neutrality of the appeal hearing? And the fact that both players are currently banned makes you wonder what the rush is all about?

Amid this flurry of legal activity, the credibility of the first hearing is eroding by the minute.

	'...his pace is friendly but Shahid more than makes up for that with accuracy and consistency' © AFP

Pakistan bounced back from a calamitous Champions Trophy with a victory that blossomed with optimism if not complete command. Mohammad Yousuf continued his exquisite run in Test cricket and, flat track or no, he outperformed all the other batsmen in this match including one BC Lara. There is a sense of serenity about Yousuf's batting that inspires confidence and echoes a bygone era. One half of Pakistan's opening batting partnership continued to raise more questions than answers (more on that next time). And Inzamam returned with a duck and a quiet, if occasionally somnolent, authority to help Pakistan regain their footing in international cricket.

But the big question mark hung over Pakistan's bowling attack and Umar Gul and Shahid Nazir answered it as emphatically as possible. Although Gul had the better figures, for my money, it was Shahid the Unsung who swung it for Pakistan.

After a break from Test cricket that must have felt like an eternity, Shahid returned to the Test team at Headingley this year and made an immediate impact. Admittedly his pace is friendly but Shahid more than makes up for that with accuracy and consistency, attributes that have been lacking in Pakistan's support pace bowlers for many years. Far better to follow the bluster and the venom of opening bowlers of the calibre of Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif with somebody reliable who can control an innings and pick up wickets in the process, rather than ease the pressure with a wayward spell from, say, Abdul Razzaq. What Shahid has done since Headingley, in a style not dissimilar to Aaqib Javed if not as speedy, is to replicate this remarkable control and consistency at every opportunity.

In many ways Shahid is an ideal third or fourth seamer in Test cricket but he also carries the reputation of possibly being Pakistan's best new-ball bowler. That's a big accolade to try and live up to but on the first morning of this Test Shahid showed exactly why people do talk of him in this manner. While Gul was wayward--although he too returned later to rise to the occasion and confirm his progress as Pakistan's most improved bowler of this year--it was Shahid who made Lara pay for batting first on a treacherous morning. It was that spell that put Pakistan in a dominant position. I'm no lover of medium pace but hats off to Shahid Nazir for his patience and now his determination to prove to Pakistan's selectors that they ignored a real gem for too long.

Pakistan's new opening bowlers can't really make up for the two that have been lost but their form is a ray of sunshine--and a cause for optimism--at a time when Pakistan cricket needs to leave behind the darkness of recent weeks.

Once more, the build up has been impressive. You almost believe the hype--again. We have been here before: the promise of Danish, the creation of a spin bowler's paradise, and an opposition deemed unskilled at the art of reading legspin. Danish Kaneria is Pakistan's main strike bowler, says Inzamam, and I suppose in the prevailing circumstances he has a point. But this is a much weaker hand than it could be. By now, Danish should be a deadly weapon. The fact that he isn't is one of the more perplexing issues that engulfs the current team. On the face of it he has it all: legspin, googly, drift, and attitude. Then why has Kaneria failed to fly?

Danish's record looks impressive enough but as ever the statistics obscure the real story of his career. When he emerged Danish looked to be a natural successor to Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed. Indeed, he displayed extraordinary maturity and control for a rookie. A great future was promised. But Danish's career has been one of toil rather than thunder.

The best legspinners are able to run through a batting line-up, they are, as Inzamam says, an attacking option. Danish, however, has never managed to match the threat of Qadir or even Mushtaq, and the question is why? He has become more of a stock bowler than a strike bowler, and that is the wrong mode.

The best reason I have heard is that Danish doesn't really possess a topspinner or a zooter. Shane Warne, who barely has a googly, has become the world's greatest bowler on the threat of his ball that goes straight on. It is a delivery that Qadir and Mushtaq both possessed but Danish hasn't really mastered it. If the batsman does not fear for his stumps then he will bat with little fear.

Whatever the reason, Danish must run through teams more often. Lahore, a ground with a history of great legspin performances, should be inspiration enough. A career that promised wonders has got stuck in third gear. His country's ravaged bowling attack needs him. The judgement on his career hangs in the balance. Kaneria must fly.

Like water torture he keeps drip dripping away. Wasim Bari--once Pakistan's overrated wicketkeeper and now an even more overrated chairman of selectors--has managed to see off more administrators and cricketers than can be good for Pakistan cricket. Bari, Pakistan's Teflon, once drew his inspiration from his friend and writer Omar Kurieshi. You wonder where he seeks ideas now? You can't imagine that his fellow selectors, including the legendary Ehteshamuddin, the Test cricket misfit who was barely able to stagger off the pitch at Headingley, offer much in the way of piercing insights. If people are paid what they are worth then it's possibly understandable that Pakistan's selectors remain unpaid.

The problem with being in post for too long is that people can predict your patterns of behaviour. Bari, we know pretty well, has a penchant for recalling once-great-hopes and sticking with other once-great-hopes well past their sell-by date. What many have feared in Bari is that he has a natural reluctance to take a risk, an inability to see beyond the obvious selection and pluck a star from relative obscurity.

The educated gambles that have brought Pakistan cricket the riches of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, and Inzamam-ul Haq have all but disappeared. You might make an argument that these educated gambles should not supersede the aspirants who have emerged successfully through the system. But the Pakistan system of developing international cricketers is so haphazard and unreliable that an educated gamble might well be as good as observing somebody's stunning run in domestic cricket. But to make an educated gamble succeed you require sound judgement.

To begin to gamble you need to begin to take risks, and Bari doesn't strike me as a man who risks much. The most recent influx of new blood into the Pakistan team--Mohammad Asif apart--came during Aamir Sohail's tenure as chairman of selectors. Aamir had his own failings but an aversion to risk taking was not among them.

This West Indies series, for instance, must have been worth an educated gamble? With Pakistan's batting in urgent need of a future star it beggars belief that Shahid Yousuf was not given the opportunity of a home debut. By all accounts, he has the potential to make it in international cricket and, whisper it quietly, he plays straight. This series would seem to be an ideal launch pad.

This is not to dismiss Yasir Hameed's selection, one of the many lost talents of the Bari era. Indeed, Yasir's opportunity offers hope to aspiring cricketers in Pakistan's remote northern villages where there is abundant talent but pitiful opportunity to display it--his village is a few kilometres beyond my family village of Bakote. You might imagine that the selectors could have found room for both Yasir and Shahid?

Add to this the feeble, venom-free, bowling line up that Pakistan have conjured up--the last time I saw Samiullah Niazi in action he was failing to take part in a net session for no good reason--and you can understand why Brian Lara is licking his lips and Pakistan supporters are underwhelmed with anticipation for the forthcoming series.

After a catalogue of disasters and unending misery, Pakistan cricket required some new hopes, instead Bari and co delivered the same old water torture, the same old bankruptcy of ideas.

It seems awful to celebrate the end of anybody's career but today's news from Mumbai will bring some cheer to Pakistan fans reeling from the loss of their two best bowlers. The ICC's verdict will also cheer Indian and Sri Lankan fans, all of whom have suffered by Darrell Hair's finger. The Australian umpire has been brazen and unapologetic about his role in the first forfeited match in the history of Test cricket. The rights and wrongs of this incident have been debated to death but one point stands out above all others for me: no official is important enough to end a game when all the players and spectators want it to continue. Hair's end is a triumph for Inzamam but also for cricket as entertainment. Let's never again forget what really matters.

Amid the shame of the verdicts against Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif, one aspect of this whole business is bothering me. The Pakistan Cricket Board sensibly handed the matter over to an independent tribunal. Smart and fair move. The tribunal has delivered its verdict. Tough but fair? Well, perhaps not.

Any legal case--and that is exaclty what this was--requires a due process, and that includes the opportunity for the defendants to test the evidence and present their defence in a proper manner. The tribunal has tried to argue that Pakistan's premier bowlers were given the opportunity to defend themseves. M'lord, I beg to differ.

The simple point is that neither player had legal representation. Asif, who the tribunal has tried to portray as some kind of village idiot, defended himself. Shoaib, who the tribunal has tried to portray as a charlatan, was defended by a doctor turned administrator turned journalist. Now all professionals must recognise the limits of their profession. Doctors are not lawyers, and it might have been better for Shoaib if his good doctor had butted out.

You might say that this was not a formal court case but a quasi-legal process. You might say that the players exercised choice. But I'd say that it is the responsibility of the court (quasi or otherwise) to ensure that the defendants are adequately defended, and in this regard Shahid Hamid has failed. Indeed, if it is true as reported that Hamid was chatting about the drugs hearing during another case and before the verdict was out, he has prejudiced the hearing and called into question its integrity. Add to this the incredible sensitivity of this issue in Pakistan and you might imagine that a wise lawyer would insist that the evidence against the players is tested as robustly as possible by the defence.

The point of this is not to come up with some ruse to find the players not guilty. The point is to ensure that the process has been a proper and fair one. If after such a process the verdict stands then they must be punished--and let's be clear that the tribunal's decision to punish the players differently is barely credible. But my interpretation of the tribunal proceedings is that this was not an adequate process. How can justice be done without defence lawyers? If there was one lesson from the Hair controversy it was that you should never leave for a cricket hearing without a lawyer, better still a whole team of them.

The verdicts have been given face validity by whisperings from Shaharyar Khan and others around the team about their suspicions of Shoaib's illicit drug use. Well, if that is the case then when was that evidence produced at the hearing? If such senior people knew of such misdemeanours or even suspected them why was Shoaib allowed to play for Pakistan at all? If Shaharyar Khan knew, you can't tell me that Nasim Ashraf didn't.

The Pakistan Cricket Board is hoping that it will be given credit by the international community for its tough stance. Truly, all drug cheats must be banned. Unfortunately, gaining credibiilty is not simply about draconian punishments. It is also about due process. I fear that Pakistan's pace bowlers--guilty or not--have not had justice. If I were them and I were innocent, as they insist, I would appeal and I would beg and borrow to gather the best lawyers I could lay my hands on. These cricketers have been badly advised throughout their treatment and now through their disgrace. This whole incident has the hallmark of a peculiarly Pakistani muddle.

In the wake of the Champions Trophy debacle, Pakistan cricket is besieged with cries for change. Yes, change is essential but a knee-jerk reaction will further harm Pakistan's chances of winning the World Cup. There are calls for wholesale changes in the team, as well as calls from the head of the Karachi City Cricket Association for the sacking of Bob Woolmer. Rashid Latif has bizarrely blamed the failure of the Asian teams on the presence of foreign coaches.

The sense of crisis has been deepened by Nasim Ashraf calling for a seminar of senior cricketers to help turn round Pakistan's fortunes. As many readers of this blog will know, seminars of the kind proposed by the PCB are seldom any good for producing solutions or new ideas. The gathering of a gang of squabbling ex-cricketers, each believing he has a monopoly on the truth, sounds to me like an exercise in stakeholder management rather than a genuine way forward. Indeed, the solutions are pretty obvious and should reside within the heads of the team captain and coach. And, lest we forget, Pakistan's World Cup prospects were shining bright after the first three one-day internationals in England.

To my mind, it is too late to start talking of changing the coach and captain, it will be suicidally late after the West Indies series. Pakistan's best chance is to stick with the leadership combination that had lifted it to the top three in both forms of the game. One nuance might have been to appoint Younis Khan as one-day captain, indeed it is something I advocated, but after some wonky decisions before and during the one-day series coupled with a drop in form, it has to be best for Ashraf to sit down with Bob and Inzy and say: "You're the men for this important mission. You have my confidence. Tell me your plan and let's implement it." Younis's time will come.

Great leadership is all about appointing people with skill and trusting them to deliver for you. It isn't about undermininig their authority by running a pointless national roadshow on how those guys might do their jobs better, which is what it will inevitably turn out to be.

The PCB only has to read the views of fans to know what the solutions are, and they are not very different from the ones people like Imran Khan have been peddling for years. A competitive, regional domestic game. A properly functioning national academy (not one that is closed down almost before it has started). A professional, independent cricket board. And a mindset that says let's dump dead tracks and let's prepare some that are full of life and bounce. If they can be produced in Mohali there can be no excuse in Lahore.

And perhaps a novel idea: Let's put some faith in the ideas of the experts we have hired. Why not act on Bob Woolmer's calls for concrete pitches to prepare our batsmen against bouncy tracks? Why not act on proposals that the PCB has received for long term planning and development of Pakistan cricket? Why not support our players, captain, and coach in public (whatever the private reservations) rather than spreading silly stories about their nocturnal activities, religious orthodoxy, and holidays? When this is how the world of Pakistan cricket works it makes me conclude that some of the influential people running it (and I suspect they are still in post) would rather act out their own petty prejudices than create something of beauty that would bring joy to millions.

For let's be clear, the failure of Mohali, and Old trafford, and Perth, is not the failure of a player, captain, or coach. It is the failure of a whole system--and one that has always got away with it because of the talents of those players, captains, and coaches who have served it over the years. If Nasim Ashraf really wants to make a mark, he should stop the nurturers and the servents of that failed system from getting away with it any more. It's clear that the people that really matter, the fans, will not tolerate it any more.