"It comes as no surprise that the world's cricket boards haven't supported Malcolm Speed's principled stance" © Getty Images

As Malcolm Speed departs the stage I finally find myself agreeing with him. Financial irregularities are a cardinal sign of corruption, and while corruption has many tentacles each poisonous limb has to be amputated at every opportunity. The affairs of Zimbabwe and the poverty of its people are dismal enough without the international cricket community tacitly endorsing financial irregularities in Zimbabwe's cricket board.

The case for playing cricket against Zimbabwe is tenuous enough, it becomes almost unsustainable if there is no financial probity.

It should, however, come as no surprise that the world's cricket boards have not supported Speed's principled stand--and if early reports are to be believed it is indeed that. How many of the other cricket boards have financial skeletons in their bookkeeping cupboards?

I can name one. Guess who? Only this week Pakistani newspapers have been running pieces on how the Pakistan Cricket Board failed to disclose salary payments to its Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Marketing Director, and Director of Human Resources on its payroll. The financial officer and another finance department worker have resigned.

In my role as chief executive of a company, I find it incredible that the salaries of any staff, let alone such senior directors, have not appeared on the organization's payroll. You would not excuse this practice from a small business, coming from a major national and international organization it is an absolute disgrace from which the chief executive and chief operating officer cannot be extricated.

With money sloshing about international cricket as never before this is a time for the ICC and the Pakistani government respectively to take a firm stand. The ICC looks to be failing its test on Zimbabwe. The Pakistani government must ensure that the PCB is not allowed to wriggle out of this one either. I have no problem with cricket officials being well paid as long as they execute their roles in a deserving manner and their payments are transparent. At present, it would be hard to argue that Zimbabwe and Pakistan cricket officials are succeeding in either way. The other cricket boards should be ashamed too.

	Nasim Ashraf has chosen to sue Shoaib Akhtar for his comments to a private television channel © AFP

Some of Shoaib's retaliatory comments might have hurt. They might have even crossed the line of what is fair, decent, and lawful but leading any organisation, especially a high profile one, requires a healthy dose of judgment and wisdom. By choosing to sue Shoaib for a multi-million dollar payout, Ashraf has confirmed that he has neither in sufficient supply to head a nationally important organisation.

Indeed, instead of him suing Shoaib, the many millions of people around the world who hold Pakistan cricket dear might feel justified in a legal action against Ashraf for damaging the reputation of Pakistan cricket. This farce has become an international joke. The patron of Pakistan cricket has to bring this stupidity to an end. Earlier this week, I said--with irony--way to go Dr Ashraf. I'll amend that to: Time to go.

	A five-year ban will almost certainly end Shoaib's Pakistan career © AFP

Few careers could have finished more often than Shoaib Akhtar's. Ironically, this end is probably the least deserved. A five-year ban for breaching the code of conduct of a cricket board that fails to demonstrate any high standards of its own is farcical. Pakistan's cricket board has lost all perspective if it believes this ban to be reasonable. A five-year ban will certainly end Shoaib's international career and, if it does that, the blame will rest as much with the cricket board's mismanagement as it does with Shoaib's unprofessionalism. This is another sad day for Pakistan cricket, which is now firmly establishing itself as an irrelevance on the international stage. Bravo Dr Ashraf and Co. Way to go.

	Pakistan have little international cricket over the next year, at the end of which Hair's contract runs out © Ian Jacobs / Cricinfo Ltd

It is the time of year for resurrections and Darrell Hair has risen again to delight his supporters and spread fear and anger among his enemies. What Hair's rehabilitation programme involved requires greater explanation from the ICC? But the decision to reinstate him has certainly reinforced the persecutory complex of Pakistan cricket.

I am sure Hair's reinstatement will be justified by some high principle but there is an alternative explanation. Hair is a habitual litigant. Pakistan have little international cricket over the next year, at the end of which Hair's contract runs out. From an employer's perspective it is far cleaner and more convenient to let the contract run its natural course instead of spending the next few years fighting a nasty legal case.

Any self-respecting CEO--be he a Speed or a Patel- would prefer the exit of least litigation. Mr Hair's return to elite umpiring, therefore, is more cop-out than conspiracy.

	Cricket Australia has failed to ensure the viability of the international tours programme, which is an abdication of leadership from the world's strongest cricket country © Getty Images

The fate of Australia's tour to Pakistan is sealed--or postponed as we are supposed to believe. I've already said my piece on why Australia should have toured Pakistan, and that argument still holds. Just ask Geoff Lawson, who has underlined the folly of the approach adopted by his fellow countrymen.

Ultimately, tours are the responsibility of the respective cricket boards. Cricket Australia has failed to ensure the viability of the international tours programme, which is an abdication of leadership from the world's strongest cricket country. As the general security situation in our world continues to deteriorate perhaps cricket will become extinct as countries refuse tours for unrelated risks? A truly global sport requires a stronger spine and broader vision.

The PCB is not blameless either. While Dr Ashraf and Co will state how powerless they are in the face of Cricket Australia's irrational decision, the decline of Pakistan cricket over this decade, both in performance and as spectacle, are contributory factors--although they never will be surfaced.

There is no value in a blindly patriotic defence of the PCB's position. Cricket is Pakistan's most important sport and public entertainment. Yet the PCB, through a combination of poor judgment and dubious ethics, has turned Pakistan cricket and the international team into something of a sideshow on the international stage. Some of this outcome is caused by distorted international perception but a major contributor is the chronic maladministration of cricket in Pakistan.

This is the latest in a long succession of wake-up calls for the PCB. Cricket in Pakistan needs urgent revival but it is not clear that the men in charge are fit to administer the shock therapy that is required.

	Why should cricket boards order you to play in IPL but punish you for choosing ICL? © Cricinfo Ltd

Consider me a Luddite but I'm getting rather fed up with this proliferation of cricket leagues. ICL, IPL, what the hell? However you look at it, these pantomimes are doing little more than milking the cash cow of cricket's popularity in India.

At some point, probably not too dissimilar to the point in last year's World Cup when most people stopped caring less, people in India--yes even India--will stop caring less. The advertisers, promoters, sponsors, and deal fixers will have to dream up a new concept. In fact, I've stopped caring less about these tournaments already, except for a mild curiosity about the prospects of the band of Pakistani rejects, better known as the Lahore Badshahs.

We should care, of course, because other than the glaring error of a stupid greed-inspired excess of cricket, there is a sinister element to this drama that we mustn't stop complaining about.

The obscene spectacle of cricket boards dictating to players about which league they can or cannot participate in has rightly been identified as an unfair restriction of trade. Why should cricket boards order you to play in IPL but punish you for choosing ICL? Why should a cricket board ban you from playing domestic cricket in your own country or any other country if you decided to trot out for the ICL?

The Pakistan Cricket Board, for example, has developed a myopic approach that seeks to prevent its cricketers from gaining experience in any domestic tournament other than its own miserable leagues and the fatuous IPL.

The cartel created by the cricket boards is an abuse of power. The arguments used to favour IPL and restrict cricketers if they disobey are simply the demoralising gestures of arrogant bullies. But you can't expect the ICC to help cricket boards see the light since cricket's governing body has such a restrictive attitude towards its own events, right down to dictating which brand of God's own water spectators are allowed to consume.

Indeed, this preference for the "official" IPL is a complete contradiction to the league's commercial aspirations. A true market perspective would allow both leagues to compete and allow the winner to be judged by the public. Instead, we have the dismal sight of the world's cricket boards justifying, enforcing, and licking their lips over the IPL monopoly while they condemn ICL as unnecessary, threatening, and illegal.

I am a big fan of Twenty20 cricket. I greatly enjoy the spectacle of cricket in India. But not like this. World Series Cricket propelled international cricketers towards professional salaries and rightly gave them some clout. This year's two-league circus is an exercise in corporate clout and shameless money-grabbing.

It is far too easy to wax lyrical about the noble spirit of cricket but the ICL/IPL fiasco is bringing out the worst in our modern game.

	© Getty Images

Dear Aussies,

We hear you swim with sharks yet you cannot walk the same earth as 160 million of your fellow men and women? Pakistan may be a country demonised by the world and dubbed a basket case by the world's media yet the ground reality is something very different.

Pakistan is a country struggling with its identity like many emerging countries--how to resolve Islam with the modern world?--but it is not a dangerous place, certainly not for international cricketers. Benazir Bhutto's death was a tragedy but a political assassination has no significance for Australians.

Many countries have toured Pakistan since your last refusal and all their players have returned home safely. Indeed, cricket is held in such esteem that it is equally loved by young women in designer shades and old men with unkempt beards. All the religious men I have ever met in Pakistan have loved cricket and relished the challenge of Australia.

Hence, your refusal seems strange to me, borne of a mental caricature of a country that bears no relationship with the "risks" that you will face. To me, this smacks of cultural imperialism, an unwillingness to properly understand and engage with the reality of a much poorer country.

Instead you wallow in the splendour of your rich world lifestyles. This whole approach is against the spirit of cricket, a game that has helped bridge social and political divisions and conflicts.

I fail to understand the risks you perceive you will be exposed to? As I have argued before, these risks are far smaller than driving a fast car, crossing the road, swimming with sharks or any of the extreme sports you are famous for indulging in. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured on the cricket field throughout the world while no cricketer has ever come to harm during Pakistan's "troubles".

Failing all that, if you do fear the bombers of Karachi more than the bombers of London, Colombo, or Mumbai then please stay at home but you should allow braver, hungrier, and more realistic cricketers to go in your place.

Surely the answer for Cricket Australia is to assemble a team of the willing and honour its commitment to international cricket? The alternative is an international game that becomes increasing divided by false fears into a game of the rich and poor. Cricket has always had greater significance than most sports, and your attitude does this great game a monumental disservice.

	The removal of Steve Bucknor from the Perth Test is a crushing defeat for the ICC © AFP

If historians ever want to mark the period when power in cricket shifted to South Asia then this is it. Just over a year ago Pakistan clashed with Darrell Hair, now India have done battle with umpire and match referee. Both Test matches might have been lost by the complainant but they recorded landmark off-field victories.

Any Pakistan fan will have considerable empathy with the plight of Indians. They believe their team to be victims of fundamental injustices and they are unwilling to tolerate a slur on their reputation. Pride matters more than the result.

Yet there are two issues we must not forget in the mayhem.

First, while it might be almost impossible to judge the veracity of the charge against Harbhajan Singh--is one man's word better than the other's?--calling a fellow cricketer a "monkey" goes way beyond sledging. It is a racist term and cannot be excused. I'm afraid that South Asians are as likely to be as racist as any another population group. It is a sad fact and we must accept it and condemn it. My sincere hope is that Harbhajan was misheard. An appeal seems a fair resolution at this stage.

Second, removing Steve Bucknor from the Perth Test is a crushing defeat for the ICC. Umpires make mistakes. If we strive for perfection then all decisions should be deferred to and made in consultation with the third umpire. If we value the unpredictability of human error in cricket then we must point out but tolerate Bucknor's errors. Either way, Bucknor did not force a Test match to be abandoned--Hair's failing--he is the latest in a long line of umpires to have inadvertently encouraged a result. Either way, ICC has set a worrying precedent by bowing to Indian pressure.

The process of South Asian, and especially Indian, rule in international cricket has taken some time to reach a conclusion but it has today. Just as the days of English and Australian governance of cricket called out for some balancing power, the dominance of the South Asians requires a similar counterweight.

This week's events are lamentable for any overtones of racism, just as they are lamentable for any overtones of corporate bullying. My greatest regret, however, is that the ICC has failed to develop systems of governance that prevent the hegemonic rule of one or two powers. In this the ICC is replicating the failings of almost every known international organisation. It is a giant stride towards irrelevance.

	This is a spirited South African team, which has outplayed Pakistan ever since it arrived © AFP

The bomb that greeted Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan was a tragedy for the people who died and their families. A cricket tour seems of minor importance when placed against the scale of death in Karachi but it was inevitable that it would be reassessed.

A bombing outside the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi once brought a premature end to a New Zealand tour, an unsurprising outcome since the team was staying at the hotel. More recently, South Africa abandoned a tour of Sri Lanka after a bombing in Colombo. Hence South Afirca might have been expected to return home, but their decision to stay is a triumph of good sense.

The bomb blast was highly targeted and to assume that the South Africans are now suddenly at greater risk is not logical. It would have been easy for the South Africans to curtail their tour and disappoint Pakistan cricket fans. Yet this is a spirited South African team, which has outplayed Pakistan ever since it arrived. The bubble of success must help but, whatever the reason, South Africa's players and administrators must be congratulated for their decision to see the tour through. The last thing that Pakistan requires at this moment of violent turmoil is international isolation.

	The Indian Cricket League offers the first real challenge to the official cricket structure since Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket © AFP

The Indian Cricket League offers the first real challenge to the official cricket structure since Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket. Compared with Packer's intergalactic venture, the ICL has begun with a minor constellation of international stars most of whom are Pakistani. WSC was fiercely resisted too but it helped international cricket develop quickly and improved the pay of top cricketers.

ICL will require more big stars if it is to have the same impact, and this is where the Indian and Pakistani cricket boards are applying thumbscrews. Players are being bullied to stick to official tournaments and events because the boards fear that a rival Asian league will undermine their power and reduce their revenues.

Players should be entitled to play in whatever league they wish, be it their official domestic cricket, county cricket, or the upstart ICL. Instead we have threats of bans and penalties.

This talk of bans is posturing. When Pakistan's cricket board realised it needed its Packer rebels they were brought back with desperate haste. The same self-serving approach will surely apply to reinstating Mohammad Yousuf for Test cricket and possibly even Inzamam and Abdul Razzaq, depending on results?

In the meantime, players have the right to play in the league they find most attractive without ruling themselves out of international selection. The response of the boards is one of fear, and if they were providing players and fans with a premier service the ICL would not be a threat. Their monopolistic positions have made the Asian cricket boards lazy and complacent. That's why I'm grateful that the ICL is causing a corporate headache. I don't see how it's bothering anybody else?

	Bob Woolmer's death: The matter should be laid to rest © Getty Images

Now that the Jamaican police have reversed their verdict on Bob Woolmer's death his family can complete the mourning process. And if anybody should sue for damages it should be them, although you suspect they will have too much dignity to begin down that road.

This blog doesn't have a great record of agreeing with Nasim Ashraf and disagreeing with Imran Khan but on this occasion I say Chairman Ashraf has made the right call. While a gut reaction does urge some kind of retribution for the way Pakistan's players were publicly vilified--and the British media, even some 'thoughtful' broadsheet writers, were some of the worst--the sensible response is to let the matter rest. If nothing else then out of respect for Bob's family.

Pakistan cricket needs to move on and those writers who spent a merry few weeks publicly maligning Pakistan cricketers, their character, and their country owe Pakistan cricket an apology. But I guess that is as likely as Cricinfo being bought by Disney--oops, miracles do happen.

	How about making Shahid Afridi the vice-captain for one-dayers? © Getty Images

Despite public proclamations of unity, the Pakistan board (PCB) will have to find a way of keeping their venerable "seniors" on board. One solution to a tussle between seniors is the "Two captain strategy" (one in one-day cricket and the other in Test cricket). But the PCB has sensibly concluded Malik can do both, in which case I propose the "Two vice-captain strategy." In a nutshell, it goes something like this:

1 An age-old technique for reining in a delinquent elder is to give him some responsibility.

2 Pakistan has a few of these, so why not appoint two vice-captains?

3 Younis Khan has ruled himself out of both positions. In any case there's no point him being deputy to Malik since he has decided not to captain Pakistan. Younis's moment has gone (he remains a certainty for my Test XI though).

4 Salman Butt, the champion of the adolescent vote, has enough on his plate re-establishing himself as an international cricketer to have an extra distraction. Salman's moment is yet to come.

5 Abdul Razzaq has captained but it was a performance that helped his opponents rather than his own team. Razzaq's moment was best forgotten.

6 Shoaib Akhtar should have contaminated his chances of winning a position of responsibility just as he contaminated his blood and urine with nandrolone. Shame, he might have been a fascinating leader. Shoaib's moment is wishful thinking.

7 Shahid Afridi should be in every one-day team but he might miss the cut in Test cricket. Give the gusto of Afridi a blast. It is the moment to make him one-day vice-captain.

8 Mohammad Yousuf should be in every Test team though half an eye on the next World Cup might render him quickly irrelevant in one-day cricket. Give the lofty elegance of Yousuf another try. It is the moment to make him Test vice-captain.

9 Once a future successor (it may be a long time in the future) is identified he should take over from Yousuf as the Test vice-captain. The successor's moment is not now.

10 Oh yes. Inzamam should do a Lara, announce a farewell Test in the next home series, and watch the boys play well without him. The big man deserves a parting moment of splendour.

	Captaincy? Oh get away from me! © AFP

Pakistan's cricketers must be quite confused. One minute they are appearing before a parliamentary committee, the next it's one set up by the PCB for reasons of "performance evaluation." In between there are ad-hoc committees on television, where the multiplication of channels has spawned an orgy of pontification and inquisition about the malign state of affairs in Pakistan cricket. Oh yes, and let's not forget the burning effigies.

In the wake of all this angst Younis Khan has declined the captaincy. Nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour, as any good psychiatrist will tell you, and Younis has already shown his reluctance to take on the captaincy unless he is perfectly happy. I wonder how somebody could refuse the leadership of his country at a moment such as this? When Younis turned it down before the Champions Trophy I received an email from Bob Woolmer that described how baffled he was by Younis's behaviour. And Bob always supported Younis.

I think Younis should have taken the job if it was offered to him. As Imran Khan said, why become vice-captain in the first place? But whatever the true reasons behind this
decision at least he had the good sense to clear the air and the battle between the rest can begin. What I can say with certainty is that this isn't a problem that will be resolved by the performance evaluation committee.

Many of us have been through this movie before. When you don't know what to do but want to look proactive, form a committee. I can't remember anything good ever coming out of one of these committees, largely because they comprise people whose opinion you couldn't care less about and who don't really know what they are doing. Consequently they fail to hit the mark or be taken seriously.

The current mobile inquest, the one supposedly designated to investigate performance, has only produced one piece of wisdom (the stuff PJ Mir came out with wasn't a revelation to anybody who has observed this team closely over the last year or so), and that wisdom was produced by somebody who hasn't appeared before the committee. Shaharyar Khan, the former diplomat and chairman of the PCB, asked a simple question: Why is Salim Altaf, a key player in the World Cup debacle, now sitting in judgment upon himself?

Well said, Mr Khan. His successor Dr Ashraf mumbled some platitudes about integrity in his first major press conference since his boss refused his resignation. Integrity isn't just a word to toss around to impress your listeners with, you have to earn it through your deeds and your actions. Salim Altaf's seat on the performance evaluation committee is a bad start to this age of accountability and integrity. Indeed, his committee is a touring three-ring circus whose conclusions will be consigned to the dustbin of history like all the other committees-cum-circuses that went before it.

What a cracking start. Things can only get better, you might think. But then again, that's what Tony Blair sang a decade ago and look what he did.

	Aaqib Javed looks to be a favourite and might be worth a punt with batting and fielding coaches in support © Getty Images

1 Choose a captain on merit not hierarchy, for positive reasons not negative. When Inzamam was made captain, I asked Ramiz Raja, then CEO of the PCB, why? He replied, with a shrug of his shoulders, that Inzamam was most senior and there was nobody else. Let's not make that mistake again (in other words don't appoint Mohammad Yousuf by default).

2 Choose a captain with energy, attitude, and ideas. Pakistan cricket made something of itself in the 1980s and 1990s because it adopted a positive mindset. Let's have no more lazy preparations, fearfulness, and cerebral vacancy.

3 Choose a captain who is capable of balancing his religious beliefs and his cricketing responsibilities. While Pakistan's players have every right to be as religious as they wish, they must know that their job is to win cricket matches. Nobody should be ostracised or made uncomfortable for not being as pious as the most pious member of the team. Religion, for cricketers, should be a private matter not a badge of honour.

4 Choose a coach who is dynamic and will complement the captain. The main problem identified by Bob Woolmer was the inability of Pakistan's players to learn. My view is that this has everything to do with the educational level of modern Pakistani cricketers. They don't need to be university graduates, of course, but a certain level of education would better equip them to learn in all areas of life. Bob's style was a gentle word here and a friendly nudge there but both the young undercooked and the old overcooked stars probably require some more direct advice.

5 Choose a coach who played no longer ago than in the last decade. Let's prefer new thinking over old.

6 Choose a coach and captain who are both untainted by the match-fixing controversy. Inzamam and Mushtaq Ahmed were both criticised by Judge Qayyum. Inzamam's statement that he was unaware of Qayyum's recommendations about Mushtaq is either a grand deception or jaw-dropping negligence. Let's make integrity an important criterion for selection of the captain and coach.

7 Choose long-term success over short-term gains. The pressure to succeed is huge but after such a dismal failure expectations will be low. Now is the time to patiently build a team to win the next World Cup and not get in a sweat of desperation about winning the next tournament in Malaysia.

8 Choose wisely 1: Although candidates are few in both areas, the potential to get it wrong is huge. The obvious choice for captain is Younis Khan but his first outing has made most people rather nervous that he might have flattered to deceive and doesn't quite have the good sense that a captain requires. His reported reluctance to take on the job doesn't bode well. A true leader would seize the captaincy and vow to pull everybody in line. Alternatively, Mohammad Yousuf is the wrong personality to lead, which only leaves Shoaib Malik and Shahid Afridi as contenders. Malik's time will come but Afridi would be an intriguing gamble.

9 Choose wisely 2: The list of genuine contenders for the coaching slot is even more limited. Imran Khan has promoted Aaqib Javed, whose record with the U19s is impressive. Intikhab Alam, the coach in Imran's era, has been tipped for the job but is surely out of his time? Mudassar Nazar has been mentioned in dispatches but his last stint was a flop. You can bet that Javed Miandad, another former coach, will be fancying a return. Assuming only Pakistanis will be interested after Bob Woolmer's death, two others worth considering are Rashid Latif and Abdul Qadir, who both run cricket academies. This is a tough one. How do you follow Bob? Indeed what's the rush? Aaqib looks to be favourite and might be worth a punt with batting and fielding coaches in support.

10 Choose in haste, repent at leisure. As I said, what's the rush? Pakistan's schedule is barren for the next few months, some nonsense called a Performance Evaluation Committee has already been created in haste and is conducting a haphazard mock-trial, and the shock of defeat and death is raw in the minds of players, management, and administrators. It would be best for the new appointments to be made in consultation with the new national selectors, since the current lot have tendered their resignations. But that degree of co-ordination would be asking too much.

	Nasim Ashraf has had a forgettable tenure so far © Getty Images

Today we hear that Mushy, the president not the assistant coach, has not accepted the resignation of his pal Nasim Ashraf. This is a diabolical decision. Ashraf has presided over the most disastrous period in the history of Pakistan cricket. Blessed by failure he is being asked to continue and finish the job. God help us. The job he gave the impression of performing was the destruction of Pakistan cricket.

Following the lead of his own boss, President Mushy, he appointed his own pals and acquaintances to key PCB positions. No wonder Pakistan cricket is in a mess.

Ashraf has presided over the dumb reign of Younis Khan as "dummy" captain, the doping fiasco, Waqar's dismissal and the horse-trading that lead to Mushy the coach being appointed, the injury and selection chaos, the unfettered power of Inzamam and the sidelining of Woolmer (on this I quote Bob: "Since the resignation of the last Chairman any views I have had have not been wanted! The new Chairman certainly has his own way"), and a failure to deliver the constitution that he solemnly promised.

What's more he has annoyed the team and management by hanging out with them on tour like some sort of star-struck groupie, worse still a groupie who has got involved with team matters. In short, I hold him responsible for orchestrating this disaster.

President Mushy's decision does make sense from one viewpoint, however. Pakistan has too long tolerated power without responsibility. If Ashraf were to be seen to be taking responsibility for his cock-ups then the president, in his position of patron of Pakistan cricket, might have to accept some responsibility too. Now we couldn't have that could we?

A while ago I said it wasn't time to abandon hope. I never abandon hope but when it comes to Pakistan cricket I've never felt closer to it.

	The cricket has finished but the controversies haven't for Pakistan © Getty Images

1 I know Bob. I find it difficult to believe that he is racist, even if he is would he call somebody a "Blackie"? The only people I've ever heard use that word I'm afraid are people from South Asia. It reminds of the time I was done for a driving offence and the policemen read out a statement that he said he had taken from me which used language I knew I would never use.

2 I know the sports editor of Dawn. I find it difficult to believe that he would publish a piece without something to back it up. The quality of Dawn's sports pages has improved no end over the last eight months or so.

3 I wonder then about Dawn's sources and assume that there can't be many people who were privy to that conversation and could state with conviction - genuine or not - that a racist remark was made. If the source turns out to be unreliable or untrustworthy then Dawn better apologise, and quickly.

4 To accuse a national coach of making a racist remark to one of his players is a most serious allegation. It is the kind of allegation that means at least one head will roll, the person who made the remark or the source of the claim, assuming that it has to be somebody inside the Pakistan camp.

5 It's also time that another head rolled. The shambles in Pakistan cricket has become a national disgrace. Who will take responsibility? Dr Ashraf or Mr Altaf? Perhaps one or both of them? It's time gentlemen. But guess what? I bet neither of them do.

Darrell Hair is at it again. Creating a fuss, drawing attention to himself, and generally displaying the indignation of the most righteous man in the world of cricket. But self-righteous is the word that best describes Mr Hair, because the majority of people do not share his view of how we was treated.

Anybody who was involved with events at The Oval knows that Mr Hair was the man responsible for the ball-tampering verdict against Pakistan, Mr Hair was the man who stopped the match from being resumed despite requests from cricket boards and the ICC, and it was Mr Hair who was the senior umpire taking responsibility for the decision-making.

Indeed Mr Hair has upset the Pakistan team with his arrogant manner prior to The Oval, as well as angering India and Sri Lanka. For Mr Hair to now claim that he was the victim of racism is a further affront to the people he has already offended.

Perhaps I should sue Mr Hair for racism? At the press conference following last year's ball-tampering hearing he refused to answer a question I put to him but answered the same question when asked by a white journalist. Frankly, Mr Hair's obnoxious attitude towards me didn't bother me in the slightest, by contrast it was highly revealing. Indeeed, several senior journalists came up to me afterwards to make this very point.

There comes a time when you should draw a line under events, accept where you went wrong, and move on. It's too simplistic to say that Mr Hair had a good record for getting umpiring decisions right. That becomes meaningless when you have a track record of handling major issues badly.

Mr Hair deserved the judgement he received from the ICC, and I'm sure I'm not alone in growing tired of his self-righteousness.

	'Dr Nasim Ashraf promised: "By the start of the new year, I want the board to turn a new leaf and work under the new constitution." Where is it?' © AFP

Now is the time for anguish, pain, inquisition. When cricketers underperform we see their sins laid before us, especially if we've managed to acquire ourselves a high-definition widescreen television. Yet it's the men who scurry around in the shadows that worry me. Most Pakistan supporters had hoped for a regime that would stabilise the international team. Events have conspired against the current cricket board, of course, but the last few months have produced more questions than answers. Here are some issues that are troubling me:

1 Dr Nasim Ashraf promised: "By the start of the new year, I want the board to turn a new leaf and work under the new constitution." Where is it?

2 He also said: "We intend to plan for it [the World Cup] in detail. I am fully intent on making the selection process foolproof." Hmm, perhaps "approved by fools" would have been more accurate? The handling of Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmed, Azhar Mahmood, and Shahid Afridi, for example, could hardly be interpreted as foolproof.

3 Waqar Younis. An enlightening exchange between Salim Altaf, director of PCB operations, and Waqar on GEO television was a public relations triumph for Waqar. Altaf, who revealed himself to be a man mired in bureaucracy and unwilling to address Waqar's complaints directly or in detail, implied that Waqar had been employed by the board for just under a year without any appraisal or review of his performance. Shameful management, I'd say. No wonder then that Waqar's role drifted so far from his original job description to render it irrelevant. Yet Altaf clung to that original job description as if variation from it was impossible and used it to justify the board's final treatment of Waqar.

My view is that the board handled Waqar's ouster in a crass and insulting manner. By Waqar's own admission, Bob Woolmer and Inzamam-ul Haq both preferred to have Mushtaq Ahmed as assistant coach. But on the evidence of the first two crash-wallop games in South Africa, Pakistan's fast bowlers are going backwards rather than forwards.

Indeed, to say that Waqar would not be useful for one-day games is mindboggling for Pakistan supporters who saw him become one of the greatest one-day bowlers ever, particularly in pressure situations. Not just that, he was a pioneer.

4 Mushtaq Ahmed. I want to understand how one minute Justice Qayyum's inquiry can be used as one of the reasons to keep Mushtaq out of the coaching set up but is then conveniently forgotten a few months later? Where's the intergity in that about turn?

5 Appointments by acquaintance. It's not always wise to protest too much. The PCB has got into a peculiar habit of refuting criticism by penning rebuttals in newspapers. One such rebuttal denied a charge of nepotism in appointments at the board and refuted an earlier piece published in Dawn, Pakistan's most highly-respected newspaper.

I made some inquiries of my own and discovered that senior Pakistani journalists are convinced Ahsan Malik, the new head of media at the PCB, is closely related to Nasim Ashraf. Malik was one of the first appointments by Ashraf's regime. Now my view is that it is fine to appoint a relative provided they happen to be the best person for the job. Unfortunately, the jury is out on Malik. And now that the board has publicly denied this relationship--in a piece curiously penned by Malik himself--it has got itself into a potentially disastrous situation. The disaster would be this: If the two are indeed related, which senior journalists insist that they are, then I do not see how either of them can remain in post having denied that they are related to each other?

To add to the sequence of doubtful recruitments, the PCB appointed PJ Mir, a friend of both Ashraf and President Musharraf, as its media manager for the World Cup.

Where's the independence in these appointments? Not much if critics are to be believed.

6 One of the latest media brainwaves is for the PCB to help newspapers send journalists on foreign tours by introducing a "cost-sharing" scheme. Excuse me, in case I've forgotten how journalism works, but anything that compromises the independence of those journalists is unacceptable. In a poor country like Pakistan, he who pays the piper really does call the tune. Most journalists in Pakistan do not enjoy the power, freedom, or the pay of their colleagues in richer countries, and the PCB's initiative is not one of liberation but of media management.

7 With each new PCB regime we are promised merit, ethics, and transparency. Nasim Ashraf's is no different. He also said he wanted to be judged by performances and not mere words. Well, I'm afraid that both the words and performances are causing concern.

Pakistan fans, who care passionately about their favourite game, want some answers. This is not just about the World Cup--although it partly is--but it is about something far deeper in Pakistani society: Whether or not we can trust our major institutions?

If the PCB were to address these concerns I would be delighted to share its responses here. Don't hold your breath though, this is a cricket board already with much to answer.

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.

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.

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.

This has been a great debate on Younis Khan’s volte face, and it is clear that people on all sides of the debate are genuinely concerned about the future of Pakistan cricket and unwilling for the cricket board to be anything less than professional.

It is also clear that Younis had tremendous support to become Inzamam’s successor and he has created serious doubts among many of his supporters about his fitness to lead Pakistan. But there remains much good will towards Younis and I share that.

He has always lead Pakistan well and usually struck me as a composed, brave, and jovial character. Let’s hope his hasty resignation—which I still maintain was a dumb way to register his protest—is a moment of madness that will not be repeated. But as I learned when I worked as a psychiatrist, “nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour.”

As for the PCB, it’s hard to harbour any conviction about its fitness for purpose. We will have to judge the new leadership by its deeds and already the decision-making has polarised opinion. Talat Ali has added to concerns by getting off to a bad start—at least Zaheer Abbas knew which player was which. And Younis not knowing that Inzamam would not be available for the final, if Pakistan makes it, was another managerial gaffe.

Finally—before we move on as many of you have rightly suggested—Younis Khan is being freely compared to Imran Khan in his leadership and his desire to do it his way. Well, Imran showed his real strength when he had also shown that he was an indispensable captain of Pakistan. Younis has some way to go before he matches Imran as a leader. Indeed, he isn’t even yet the proper captain, let alone indispensable. History rarely looks favourably on nearly men.

PS I think we’ve had enough comment on this one.

What on earth is Younis Khan up to? © AFP

Last week was climactic even for Pakistan.

We now have a board chairman (Nasim Ashraf—I'm humble enough to drop the title Dr, why isn't he?) who is a pal of General Musharaf. Anything else going for him?

We have a captain (Younis Khan) who behaved in the most inexplicable manner in resigning unceremoniously one minute and snatching the crown once Shaharyar Khan had gone—and don't be kidded by his supporters who suggest this was some kind of ingenious brinkmanship.

What Younis Khan did was dumb, dumb, dumb.

We have an ex-Asian Bradman and ex-team manager (Zaheer Abbas) blaming Inzamam for the Oval fiasco when I know the PCB hierarchy present did at the very least tacitly support the protest.

And we have a great county cricketer and one-time great international cricketer (Mushtaq Ahmed) dumped from being assistant coach because he is a pal of Inzamam's. The excuse that Mushy wasn't entirely cleared by Justice Qayyum is a red herring: Mushy's done the job before and if Qayyum didn't want him involved in Pakistan cricket he should have banned him like he did Salim Malik.

I can understand Mushy's anger. You don't hire somebody and then fire him before he's had a chance to show his worth. Is everyone that Inzy likes out, and everyone that Younis likes in? That's the kind of nonsense Pakistan cricket needs to get away from. This dramatic decision-making leads me to worry about Nasim Ashraf. I hope I'm wrong.

Younis Khan's ill-judged resignation leads me to worry about him too. And that's where I definitely hope I'm wrong—I've always thought he'd make a great captain. But all that he has achieved so far is put the heat on his captaincy in the Champions Trophy.

The question is will he fly or fry?