With the start of the International Cricket Council (ICC) Champions Trophy yesterday in India, the opening match of the tournament being the qualifier played between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, many questions have been raised relating to the teams participating on how they will perform, who's the favourite and who's not, will the minnows face the music against their mighty opponents or will this be the time yet again that the favourites will come down to earth as it happened in the previous version of the tournament.

Australia, obviously, enter the tournament being the favourites to win the Champions Trophy though they haven't ever lifted the coveted Cup in four previous attempts and the Champions Trophy triumph will surely add more glitter to their already impressive trophies collection.

Other teams who have already qualified for the tournament according to recent world rankings -- world no.2 South Africa who won the first edition of the tournament in 1998, the struggling England side in the one-dayers who will try to bring their Test form into One-day Internationals (ODI), the underrated New Zealand side who have lift the trophy once in 2000 and are surely in contention this time around as well and the hosts India who in their own backyard are very always tough to beat and shared the trophy with Sri Lanka in the 2002 edition -- have all come into the tournament being well prepared and have a good chance of making it pass the group stages into the semifinals.

The rest of the teams involved in the tournament -- the almighty West Indies who are the defending champions as well, the 1996 World Cup winners Sri Lanka and the minnows Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have a tough road to make it into the main stages of the tournament -- all have to fight against each other in the qualifiers.

This sums up the details of the teams except Pakistan participating in the tournament but what about Pakistan's chances in the biennial tournament which is the second biggest tournament in world cricket after the World Cup and will act as a warm-up tournament for the World Cup which is to be held in the Caribbean next year in March?.

The England tour of Pakistan which started in July against county side Leicestershire and ended on September 10th with a one-dayer at Edgbaston was the one to forget. The Pakistan side who went into the series with a reputation of overwhelming favourites at least to win the one-day series were humbled out 3-0 in four-Test match series having the last Test match forfeited and awarded against them after one of the biggest controversies in world cricket occurred when Australian umpire Darrell Hair put on ball-tampering charges against the Pakistan side at The Oval during the fourth day of the match and awarded five runs to England.

The Pakistan team in reaction refused to take the field because the felt they didn't do any thing wrong which was proved later that they were right, which resulted in umpires forfeiting the match, the first time in the history of Test cricket, and the match was awarded to England then.

Though the ball-tampering charges against the Pakistan side, which their captain Inzamam-ul-Haq had to face, were cleared against them because the ICC didn't have any proof against, Inzamam was banned for four one-dayers, the reason he had brought the game into disrepute. The first controversy Pakistan faced this year, The Oval Test controversy, resulted in their captain's ban and still the man who alleged Inzamam and his team of wrongdoing, Hair, went away free of any charges and still hasn't faced any sort of ban or something.

This said, Inzamam is to miss on the ICC Champions Trophy matches provided Pakistan reaches the final and he is selected to play. Now the question arises are other controversies waiting for Pakistan ahead? And I'll say there might be!

On Thursday, Younis Khan, who has captained on four previous occasions -- two each both in Test and one-dayers -- and was announced captain of the Pakistan team for the ICC Champions Trophy in place of Inzamam due to his ICC ban refused to captain the team in dramatic conditions two days before the team was to leave for India.

Provided that, the team who already will miss the mastery of Inzamam-ul-Haq in this very important tournament and had to fit young Faisal Iqbal in his place might well miss Younis too if the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) reacts to his decision of standing down as Pakistan team captain at this critical moment.

The reasons haven't been clarified yet but Younis has said that he doesn't want to be a dummy captain. Some reports around the team for Younis's standing down as the team captain also reveal that he wasn't happy on Faisal Iqbal's inclusion in the team in place of Inzamam ahead of the Champions Trophy.

Quiet a weird statement this seems that the person who has all the authority to make amendments and changes in the team can be a dummy too or he can be unhappy on one brilliant talent's inclusion in the team. Only time will tell though but whatever the reason there is, it surely will hurt only Pakistan's ambition and preparation for the event.

Talking to the reporters, Younis Khan even said, "I am leaving the captaincy. Whether I am made captain for four or six matches I am not willing to be captain and no one should ask me any questions." Now this isn't the way to talk to the reporters in a press conference and to the whole nation when the supporters and enthusiasts of the game are expecting some words of encouragement ahead of an important tournament from the leader of the side and the thing they hear is that the captain has stand down from his post and haven't provided the reason either.

The Pakistan cricket team coach Bob Woolmer has been saddened by the news of Younis standing down from his post but he didn't confirm the reason that Younis's refusal was disagreement over the selection of Faisal Iqbal in place of Inzamam, though he assures that he himself will remain at his post. "I am saddened by Younis's resignation and having known him for two years and having a good relationship with him I think he would have a number of personal reasons for his decision," he said.

"Younis would be in a better position to tell everyone and the PCB is dealing with the affair and we hope to have the matter resolved soon," said Woolmer, who took over as coach in July 2004. "I will continue to coach Pakistan and this matter is out of my domain," he added.

Another twist that might occur in the Pakistan tale is the threat imposed by a Hindu group which has threatened to prevent Pakistan from playing in the Champions Trophy. A right-wing Hindu party Shiv Sena, as they have done on previous occasions, have yet again threatened to disrupt the tournaments activities if Pakistan is to play in the tournament.

The major threat called up by the party can be surely expected if Pakistan reaches the final of the ICC Champions Trophy which will be played in Mumbai, which is the stronghold of Shiv Sena. Although the Indian security authorities have assured that there won't be any sort of trouble or disturbance during the phase of the whole tournament and they will provide high-security to the Pakistan team whether they are to play in the final in Mumbai or at their group matches venues in Mohali and Jaipur, only time will tell if this threat will lead up to any other controversy for the Pakistan team.

Hopefully there won't be any bad news or controversies for Pakistan, but even if there are, better for Pakistan -- at least they'll reach the Champions Trophy final then but the loss of Younis as the team captain will surely affect Pakistan's chances for the tournament.

Nobody can ignore the importance of statistics and records in sports particularly in a game like cricket. It won't be wrong if we say that the updated statistics, records and the act of chasing landmarks are as important for cricket as a lifeline for being live.

Since the 5th Champions Trophy also known as the 'Mini World Cup' has already begun yesterday with a qualifying match between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh at Mohali, India, we will discuss only ODI records and feats in this write-up. Cricket followers would see dozens of records being broken and as many feats being achieved during the 27-day mega event.

Once the landmarks like 253 wickets of Kapil Dev, Desmond Haynes's 17 ODI centuries and over 8000 runs seemed to be the biggest records but in the new Millennium, Pakistan's Wasim Akram, India's Sachin Tendulkar and many other cricketers bettered the previous records in such a way that took one-day cricket to new heights. Wasim's half thousand wickets in the shorter version of the game, Inzamam-ul-Haq's grand world record of 83 half centuries and Indian batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar's 40 ODI centuries and 14370 runs are such massive landmarks that many cricketers can only dream of.

In the recent past, the mountain of 400 runs has been conquered three times including the grandest chase by the spirited South Africans against the mighty Australians, in quick succession. This journey will continue with no end in sight. Cricket lovers will definitely see someone crossing the mark of 400 One-day Internationals in the coming months. Most probably again Sachin Tendulkar could be the first one to have this honour.

In the on-going Champions Trophy event, several cricketers of different nations are expected to cross different kinds of milestones including some world records. A rare world record is awaiting New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming. Fleming needs just three matches to leave former Sri Lankan Arjuna Ranatunga behind in the race of most matches as captain. Currently Fleming is at number two with 191 ODIs as captain.

The stylish left-hander is also on the brink of completing his fifty of sixes. He requires just one shot over the rope for this distinction.

Sachin Tendulkar, who made his presence felt at his comeback last month with a whirlwind century against the West Indies at Kuala Lumpur, is certain to grab another world record in India's first match of the on-going Champions Trophy on October 15. Currently, Sachin is bracketed with Pakistan captain Inzamam, who is serving a four-match ICC ban in the wake of ball-tampering fiasco at The Oval in August last, with 367 ODI appearances apiece.

Indian captain Rahul Dravid is also nearing a similar landmark. He needs just three games to complete his triple century of ODIs. He will be the eighth cricketer of the world to play 300 or more ODI games.

Sri Lankan Sanath Jayasuriya, who enters the Champions Trophy with 364 caps, is also likely to overtake Inzamam in the race of most one-day caps. In the elite event, the ageing but impressive Jayasuriya can achieve another notable distinction of 1000 runs in a calendar year. He needs to score another 115 runs to grab this honour.

Sri Lanka's in-form captain Mahela Jayawardene, who enters the Champions Trophy with 5917 runs career total, requires another 83 runs to gain the 6000 runs magic figure. Jayawardene can also complete his 1000 runs in the year 2006 after scoring just 41 runs. Mahela's deputy Kumar Sangakkara, who has scored 1048 runs so far in the on-going calendar year, is also 26 runs away from his 5000 runs mark.

West Indian captain Brian Lara needs only 179 runs to complete his 10,000 runs in ODIs. He also requires only one hundred to join the elite 20-century club. Former West Indian skipper Shivnarine Chanderpaul can also score his 6000th run in the event. At the moment, his aggregate is 5846 in 196 games.

Pakistan wicket-keeper/batsman Kamran Akmal is expected to complete his 1000 runs in the tournament. Kamran has scored 927 runs so far in 50 one-day games. He gathered his runs with an excellent strike rate of 86.31. All-rounder Shoaib Malik is also likely to take his 100th ODI wicket on Indian soil. He will begin Champions Trophy campaign with 98 wickets in his kitty.

Pakistan's flamboyant all-rounder Shahid Afridi can achieve double distinction in the Champions Trophy. He needs just eight wickets to complete his double century of wickets and 140 runs to join 5000 runs club.

South African all-rounder Shaun Pollock, who is just one scalp away from his 350-wicket mark, will join the fielders with 100 or catches in one-dayers after taking three more catches in the event.

New Zealand's swashbuckling all-rounder Nathan Astle can win double joy in the Champions Trophy. Astle to launch the event with 99 wickets and 6890 runs in his bag. Another New Zealander Jacob Oram is six wickets short of his 100-wicket mark. His team-mate Lou Vincent can complete his 2000 runs in ODIs in the event. At the moment he has 1867 runs.

The following players of different countries have also great opportunity to achieve their individual landmarks in the elite event. Mohammad Rafique of Bangladesh is five wickets away from his 100 wickets mark. Another Bangladeshi Rajin Saleh needs just a single to complete his 1000 runs in ODIs. England's Andrew Strauss can raise his runs tally to 2000 after scoring 153 more runs in the event.

Indian all-rounder Irfan Pathan will have to score another 78 runs to join 1000 run scorers. The premier all-rounder Jacques Kallis, who recently completed his 8000 runs and 200 wickets in both versions of the game, is also on the verge of another rare distinction. He is expected to join the 100-sixes club in the Champions Trophy. Right now he has 98 sixes in his kitty. Kallis's teammate Justin Kemp is just 24 runs away from 1000 mark.

While watching Inzamam-ul-Haq speaking publicly on the contentious issue of The Oval Test for the first time on TV the other day, one got the impression how complicated, confusing and divergent the opinions, millions of those, were, of the people associated with the game, on one hand; and how simple, clear and firm the Pakistan captain's views were on the 'Hair-raising' incident.

Many, related to the game directly or indirectly, may have way too objectionable views about Inzamam and company's reluctance to take the field after the ball-tampering allegation was imposed on them at The Oval, but the manner in which Inzamam spoke (on TV) about the significance of national dignity in this episode, it truly highlighted the genuine emotions of a group of individuals who were, after all, acquitted from the accusation on September 28. The game should not have been stopped; it's easier said than done, isn't it? In daily life our egos, or rather self-esteem, at times, doesn't allow us to accept our open mistakes, even very big mistakes, so why one expected Inzamam and his boys not to defend themselves when law as well as the principles permitted them to do so.

Inzamam's ban: while the dust hadn't settled, here came another drama. As I just started my work on this piece, there came a bombshell, not sure yet whether a mini or a 'big one'. Now what? Younis Khan, the stand-in Pakistan captain for the ICC Champions Trophy, refused to lead his team at the global event, just two days before the commencement of the extravaganza in India. "I don't want to be a dummy captain and the reason why I have refused the captaincy will be revealed afterwards," was all Younis had to say last Thursday in Lahore before leaving the press conference.

Back to the Champions Trophy. So the fifth edition of the mega event has started amid uncertainties at the Pakistan camp after Younis's surprising refusal to lead.

What are Pakistan's chances at the ICC Trophy? The heart says something very different from what the mind perceives.

With the 2007 World Cup now a few months away, the performance of the major teams in India will be of very high value. The prestigious championship will test the temperament of the top six teams in India -- Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, England, New Zealand and India, the teams that will play the main rounds directly.

This time, Pakistan will be entering the ICC Trophy challenge with a unique set of positives and negatives. A full-strength bowling attack, pretty ok middle-order batting and the (Indian) playing conditions, which are almost similar to Pakistan's, give Pakistan some advantage to fare well at the Trophy. Don't forget the dark areas please. Openers' crisis, ordinary, sometimes below ordinary fielding, Inzamam's absence, captaincy change after Younis's refusal to lead and last but not least the defensive frame of mind -- these will haunt our squad in India if proper planning is not done by the team management.

While Inzamam's absence can't be challenged, the other areas can certainly be addressed. Not much space is required for underlining the problem Pakistan now face in India in the opening batsmen's department. One can only say that Imran Farhat, Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi and Mohammad Hafeez, as many as four openers are accompanying the squad in India but no one really knows who will come out to bat against the Qualifier 1 at Jaipur on October 17! It could be any one; in fact don't rule out Kamran Akmal, Faisal Iqbal or even Abdul Razzaq!

Despite this uncertainty one feels Afridi-Malik pair would be the best possible combination Pakistan can form in the opening department, while considering the contrasting mode of play both of them adopt; still one is not sure about this arrangement, as Malik has had a very flat tour to England and Afridi hasn't opened for quite sometime, nevertheless the conditions for batting will be very favourable in India and may be, may be this pair can work for Pakistan. So we can just wait and see.

Giving batsmen like Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis, Nathan Astle, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Mahela Jayawardene, Andrew Flintoff and not to forget Michael Hussey, chances can be fatal for Pakistan. Therefore, for Pakistan, fielding must be kept top-notch which was not the case in England earlier this year.

While looking at a calm and cool Mohammad Yousuf, one can ask, "Will a 'more than composed' gentleman like Yousuf be able to combine with Abdul Razzaq, the vice-captain, in India?" With Younis seems all set to bat at number three, Yousuf will have double responsibility on his shoulders, he being the most reliable batter of the team along with Younis.

Bear in mind if Pakistan keep on bowling with a lone slip in the first ten-fifteen overs of the innings, then attacking bowlers like Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif, with a hard working Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, will suffer a lot on batting paradises in India against world's top willow holders. Pakistan must attack, which is, and has been their nature, as emphasised once again recently by Imran Khan. The same should be the mode in batting; asking Afridi, Kamran and Razzaq to remain quiet will result in drawback for Pakistan. They should be allowed to play their natural game with a reasonable degree of sense.

The Australians are coming to India for the ICC Trophy with their main strengths. With Adam Gilchrist, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath in their line-up, the Aussies, who have not succeeded in clinching the second best title after the World Cup since the first ICC event (1998), will be the top favourites for the beautiful trophy that will be claimed by the winners at Mumbai on November 5.

However, considering the current ODI form of Sri Lanka, the professional standard consistently maintained by South Africa, and New Zealand's tradition to play their top game in mega contests, it becomes very difficult to predict which team will reach the zenith this time in the ICC Trophy.

If New Zealand stunned India in the 2000 final at Nairobi, the West Indies shocked the Englishmen, who had dethroned the mighty Australians in the semifinal, at The Oval in 2004. So in the ICC Trophy it has been all luck, may be, instead of sheer performance.

With very little room to make a comeback due to less number of matches, all the teams must now be trying their level best to remain super fit, both physically and mentally, so that they can survive the twists of the ICC Trophy. But who knows will there be survival of the fittest or the survival of 'the luckiest'. Luck favours the brave though, just a thought.

The pattern of The Oval fiasco in the last month has been essentially volcanic. There have been spectacular eruptions with the blaze apparently burying everything in sight. But regrettably, after a lengthy wait, it ended in absolute dormancy. In these times the ICC hasn't picknicked happily on the slopes, with concerns about what had happened or might about to happen. One must be candid that the Inzamam-ul-Haq-Darrell Hair stand-off, a latest explosion has brought forth what looks like the International Cricket Council's most unpromising response yet.

First there was a sense of urgency to their hurriedly arranged disciplinary committee meeting then an unprecedented delay based on an excuse of non-availability of Ranjan Madugalle, ICC's Chief Match Referee. For this, Malcolm Speed, Chief Executive of the ICC who had not appeared hitherto to punch his weight in the field of cricketing diplomacy, deserves virtually little credit.

Secondly, the major decision -- the appointment of a match referee empowered to investigate and give decision was surely the most encouraging sign yet of a serious response to the problems of on-field wrangling. With Mike Procter, the match referee at the Oval becoming a witness, ICC had to install Madugalle to carry out the proceedings. It was certainly expected to be a step well taken, allowing Proctor to give his testimony and taking the case to the Chief Match Referee.

There has been a truck load of criticism against Procter and people have gone to an extent of terming him unproductive. His role as a match referee was to monitor the Test and also in case if he was intimated or asked into decision-making he could have given the ruling. He was skeptical.

As per the ICC Code he couldn't butt in and hold Inzamam or Hair by the hand, telling them off; those vivid pictures of Mike Denness must have flashed in his mind. One must recollect how embarrassed the ICC were when India had taken a staunch stance against Denness after the India-South Africa Test was stripped of official status at Centurion in 2001. Such was the confrontation between the BCCI and the ICC that a Referees Commission was instituted and reported to the ICC Executive Board on whether the ICC referee followed the procedures.

At the Oval Procter was not as powerful as Denness was at Centurion. The powers of the match referee had already been shorn off and he needed to be unconvinced of taking things completely into his own hands. Retrospectively, the extent of The Oval was such that Proctor was lost in the middle. It seems that the ICC Disciplinary Committee didn't achieve anything.

Regardless of Inzamam or Hair, cricket suffered. It's high time that the ICC addresses the deficiencies pertaining to their laws and bylaws, if any. The ICC Code while protecting the bowlers should also be able to shield umpire's integrity, respect and persona. One firmly believes that all decisions taken by the umpires should be based on evidence and not on hearsay and assumptions and the ICC with the ICC acting as a neutral governing body.

One thing is absolutely clear that there are signs of concern within the ICC about their own set-up, and growing unease about the other cricket boards standing up or as in PCB's case, though unsuccessfully, still attempting to show some teeth. With the organisation of the World Cup and Champions Trophy in hand, it seems that the ICC has presently been more interested in cricket's marketing deals than its ideals.

With Malcolm Speed taking the crises up front abrasively talking about Darrel Hair being a quality umpire and his appointment for the ICC Champions Trophy once he was in India retrospectively looks superfluous; Speed was left on the rough end of the stick as the ICC withdrew Hair from the ICC Champions Trophy.

The urgent need is for Speed to make his position clear, loudly and constantly. Up to now, with ICC, there has always been less to their response to the Hair-Inzamam controversy that has met the eye. His stand, in the initial part of the post Oval drama was much praised at the time, it took a month before observers realised how little it meant. What matters is how actively the ICC are pursuing this matter not just now, but three, six and twelve months hence: they need to justify Hair's slipshod accusations, take him by the scruff of the neck and relegate him to oblivion or prove that he was umpiring diligently, conscientiously and according to the code given to him; if he was then why was Inzamam implicated and later absolved of the ball-tampering charges.

It is an absurdity that this should not be an issue, but the response over the past five weeks has been pitiful, and cricket needs reassurance that its hierarchy is serious about bringing semblance of balance, also making ICC responses more fruitful.

Some one has to deny cover up as Inzamam-ul-Haq is cleared of Level 2 and chastised for the Level 3 offence. The chief match referee of the ICC chosen as the decision maker in now a very famous Hair-Inzamam face-off has presided over a mess, leaving many things unattended. Now when Pakistan and Inzamam stand vindicated, cleared of the ball tampering charges he should have requested the ICC to initiate an inquiry against Hair for bringing the game to a point of busting. Madugalle's decision clearly indicates that it was Hair and not Inzamam who had spurred bringing cricket into disrepute. Where does the game go from here?

One knows Madugalle personally; a seasoned referee he was once Sri Lanka's premier batsman and a captain who couldn't last long in a politics ridden environment because of his gentlemanly debonair. Madugalle, not an elitist but a man well-honed in a white-collared family is full of virtues-upright, sensible, judicious and impeccable. This time, while making the decision at The Oval he seemed out of depth.†

Hair's concerns about the ball were left unresolved. Madugalle's decision has gone to prove that Hair had meddled once too soon with the spirit of the game then he should have been put on the mat and shot at point blank. Time has come that the ICC takes a radical decision against one of their appointees, if it is warranted.

One is extremely happy that the charges of ball-tampering have been duly rebutted but one is terribly perplexed about Madugalle behaving as he did. Itís heartening that the decision has come as a delight for the Pakistanis but a plethora of questions have left quite a few morally dry. †

Either Inzamam was guilty or not guilty. How can one rationalise the ICC disciplinary committee decision about Pakistan captain's overreaction to a pig-headed umpire, an umpire working in haste?

Pakistan were wrongly implicated as evident from Madugalle's 4047-word report, then Inzamam should have been, contrary to the precedence, given benefit of doubt for not taking the team to the field; he was reacting to a 'slur'. He was exasperated to see one of the top ICC umpires questioning his bowlers' integrity. If Hair was wrong, then he was the man triggering the controversy.

One understands the complexities of ICC's Code that for a sin not committed, Inzamam in capacity of his country's captain was not liable to retaliate boyishly the way he did at The Oval. Fine, but there was much more to this -- ICC's disciplinary committee's decision hasn't been able to justify Hair's contempt and Inzamam's boorish behaviour equally. One also understands that a four-match ban slapped on Pakistan's captain will not wholly vindicate the ICC.

And at the same time, the sequence of events from the start to end hardly pardons Inzamam and the PCB top management of their out right ineptitude and inability to tackle the problem up front. Why the PCB is not eager to go into an appeal against the decision is mind-boggling.

It seems, Inzamam has developed a philosophy that if he was supposed to be responsible for the team winning or losing then he should have control of what should happen. Like a lot of leaders of men, he slowly began to think that he could do it himself and did not need others. It is not a conscious change in a man, but something that creeps up slowly. As Inzamam gained more power through performance and success, it was patently clear that he became less tolerant of others and often would question the direction people were taking.

The PCB were no exception: the longer they stayed the more explaining they had to do of the route they were taking and at times they yielded under his demands; they were yielding for two reasons, one Inzamam was becoming incessantly powerful with the results that Pakistan achieved under him and two they were oblivious of the cricketing intricacies. Regardless, as reported Inzamam had the management and PCB hierarchy by the proverbials-and one suspects he had begun to feel invulnerable. At the same time, one knew Inzamam as a daring person and he got stuck.

Then there was another character jumping in the fray. Shaharyar Khan might have been responsible for Pakistan's foreign policy and a service in Rwanda but by now he must have realised that he was chosen for a tough option becoming responsible for Pakistan cricketers -- a bunch not crazy about taking orders or capitalising on winning positions. To his critics, he has shown a talent for the diplomatic blunder, whether dealing with tour selections, players' central contracts, Shabbir Ahmed's chucking controversy, Pakistan's tour itineraries or most recently, the handling of The Oval affair.

To his supporters, mainly situated within the corridors of the PCB or some well-fed correspondents, his much needed organisational skills and thoroughness have given Pakistan cricket a business edge in the modern sporting world. One in preceding articles has opined that they were not capable of running the game and it wasn't about personal barbs but based upon Shaharyar Khan's incapacity to give ready solutions to game's inherent issues.

Few outside the PCB are pinning any medals on his chest, although the latest skirmish, the Inzamam imbroglio, was due more to Pakistan Cricket Board's traditional paranoia. Shaharyar, once the country's top bureaucrat, has certainly managed to keep the publicity-shy PCB in the media spotlight for most of his three years at Lahore, providing some rare light-hearted moments in the continuing decline of the Pakistan team as a world force.

His reputation did not soar when he put forth his idea of sending a cook with the team to the West Indies for the World Cup 2007, by inviting Jonty Rhodes for a week ten days for fielding sessions at an exorbitant cost, the 'PCB Constitution' farce, and for residing in England for the complete duration of Pakistan's tour. He then waffled in a hastily agreed interview with the Sky Sports. It was not the first such error. Regrettably, not his lack of knowledge or cricket experience but his bureaucratic guise and intolerance to unlike minded people has been at the core of much of the criticism. His attempt to write to the ICC for not appointing Darrell Hair in the matches in England fell flat.

Cricket was only listed among his recreations in otherwise a powerful resume. One believes that Shahrayar Khan has been a keen follower of cricket since his childhood and adolescent, mostly spent in England. He was presumably picked for the job for his wide-ranging management, leadership and diplomatic and organizational skills over some thirty years with the Foreign Office.

As a career diplomat he had operated frequently in the most testing arenas; he has had a well developed understanding of the importance of diplomacy but somehow the other he failed to bring to the PCB robustness, self-belief, courage of conviction and pride, and his wide experience of the part these, and other qualities, play developing the team ethos and the will to win and operate under adversity. He must take most of the blame for the poor strategy, ineffective handling of The Oval affair, awful timing and slow execution.

His lack of cricket management experience and ignorance of the ways of the cricket world have been badly exposed. His biggest problem, as evident that he has never had any relationship with ICC's leading players; there is no rapport so it seemed the way his requests of not appointing Darrell Hair in the matches concerning Pakistan were overrun and rebutted.

The Gaddafi Stadium was reeling from its own 'forfeiture' cover-up and Shaharyar, once again, was at the heart of the matter. With the world cricket's executives flying to England from Dubai to discuss the game's most serious problem, there were people not happy that their own board had been seen to be dragging its feet. The Inzamam-Hair affair could have been handled, resolved and put to bed, with a minimum of fuss the same day.

One must say with the ICC disciplinary committee's hearing over the ICC made all efforts to investigate and resolve the matter. Cynicism is a hand maiden of controversy and so many suggest that there was so much unaddressed. Madugalle was so convinced about the ball not being tampered that he didn't require a forensic report or a lab analysis. Regrettably, in the end none has won rather it has left cricket's future governance in a sticky situation.

Despite the fact that the intelligentsia will be skeptical about Madugalle's decision still it was a resolution that most people expected. It was never a surprise. None imagined the ICC or Darrell Hair substantiating the ball-tampering allegations during the hearing. One must believe that Darrell Hair had acted within the scope of the Code of Conduct of the ICC but as it seems, a little beyond his means.

It looked as if the ICC retracted their initial claims for one reason or the other and the story ended with Inzamam being rapped softly on his knuckles -- a four match suspension hardly equates with the intensity and magnitude of The Oval drama -- presumably it was blown out of proportions with PCB and the tour management taking the honours, spurring perplexity with extremely inefficient handling of the sequence of events. More so, it appears as if the ICC had joined the band. Why such a huge drama?

Fact is that in a 4047-word statement Ranjan Madugalle has absolved Pakistan players of any wrong doing. And one must believe that Pakistan now has a case. Hair acted on a mere suspicion; he acted in haste (his fellow umpire wanted to wait); he could have avoided the crisis had he chosen the diplomatic route; and since there as the equal possibility of the ball being damaged naturally, the umpires were wrong in chastising Pakistan. Madugalle makes it a point saying it was not his case that umpires were 'perverse' or had 'acted in bad faith', but it is an uncomplimentary ruling nonetheless.

However, through this regrettable misjudgment and by preferring the stentorian method when an unpretentious discretion could have done, Hair might have callously scratched the grounds of strong and influential umpires. It is both dismal and heartbreaking.

ICC's decision to pull Darrell Hair out of the ICC Champions Trophy was nothing more than a face-saver. With Inzamam vindicated the PCB friends must be contemplating that Shaharyar Khan has a future in cricket, after all. Unlike a good diplomat, he didn't make sure his back was covered in the Inzamam-Hair face-off. One thing is now certain-his memoirs of the service in Foreign Office will make tame reading compared with time in the service of Pakistan cricket.

The Darrell Hair saga has come to an end at last. And Pakistan have been made to suffer for no fault of theirs and for taking a determined and just stand against what eventually turned out be a slur on their integrity.

All this is in addition to that fourth Test 'forfeiture' which became a sickening part of history. More than England it was the two umpires, who acted in sheer haste and seemed more inclined on satisfying their bulging egos and settling scores with Pakistan, who were responsible for 'engineering' the unlikely result.

The culprit has escaped any sort of punishment and Pakistan's skipper, who had every right to feel incensed over the ball-tampering charge, has been slapped with a four-match ban. Two charges had been levelled against Inzamam-ul-Haq: one, of his team's alleged involvement in altering the condition of the ball i.e. ball-tampering; two, bringing the game into disrepute. He has been cleared of the initial charge. May one ask the International Cricket Council (ICC) why then has he been penalised for the second charge that was a direct and just consequence of the first of which he has been exonerated?

The decision may not have entirely displeased the captain. Given the strange manner in which the game's governing body sometimes function, Inzamam could have been given a tougher penalty, and now he seems quiet satisfied with the outcome of the inquiry into this sad episode. But the ban means the team's premier batsman will not be able to lead Pakistan at the Champions Trophy in India. Keeping in view Pakistan's constant struggle in finding a reliable opening pair, missing Inzamam's experience in the middle order can have a disastrous effect on the team's performance.

What happened at the Oval was shameless use of authority and absolute misjudgment on the part of Hair and his companion Billy Doctrove. To those who follow the game keenly the incident must not have come as a total shock. Given the free hand the ICC have extended to umpires that sort of an occurrence could have taken place any time. It was like a volcano on the threshold of eruption.

The ICC are to be blamed for vesting too much power into umpires, which has irrationally boosted their influence on the game. If there can be a code of conduct for players and officials, why can't ICC put in place one for umpires? As a rule umpires take it for granted that they aren't answerable to anybody. They would be careful in their approach once there is a system in place to monitor their performances. Umpires who err regularly and fail to improve must be shown the door.

Hair and Doctrove are two umpires who have never got along well with Pakistan in particular and other Asian sides in general. During the series in England they could not hide their bias and gave several decisions which, of course, more often than not went against the visitors. It was Pakistan's sheer bad luck that two of the most controversial umpires in the game were officiating their Test series in England.

But Pakistan, too, must take a fair amount of blame for making a mess of the whole thing. It was not the first time Pakistan were given a tough time by Hair. Pakistan had already had several run-ins with Hair in the past. Why then they kept waiting for such an incident to occur to lodge a serious complaint against the Aussie? After every series captain and coach submit their reports with ICC regarding the performance of umpires. Why Pakistan did not pursue their case earlier to avert such a crisis?

Maybe as is usually the case Pakistan did not know what to do when Hair came up with the novel accusation of ball-tampering. Although they stand acquitted of the ball-tampering allegation, they could have made life miserable for the umpire had the case been handled sensibly. The best option for Inzamam would have been to carry on playing after Hair had imposed the five-run penalty and let the Pakistan Cricket Board take up the case with ICC. That would have permitted the team to focus on the primary task at hand, i.e. winning the game rather than worrying about their own and their country's image.

Besides, Inzamam did not act prudently when it came to choosing the right way of registering their protest. Pakistan were comfortably placed at that stage and could have forced a win and made the score-line look a bit respectable at 2-1. Inzamam & co knew from the beginning that they had not done anything wrong, and that the scratches on the ball that caused Hair to pull the trigger were nothing but normal wear and tear that is common on a fourth-day pitch with the ball being more than 50 overs old. A sensible piece of advice from the management -- PCB chief Shaharyar Khan was present on the occasion -- would have made a lot of difference.

Their belated arrival allowed the umpires to do as they pleased and declare the tie as 'forfeited' by Pakistan. The fact is that Hair or Doctrove did not have any proof that any of Pakistan's players had interfered with the condition of the ball. Neither they nor the cameras covering the game had noticed anything suspicious, and that factor alone would have been enough to prepare a strong case against the two umpires, specially Hair, who thought the Pakistanis had employed unfair tactics to make the ball reverse swing and immediately imposed the penalty.

The penalty was not all that important. What was important was that an entire nation had been declared a cheat without any proof, and Pakistan's integrity was questioned. There's no way Hair could have proved his allegation. Pakistan should have insisted on getting decided the case before the commencement of the one-day series. By agreeing on the postponement of the hearing owing to the unavailability of chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle they let the dust settle on the whole affair. Had Pakistan pushed for a quick settlement of the dispute it would have benefited them and further exposed Hair, who had put himself in more trouble by demanding US$500,000 for stepping down.

The delay allowed the ICC to do their homework. The result is that Inzamam has been penalized for complaining about gross injustice and Hair, despite making that stupid and unethical offer, has been let off the hook. He has not been considered for the Champions Trophy, but may resume his duties in future. Had that offer been made by an umpire from Asia, hell would have broken loose by now and the culprit would have been thrown out of business.

As if that was not enough Pakistan seem content with the ban on Inzamam and have not shown any interest in challenging either the ban or the outcome of the Oval Test. If the ICC recognise the fact that Hair was wrong in accusing Pakistan of ball-tampering, they must at least declare the result of the Test as drawn because it was England who could have lost the game and not Pakistan. But given PCB's well-known tendency of gloating over trivial achievements and shying away from critical issues one can't hope for a shift in that 'successful' and longstanding policy.