Revival of Indo-Pak Cricket?
There's nothing more exciting and joyful for cricket lovers in the Indo-Pak sub-continent than revival of cricket between the two countries on their respective soils. Merely playing against each other in multilateral and not head-to-head may satisfy the whims of the idea's originators but though a welcome thaw, it's still detrimental to development of cricket in Asia. The suspense, waiting to know if the unwanted embargo will be lifted or not is severely harming the hopes and aspirations of cricket fans in the region.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) deserves appreciation for winning the 1st round of talks with their Government for securing necessary permission to play an Asian Test Championship game in Pakistan later this year. The relaxation indicates there are chances of good sense prevailing and shows flexibility in their stand against playing Pakistan. At one end the cause is absolutely genuine while at the other the stance is more of a prestige point.

The other decision of not permitting the Indian Team to play at 'non-regular' cricket centres is equally perplexing. The ICC's soft stand on India for not playing regular series against Pakistan is evident from a statement by ICC's Chief, Malcolm Gray, during a short visit to Pakistan said, "There is nothing that ICC can do if one country does not play against another". Accepted, that the World body's hands are tied and its powers limited as far as 'bilateral relations' between its members are concerned but why can't the ICC tell India that its decision of not playing at so called non-regular venues like Sharjah, Toronto, Singapore, Hong Kong and others, is in contravention of ICC's own plans of expanding cricket far and wide? Right now, an ICC tournament is taking place in Toronto.

It's interesting to note that a soccer series is likely to be played between the two countries very soon while the Pakistan Veterans Cricket Team has been invited to tour India in November this year. Similarly a group of Pakistani musicians and singers is preparing to visit and perform in India. The fans do not understand why cricket causes problems.

Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf hinted some time back that he would also discuss cricket affairs with the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India. Now, in his capacity as Pakistan's President, Gen Musharraf also happens to be the Patron of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), let's hope his cricket diplomacy, brings some cheers for cricket lovers in the region.

Shoaib- An enigma for Pakistan's cricket
For his physical breakdown at the most crucial time, Shoaib Akhtar, Pakistan's highly projected speed merchant, has become more of an enigma for the country's cricket. A heartthrob of the PCB, he is included in every squad participating in international competitions but collapses on the field rather than performing. Being sick on the ground and then fizzling out completely, were the worst scenes he has produced on the cricket field and that too, during a key encounter in the NatWest Series in England. A sad reflection on those who declared him fit enough to play, to say the least.

The PCB fancied the speedster so much, apart from spending lots of money on his stay in Australia for coaching to change a suspect bowling action and medical treatment, they engaged coach Daryl Foster to be at his side during the tour of England. What transpired on the field of play was embarrassing for the whole of Pakistan. Having received an enormous amount of money for bringing Shoaib back to form, Foster still maintains, "Give him 6 to 12 months to be able to recover his peak and to bowl at top speed again". I am not one to accept this with or without a pinch of salt!

A press report in an Urdu daily revealed that Shoaib was included in the England bound squad against the opinion of two members of the Medical Commission who did not declare him physically fit. It was his trainer who insisted on his inclusion in the squad. Well, surely it's clear to all now, that Shoaib is a physical wreck and all those who believe he is the top prospect to replace Wasim Akram or Waqar Younis as a Pakistan's front line bowler, are living in fantasy.

It's high time the PCB realises that Shoaib whose only desire, it seems, is to bowl a delivery at 100 mph instead of being a useful member of the team is like a spoilt brat. He seems to be making no personal effort to gain physical fitness. I say, let's leave him alone and patronise other upcoming pace bowlers instead.

Standard of umpiring v Inzy's behaviour
The standard of umpiring during the NatWest Series that Australia credibly won, was rather disappointing. Since calling any wrong umpiring decision 'biased' is considered to be in poor taste or even a sin, there were innumerable decisions that could be termed as 'doubtful'. Some of them were surprising, stunning, baffling, amazing, shocking, disappointing and even unbelievable.

After losing the 1st Test at Lords, Pakistan drew the test series by winning a morale booster at Old Trafford. Many media critics opined that England lost, because umpire David Shepherd gave out four key players on deliveries that were shown on TV as 'no-balls'. Surprisingly, the umpire was not removed from the scene, which meant that he made no mistakes. Well, if such a standard of umpiring is acceptable in international cricket then let's discuss the other side of the coin.

With Shepherd, on the other end stood Peter Willey, another top umpire, when Pakistan lost the final of NatWest Series to Australia. Many observers felt that Inzamam's lbw decision by Peter Willey was a turning point in Pakistan's innings. The fact remains, the batsman was hit on the front pad by an outgoing delivery while playing 6 to 8 feet forward of the stumps. Under the norms of umpiring, on stretched out 'front-foot decisions', he should have been given the benefit of doubt. It was impossible for the umpire to be sure the ball would have carried on to hit the stumps.

Inzamam, being one of the top batsmen of the world and fully capable of turning the tide, was stunned by the decision. Except for the fact he delayed his departure from the crease and then walked off at a slow pace, he said nothing. For him, it all happened in a state of shock and amazement, for which the player deserved some concession. Yet he was punished for the crime of 'showing dissent'. I remember, in an earlier game, an Australian bowler exchanging words and clearly showing his exasperation through an arm signal, when the umpire called his deliveries wides. He went scot-free even though the TV commentators made a lot of it. I wonder if the umpire who did in Inzamam has at least a troubled conscience? Umpire Shepherd did apologise for not spotting the no-balls and I can only wonder if it's a wilderness of cricket we live in?

© CricInfo Limited