My Favourite Cricketer: Shoaib Akhtar, by Assad Hasanain

Assad Hasanain, of the superb AssadHas, writes on that most amusing playboy fast bowler: Shoaib Akhtar.  Assad tweets @assad_hasanain.

There were drugs. There were women. There were rumors of sexually transmitted diseases. There were tantrums. There were smashed skulls.  There was always adrenaline.  

Shoaib Akhtar's is one of the most fascinating soap operas to have come out of Pakistan cricket. It is of a free-spirited, proud and sometimes arrogant boy from Rawalpindi, who found his dreams in the world of cricket, but found with them the rules, the politics and pain that hounded him till the day he left.

There are many sub-plots to the Akhtar story, each as fascinating as the next. There is Shoaib the typical Pakistani boy; raised by an adoring family that struggled to make ends meet. Also, his angry, ill-tempered youth; where he picked fights on the streets, proudly wore scars on his chest and even carried a gun to scare off his enemies.  He was a cocky young talent who was kicked off a youth tour for indiscipline. 

Finally there is Shoaib the success story; the youngster who supplanted Waqar Younis in the Pakistan side, who conquered Tendulkar, who became the fastest bowler in the world and terrorized the best batsmen in the game.

My Favourite Cricketer: Bob Woolmer, by Hendo

Test Match Sofa's Nigel Henderson (aka Hendo) takes a look back at one of cricket's tragedies in our next part of our continuing series My Favourite Cricketer.

I’m not in the habit of looking into other men’s eyes, but his really were exquisite. The cyan blue of a Caribbean sea, intense and deep, like two gorgeous lagoons. The perfect eyes to watch the ball right onto the bat and then dispatch it with the minimum of effort all the way along the ground to the extra cover boundary or coax it away, languidly, square of midwicket, always with immaculate balance.

That evening in 1975 when he stepped out the back of the Pavilion entrance on to the Oval forecourt after his magnificent match-saving 149 against Australia, was as close physically as I ever got to Bob Woolmer – the 12-year-old me was at the back of a six-deep crowd surging forward for autographs that police tried to part to allow him through to his sponsored car – but I wasn’t desperate for his signature. I just wanted to see him at short range and the fact that I did, and momentarily stared into those liquid eyes, must have left its mark for me to remember it more than 36 years after the event.

What I needed confirmed by looking into his eyes was not just his ability as a batsman but a sign of his kindliness – why it was important to me that my sporting heroes were also decent human beings perplexes me probably just as much as it does you; I don’t need that now – and that brief moment was enough to convince me. (I was glad to see, more than three decades later, that in the outpouring of grief after his tragic death in Jamaica, his basic decency was something that those who played with and against him and reported on his deeds were united in communicating).

chicagoaddick.blogspot.com

I can’t remember when I first saw Robert Woolmer play, but it was natural that I should warm to him because, although brought up only a few Tube stops from the Oval, Kent were my side then. Call it glory-hunting, jumping on the bandwagon or whatever, that successful team of the early 70s was just a treat to watch. There were the stars for sure – Asif Iqbal, a demon between the wickets, as nippy and as lithe as James Taylor is today, Alan Knott, quite simply the world’s best wicketkeeper batsman of many an era whatever Rodney Marsh might have to say about that, Bernard Julien, the left-arm quick with a dashing approach to batting in the lower order, and Deadly Derek (need I say more) – but even the journeymen of the team stood out: David Nicholls, the roly-poly left-hand opener, Norman Graham, the gangling giant of an opening bowler and defintive No 11, and the genial all-rounder John Shepherd, probably the blackest man I had ever seen.

And among them, boyish, without a trace of arrogance and seemingly at ease in his own skin, Bob Woolmer, a sprightly medium pace bowler first and foremost but who showed enough promise with the bat to score an unbeaten fifty at No 7 on his county debut in 1968.

And it was his batting to which I was most attracted and for which I remember him most. I had to rake back through the cricketing archives to discover when he really made the leap from lower-middle order to the top of it, but it seems he was being auditioned for the move as early as the start of the 1971 season, when he batted at No 3 in the champion county’s traditional opening fixture against the MCC at Lord’s. Natal must have seen something in that classic technique that I grew to love, giving him the chance to bat at four or five in the Currie Cup during the winter of 1973-74 and the following summer Kent followed suit. When he finally made the England side, in 1975, it was on the back of two fine batting performances for Kent and the MCC against the touring Australians (a hat-trick in the second of those matches couldn’t have harmed his chances, either).

Opening for England eventually came by default, a year later. He had been used sporadically in that position in the summer by Kent and when that season’s international series against the West Indies had repelled the claims of Barry Wood, John Edrich, Brian Close and Mike Brearley, the selectors remembered his defiance from the Oval a year earlier, and asked him to step into the breach alongside David Steele.

How to describe his approach? He wasn’t spectacular and he wasn’t merely solid. This was an era long before the bludgeoner with a 3lb bat. He was a touch player, who stroked the ball even when it was propelled at him in violent fashion, and I so loved his style that I for several years was addicted to the Gray-Nicholls willow that he used.

And he was calm. My other abiding memory is from 1977’s Benson and Hedges Cup final against Gloucestershire. Wickets were falling all around him as Mike Proctor – inspired by his fans’ chants of “Kill, kill, kill” as he ran up – and Brian Brain ripped away the supporting cast of Clinton, Rowe, Asif and Ealham. But he pushed on until, on 64, he chipped a ball effortlessly off his legs and Julian Shackleton, at deep square leg right in front of me in the Grandstand, hardly had to move to take the catch.

I was bemused. He had timed the shot so well, and with such little apparent effort, I reasoned that he could, if he’d wanted, given it just the touch more leverage it required to send it spiralling over Shackleton’s head. Flawed genius, then? It was certainly the most graceful shot I had seen that had brought a wicket.

That season was probably his most successful in Test cricket; he hit 79, 120 and 137 in consecutive innings against Australia, but then he was lured away by Kerry Packer. How did I feel about that? Disappointed? Betrayed? Both probably. It felt like a talent not completely fulfilled.

When he returned to play for England at the beginning of the 1980s, he wasn’t the same, and there was a sense of disappointment again when he lined up for the South Africa rebel tour.

Courtesy: cricinfo.com

But I forgave him, never fell out of love with Woolmer, nor his eyes. I was delighted when he became such a successful coach – it felt as if that unfulfilled playing talent was finding another appropriate outlet. And a man was getting his due.

The day he died is etched unpleasantly on my brain: I was at my terminal on The Times sports desk, when news came through on Sky Sports that he had been taken to hospital unconscious. I was sickening for pneumonia myself, so that may add to the toxicity of my memory, but something told me he was not going to get better. Within half an hour, it seemed, the announcement that he had not made it came through. The sadness went deep to my stomach. He was only 57; what else might he have achieved. Those gorgeous blue eyes had looked out upon a cricket field for the last time.

Hendo's written these highly-recommended works.  Take a look,they're awesome reads.

Back to My Favourite Cricketer Homepage. 

My Favourite Cricketer: Wasim Akram by Blaise Murphet

In our series "My Favourite Cricketer", Balanced Sports and World Cricket Watch invite the best cricket writers and bloggers to contribute articles explaining what makes, for the, one player rise above the rest.  Today features Wasim Akram by World Cricket Watch's contributing editor, Blaise Murphet.

I think when you’re asked to consider your ‘favourite cricketer’ you don’t really think about statistics, you think of a players swagger, his style, and of amazing performances that you have witnessed either on television or first hand.

Bowling in England.  From: wasimakramlive.net

So, when thinking of the ultimate fast bowler, a natural checklist emerges in one’s mind. Does he have searing pace? Can he make the ball ‘talk’? Does he have long hair that flows in the wind? What about the maniacal smile that is the trademark of all the greats? Well, in my mind there is only one man who fits the bill and that is the greatest Pakistani player of all time, Wasim Akram.

In an international career that spanned almost twenty years, Akram tormented batsmen right across the globe. But, before I talk more about the unbelievable greatness of the man, let’s cast a quick eye over his outstanding career statistics.

Currently placed ninth on the all-time test wicket list, Wasim’s 414 test wickets obviously rank him right up there with the greats. These wickets, I might add, came at an average of 23, and I’d confidently suggest that his almost 3000 test runs at 22 would be far better than any others at the top of the bowling lists. If he’s test record isn’t enough, then just consider his ODI record. World Cup winner, 502 wickets at 23 and a powerful lower-order batsman, Wasim had it all. However, as I’ve argued before, averages and statistics only tell a very small part of a cricketer’s story, and in the case of Wasim Akram, this couldn’t be more true.

If you will allow me then to return to the checklist I mentioned earlier, we can further consider the greatness of Wasim.

There is no doubt that Wasim’s partners in crime, Imran Kahn and Waqar Younis, had more pace, however Wasim just appeared quick. Batsmen often talk of a bowler seeming quicker than they are, and Wasim always seemed to rush even the best. Wasim also had amazing long flowing hair, which some might argue has nothing to do with bowling ability. I beg to differ. Fast bowling is as much about style and presence as it is skill and precision. You just knew certain bowlers had batsmen beaten before a ball was bowled. For Curtly Ambrose his height and gold pendants positioned him as a higher being. Dennis Lillee had the flowing hair, bushy moustache and chest hair/revealing shirt combination which made him seem like a wild man. Glenn McGrath on the other hand, always appeared symmetrical, precise and well groomed, which conveyed his meticulous bowling prowess. 

Wasim had whippy jet black hair that suited his bowling action and a maniacal smile which gave him incredible presence. He always seemed very personable, but could switch in an instant, meaning that batsmen never knew when he would blow up. He also had an amazing approach to the crease which seemed slow, but exploded at the crease so Wasim could send down thunderbolts.

Courtesy: icc-cricket.yahoo.net

His pace and presence aside though, Wasim’s greatest asset was his ability to make the ball ‘talk’. I’ve actually heard it said that Wasim could make the one delivery swing both ways before arriving at the batsman and although I never saw this, I can say with certainty that I’ve never seen a bowler who could swing the ball so dramatically late. There really is something special about left-arm swing bowlers and Wasim was able to not only push the ball across right-handers, but swing it even further away and of course produce inswingers banned by the Geneva convention. This was perhaps most in evidence in Pakistan’s famous 1992 World Cup victory when Wasim was probably at his peak. Granted, his time as captain wasn’t greatly successful, but even later in his career, once he had shortened his run-up, Wasim still had the guile and intellect to dismiss even the best.

So, Wasim was a bowler of great skill, but there’s another important reason why I have chosen him to be my favourite cricketer. As a kid growing up I remember Pakistan as a very talented and successful cricketing nation. Players such as Wasim, Imran, Waqar, Aamir Sohail, Saqlain Mushtaq and Moin Kahn were standout players and - most importantly - played the game in the right spirit. Teams toured and played in fantastic cricketing cathedrals at Lahore and Karachi; whilst touring the sub-continent is always a challenging experience for teams, it was so because of the passion of the crowd and the talent of the home teams.

Things are very different now. No international teams have toured there since the Sri Lankan debacle and it seems highly unlikely we’ll see anything like Mark Taylor’s extraordinary 334* in 1998, or the thrilling series between England and Pakistan in 2000 where England knocked the winning runs in virtual darkness much to the chagrin of Pakistan's captain, Moin Kahn. The state of Pakstani cricket - and, more generally the country - is an absolute shame, as has been evidenced by continual player and administration corruption.

As such, it is with great pleasure that I look back to Wasim as a player who represents a great era for not only Pakistan’s cricket team, but also the country itself. Even if he was from a country that hadn’t had these terrible troubles I’d still judge him as one of the greatest ever; but to me he represents a shining light in a situation filled with darkness, a truly memorable figure. When I think of Pakistani cricket, I don’t want to think of corrupt managers, crooked players, and terrorist attacks. I want to think of searing pace, swinging Yorkers, fiery passion, and most of all the long swinging hair and dangerous smile of my favourite cricketer, Wasim Akram. 

Back to My Favourite Cricketer Homepage.

Cricket: Jane Austen's World Cup

by Ben Roberts

For Anita, a Jane Austen lover and wife of a cricket tragic.

It is often said that sporting teams will take on individual characteristics that differentiate them from others. Describing these characteristics need not be limited merely to the mundanely clichéd terms of sport; they can come from the literary world.

Lying in bed thinking of how best to describe each of our World Cup challengers I realised how each of them fit seamlessly (in my own mind) into Jane Austen’s Victorian tale of Pride & Prejudice. See below, team’s are in alphabetical order.

Australia – Lydia Bennett: Gets what they desire in the end, however do not please others with the manner in which they do so, including their own ‘family’.

Bangladesh – Mr Bennett: Have some talent within them but are rarely taken seriously.

Canada & Kenya – The Bingley Sisters: Serve no purpose in the tournament except to ruin the future ambitions of Ireland.

England – Elizabeth Bennett: Like Lizzy, the English supporter lives a life of undue frustration and complication.

Ireland – Jane Bennett: With their coloured hair and pure joy in victory they are the simple souls of this competition.

India – Mr Wickham: Describe their motives as being pure however are believed by many to just be in it for the money.

Netherlands – Mr Collins: Existence is based purely on the patronage of one individual.

New Zealand – Mary Bennett: The poorer sibling of many, they have little talent but try hard.

Pakistan – Mrs Bennett: Can hold it together for short periods of time but likely to collapse into tantrum at any moment.

South Africa – Mr Darcy: The look and resource of a champion team however regularly cock it up at inappropriate moments.

Sri Lanka – Mr Bingley: Talent and riches and a zest for the game.

West Indies – Charlotte Lucas: Well past their glory years now, will settle for anything resembling success.

Zimbabwe – Lady Catherine de Burgh: More a reflection on the administrative leader of Zimbabwean cricket, a dictatorial and manipulative individual only concerned about their own end.

Like Austen’s tale we already seen the Netherlands bother England with more attention than one would feel comfortable about, and seemingly Ireland have a greater ability to woo victory than the English.

Do these undoubted parallels mean that England and South Africa or Ireland and Sri Lanka will be tied together at the end of the story...I mean tournament? Or will Australia and India elope in the final act of debauchery? This story is still to be written.

World Cup Predictions: Leading Wicket Taker

In a seven-part series, our own Matthew Wood goes head to head with Subash Jayaraman of The Cricket Couch and Dave Siddall of World Cricket Watch to send down their predictions for this year's World Cup.

Matt Wood

A quick glance at the stats from the last couple of World Cups reveals that the leading wicket taker has taken on average about 2.5 wickets per innings. In 2007 it was the indomitable Glenn McGrath while in South Africa Chaminda Vaas managed the most scalps. With that in mind, only a few of the bowlers on display this tournament have any chance of approaching those numbers: Malinga, Steyn, Brett Lee (involuntary shudder), Zaheer Khan and Pakistani pair Wahab Riaz and Umar Gul. Others may have the talent, discipline or unpredictability but these are the bowlers who are both in-form and better suited for the conditions available. They’re all pacemen, yes, but I remain unconvinced that any of the spin bowlers on show will be more than defensive stoppers. Lee will almost assuredly break down, so we can eliminate him; Pakistan produce the expected as often as they do adult film stars; leaving Khan, Malinga and the best fast man in the world, Dale Steyn. Steyn’s consistency sees him more likely to take a “Michelle” against a minnow, but Malinga’s slingers can be too much for even the best batsman to face – let’s go with the Sri Lankan.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Lasith Malinga

===============================================================

Subash Jayaraman

There are couple of requirements for players to be featured in the leading wicket taker column. 1) Their respective teams need to make a deep run in the tournament 2) Face as many weak opposition teams as possible in the early round. Chaminda Vaas was the top wicket taker of the world cup in 2003 based on the fact that he took 12 of his 23 wickets against Bangladesh, Kenya and Canada. Of the total 10 matches he played in that tournament, he took more than half his share in just 3 matches against what could be called as weak opposition.

Looking at the 2011 World Cup Schedule, Group A has more number of weaker teams (Kenya, Canada and Zimbabwe) than Group B (Netherlands and Ireland). Bangladesh cannot be called a weak ODI squad anymore. It is not 2003 anymore and they are playing at home, where they have beaten New Zealand 4-0 in a recent series.

Therefore, by my hypothesis, the top wicket taker will emerge from Group A from the teams of Sri Lanka, Australia or Pakistan. Since the team has to make a deep run in the tournament and potentially play in the finals, I am more leaning towards Sri Lanka (Lasith Malinga or Muralitharan) than Australia (Brett Lee or Shaun Tait) or India (Zaheer Khan) or Pakistan (Umar Gul) or South Africa (Dale Steyn). Since Matt and David are already going for the pacers to be highest wicket takers, let me pick Muralitharan. This can be his swan song from all forms of international cricket.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Muttiah Muralitharan

===============================================================

David Siddall

The leading wicket taker in the tournament will come from a team that goes a long way in the competition. Currently if you were asked to name the best quicks in the world [excluding the likes of the Mohammads Amir and Asif] the same names would crop up time after time – Dale Steyn, Zaheer Khan, James Anderson, Morne Morkel, and Lasith Malinga. Of those names Dale Steyn is the best bowler in the world.

We mustn’t forget spin however, as it is likely to be a huge factor in the sub-continent and a determining factor in the outcome of the World Cup. I’m of the opinion that the leading wicket taker won’t be a spinner for two reasons: 1) attacking spinners are thin on the ground with Muttiah Muralitharan, Graeme Swann and Harbajhan Singh seemingly the only exceptions and 2) spinners tend to bowl in those languid middle overs where consolidation and keeping the scoreboard ticking over are the main concerns for the batsmen.

Thinking strategically about the aforementioned quicks and every angle explored leads to one figure being the leading wicket taker in the tournament. Lasith Malinga might not be the best bowler in the world, but unlike Dale Steyn he is head and shoulders above his fellow countrymen’s pacemen. When you also consider that he is the finest exponent of “death” bowling in one day cricket with a wicked yorker and a devilishly disguised slower ball, the justification for the slinger becomes even more apparent. A strike rate of 32.9 isn’t half bad either.

WC Leading Wicket Taker Prediction: Lasith Malinga

===============================================================

Guilty and Gone: Pakistani spot-fixers suspended

An ICC tribunal has announced that the three Pakistani cricketers accused of spot-fixing during their tour of England last year have been suspended for lengthy stretches. Then-captain Salman Butt received the heaviest ban, a 10-year suspension of which five years are suspended. 28-year old fast bowler Mohammed Asif was sanctioned for seven years including two suspended; the brightest young thing in world bowling circles, Mohammed Amir, received a five year ban.

Though spot-fixing is not as harmful to the game as match-fixing, it still remains an open lesion where players can earn money for sabotaging their own performances, which by extension detracts from their team's displays. The ICC needed to send a message that accepting bribes for any poor performance is unacceptable in the extreme and by removing those individuals from the game for what equates to five years, it has ensured that all three will feel financial and public pressure as a result of their misbehaviour.

Given the state of Pakistan cricket and that nation's variegated selection policy of past years, the bans probably aren't quite strong enough. Butt and Amir particularly will almost certainly return to represent their country at the highest level. By the time he returns, Amir - for whom there has been the most public sympathy and who has said that he will appeal the sentence - will only be twenty-three and entering his peak years as a bowler. His appeal will likely be based on his stance that he was just "following orders". Butt, whose heavier sentence confirms suspicions he was the ringleader, will be 31 in five years and liable still to be the best opener in Pakistan.

Though probably generous, five years seems close to the mark when Hansie Cronje and Salim Malik were dealt life bans for rigging the outcomes of matches. There is a strong body of opinion that any acceptance of bribes on-field should be an automatic expulsion from the game - that valuing financial reward more than the sport's virtue is enough to earn you the lifelong scorn of your peers and public. When I first heard about the "incidents" in August, that was my first reaction.

But what that doesn't take into account is a Western judicial tendency to allow second chances. Should Amir, Asif and Butt have been expelled from the game for life, others may have learnt from their idiocy but would the trio get a chance to reform? To rehabilitate? It's unlikely; they would be sent back to Pakistan to live the rest of their lives in admonishment. Punitive action must hurt the offenders no doubt; but any government should at least allow offenders the chance for remorse at a later date - if not, they risk becoming a dictatorship, something the ICC is loath to appear. When taking into account Amir's testimony, life-bans became increasingly more unlikely as small doubts grew as to whether the bowling pair were acting under captain's instruction. That suspended penalties have been assigned is the most ludicrous part of this sentence: the players knew their actions were illegal and ban-worthy: so having the threat of another ban around their necks is unlikely to stop them offending a second time. Perhaps a greater deterrent would have been to combine the years: Salman Butt could be reinstated at 35 and Asif at 35. That way each player has the slim chance of righting their wrongs at international level.

That only five years was meted out after the life bans were mooted may however be a decision which encourages burgeoning spot-fixers. If the remuneration is lucrative enough, a player may make the cost/benefit analysis that five years of their career is a price worth paying for millions of dollars. As a deterrent, a five-year ban only barely registers. The ICC has delved into the same muddy waters of the debate about capital punishment: is the deterrent effect worth the human cost?

Though guilty of Herschelle Gibbs-style dropping the ball on many occasion, the ICC has employed the right selection of tribunal panellists and the Pakistani trio have been found guilty after having evidence presented from all sides and the opportunity to defend themselves. Both the process and the verdict were arrived at fairly, and though sanctions took time to administer the process was (by ICC standards) transparent. The Pakistani Three's will have to live with their sanctions. The International Cricket Council will have to live with the precedent they've set.

Jury and Executioner: Everyman

After hearing several voices espousing potential punishments for players found guilty of spot -fixing, I thought perhaps it's time to take a novel and contextual approach as to how to deal with these “fixers”. I think everyone agrees that those guilty of putting themselves before the integrity of the sport which made them so wealthy should be banned, the question though is for how long?

Do immediate lifetime bans work? That most gambling-related bans have occurred in the last ten years seems not to have dissuaded the current crop of alleged bribees, making them either super-naive, super-stupid or super-arrogant. Life bans handed out to Mohammed Azharuddin, Salim Malik and Hansie Cronje have left little or no impression on those allegedly fixing since. Mohammed Amir was 9 years old when Malik was banned, old enough to know that the Pakistani ex-captain had been “in the wrong”. Even if he wasn't aware of it at the time, fixing has been the bane of subcontinental cricket for much of the past twenty years meaning the responsibility for informing the players falls directly on the shoulders of the control boards.

That Pakistan and India have been the centre of most of these allegations is quite obvious, giving an indication of the roles that their boards must play in stamping out this scourge. That cricket plays such an important role in the mass-psyche of these countries also cannot be ignored. Perhaps it's time to start holding players and officials accountable for the hopes and dreams of their nations.

The Pakistani average per capita income has been announced for 2010 at somewhere around 2600 International dollars, with International dollars being hypothetical money used for comparative purposes only. Compared to other cricketing nations, that's miniscule; using International dollars, Pakistan ranks 130^th worldwide in average income, smack-bang between economic powerhouses Nicaragua and Uzbekistan. This International dollar total equates to somewhere around $US 1000.

Major Test-playing country	Per Capita Income (International $)	Rank (Worldwide)	Per Capita Income ($US)	Rank (Worldwide)
Australia	38911	10	45587	11
England	34619	19	35334	22
New Zealand	26708	33	27259	27
Barbados, Jamaica & Trinidad/Tobago (avg.)	15575	(Would be 50)	10992	(Would be 51)
World Average	10366	Would be 76	8600	Would be 60
South Africa	10244	77	5824	73
Sri Lanka	4769	113	2041	119
India	2941	128	1031	139
Pakistan	2600	133	1017	140

(source: International Monetary Fund 2009 tables)

The table above paints a stark picture. It would be much worse had Zimbabwean cricket not collapsed so horribly seven years ago – the average annual per capita income there has fallen to only $US 375. There's no question as to why subcontinental, African or even Caribbean cricketers could be tempted to take the money on offer – if a gambler lays on $US 50,000 then that's more money than the average Pakistani could earn in 45 years. To put it another way, those 45 years comprise give or take two-thirds of the average lifespan in Pakistan. When compared to an Australian it's no wonder that the Western cricketing establishment doesn't seem to be as tempted. The same $US 50,000 makes up one year's income for the average Skippy, hardly worthwhile throwing a career away for when the money from endorsements, central contracts and other miscellany can last a lifetime.

It's also no coincidence that the performances of any national side defines a population. Most players speak of their joy at being able to represent their country and what it stands for; to wear the crest of a nation made up of of people of whom you are very proud is perhaps a country's highest honour. The general populace of every country lives vicariously through their sports teams and most people would be horrified if that faith and trust were to be thrown away by players with opportunities that Joe (or Mohammed) Public would die for.

So with this information in hand, a novel way of punishing the guilty party might be to take the lowest common denominator – in this case Pakistan – and apply the same principles to the punitive action. If found guilty, a player would be banned for the length of time it would take the lowest-earning cricket fan to earn the amount of money alleged to have been accepted. So for example, of the eight major test-playing nations, Pakistan has the lowest average annual income of $US 1017. If an Australian is found guilty of fixing, then it is only fair to judge them by Pakistani standards as by its very nature cricket is a worldwide community and every nation suffers should the game be brought into disrepute. If that Aussie is found guilty of accepting $US 50,000 then ban them for fifty years – the amount of time the least among us would take to make that money legitimately. If our hypothetical Aussie is found guilty of accepting $US 10,000 then ban him for ten years.

It may be harsh – being found guilty of accepting anything over perhaps $US 8000 would amount to a lifetime ban – but this method would judge players by the “everyman” standard. It works this way because cricket is a world sport. Obviously penalising our on-the-take Australian by his country's per capita income is less of a penalty – to make a quick $US 20K he risks only a little over six month's ban if discovered. Obviously this has almost no value as a deterrent and it forgoes cricket-mad Mohammed Public in Rawalpindi, earning $US 1017 (and potentially far less), finding the sport he loves weakened by the iniquities of its players. This puts the the cricketing punishment into terms that the public both identifies with and enforces; in essence the guilty party is judged by those he is representing – his own peers

There are undoubtedly flaws in this argument. Policing alone would require solid evidence, probably nigh on incontrovertible proof or even a confession. Also, this simplifies the issue to the n^th degree and doesn't allow any flexibility – “black and white” laws tend to work well in theory but less well in practice. But in the whole sphere of world sport, cricket is very much an afterthought. Played as a major sport by only eight nations, cricket needs to maintain its integrity in order to survive in the long term. The accountability to this must rest on everyone – fans, administrators, coaches and especially the players.

Why is it always Pakistan?

After the body blows dealt to International Cricket by the gambler and fixer who has implicated several Pakistani players as having “thrown” Test matches for betting purposes, several sources are now looking at potential punishments for any players found guilty of match-fixing. Given that most match-fixing probes (and gamblers themselves) have pointed their long, bony fingers-of-death directly towards Pakistan, it's been suggested that banning Pakistan from international cricket until it “cleans up it's act” is an appropriate form of punishment.

Blatantly not true. Hansie Cronje aside, the most famous cricket match-fixing claims in recent memory were those aimed at former Pakistan captain Salim Malik, who was banned for life from all cricket in 199x. Should any player currently accused for throwing the alleged matches in England and Australia be found guilty, then they too should be banned for life. Given the precarious nature of world cricket at this time, there can be no cricketing punishment too harsh for those found guilty of placing money over the sanctity and future viability of a sport played only in a dozen countries.

Banning Pakistan altogether would be counterproductive. What's been overlooked is that as India drags itself from the developing world up to become a major player in world business and politics, Pakistan has yet to make the same strides. A military coup in 1999, followed by a series of devastating natural disasters combined with some well-aimed US airstrikes have made Pakistan and India – practical economic equals in the early 1990s – about as far apart in the economics of World Cricket as possible.

Where India has an extremely high number of educated youth, the same can't be said of their northern neighbours. That education drags up the economy from subsistence and survival to production and service, bringing with it television and subsequently the incredible financial clout that India brings to the ICC. In Pakistan, all they've had to hold onto is their incredible reserves of playing talent, but even that seems to be drying up: the number of absolute World Class players who've arrived on the Pakistan scene since 1995, includes Mohammed Yousuf and Inzamam Ul-Haq at best.

For Pakistani cricketers in an impoverished society, the match payments that come with playing for their country must be an absolute boon. The money that abounds now in Test Cricket is greater than ever, meaning the sums won and lost gambling are in turn increased. As a world culture we have more disposable income than ever and corporations rather than governments rule world fiscal policy – as evidenced by the wealth on offer in the IPL and ICL. Is it any coincidence that Pakistan has a boatload of players chasing the cash in those competitions – especially the ICC-unsanctioned ICL? Is it any wonder that their freshly-minted Test captain Shahid Afridi retired after one test saying he wasn't suited to the game and preferred to play Twenty20? The money is better for these players as free agents and if I had to live in Pakistan I'd want the most money I could get my hands on.

So it's completely understandable – but still unforgivable – as to how a player could have his head turned by the money on offer and see it as a lifeline rather than selling out their country's sporting pride. By leading a military coup against a democratically elected government, President Pervez Musharraf has perhaps sold out his country in the most entire way possible and his dominion is simply following suit in – and let's be honest – a much smaller issue. For the longest time, the PCB has been a political volleyball, shunted across several different chairmen each with their own political and cricketing ideas and ambitions, resulting in nearly as many coaches as players in the past twenty years. The nature of Pakistan as an enitity is now under question moreso than at any other time since it's independence in 1947 and the state of their cricket reflects this.

Perhaps it is time for the ICC to bring in a FIFA-type watchdog, which punishes any governmental interference in a country's Football Association? With an ICC watchdog, should a country refuse to fall into line, they are punished with loss of their home test series – it's played on foreign soil with only telecasts allowed being from the visiting nation. Should they then continue to fail to comply, they could be limited to a certain amount of matches per year. As a final step, they are banned for one, two or three year periods.

Other countries have attracted the ire of the ICC in recent years, particularly Zimbabwe and Kenya. But the world cricketing community has basically said “That's a shame” and moved on because they are very much small fry. Pakistan's reputation as cricket heavyweights and World Cup winners coupled with their cricket-mad population make this a horrible time for the nation. This furore matters because Pakistan matters to world cricket in a way that Zimbabwe and Kenya can only dream of.

Banning Pakistan straight-up for this won't work – the gamblers will pick other targets. The West Indies as a group of islands are in a similar economic situation to Pakistan. So is Bangladesh, while the less said about the economic and cricketing mess in Zimbabwe the better. The best young talent in the world grows up on the streets of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad – has any country produced such wonderful, youthful talent so regularly as Pakistan over the last forty years? Most of their top-notchers played for their country before they turned 20 and some of those – Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram – will go down amongst the very best ever. To ban Pakistan srraight-up would punish the entire country for it's failure to thrive economically and politically as a nation and that is patently unfair. If a player is found guilty of taking bribes, the punishment must be doled out to them alone and it must hurt.