On January 16, the International Cricket Council (ICC) caused a bit of an international uproar when it announced its all-time ranking of players in both Test matches and One-day Internationals. The greatest of all protests came from India, who thought that one of the country's greatest batsmen Sachin Tendulkar was discriminated against as he was placed down at number 26 in the Test lists while Australia's recently retired left-handed opener Matthew Hayden finished as high as number 10, where he perhaps should never have been placed.

Seriously speaking, Hayden's position of 10th and 18th in the all-time Test and ODI rankings is an impressive achievement by anyone's standards but this does not necessarily mean he is the 10th-best Test batsman or 18th-best ODI batsman in the history of the game.

Then what are the rankings all about? 'The Hindu' newspaper wrote: "The ICC's all-time rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers but do not give a full picture of those players' level of consistency or longevity in the game. For example, a batsman or a bowler who averages around 700 ratings points for most of his career apart from a purple patch where he shoots up to 900 points before dropping down again may be ranked higher on the all-time ratings. But that does not mean he should necessarily be considered to be better than a player who hovered around the 850-point mark in his entire career."

Among the many protests and items of criticism that emerged soon after, the one from former India captain and all-rounder Kapil Dev was most interesting: "It is appalling. The ICC has no business to humiliate some of the greatest icons of the game. How can you have Gavaskar at 20 and Sachin at 26? I am 35th, and Wasim Akram 59th. "They must be joking. I have always maintained that Akram was a much better bowler than me... This ranking is like the Duckworth-Lewis method. No one knows about that. No one knows about this either."

But, then again, who is really afraid of the ICC all-time rankings? If the cricketing world didn't take these lists seriously, then why do fans, administators and players alike look forward to updates from the world cricketing body's after the end of each international series? The all-time rankings are, in fact, just a repitition of the periodical lists; nothing more, nothing less.

First things first, however, before we go into what has really happened regarding the lists. To start with, the history:

"The ICC Player Rankings are a widely followed system of rankings for international cricketers based on their recent performances. The current sponsor is Reliance Mobile who have signed a deal with the ICC that will last until 2015.

"The ratings were developed at the suggestion of former England captain Ted Dexter in 1987. The intention was to produce a better indication of players' current standing in the sport than is provided by comparing their averages. Career averages are based on a player's entire career and do not make any allowance for match conditions or the strength of the opposition, whereas the ratings are biased towards recent form and account for match conditions and the quality of the opponent using statistical measures.

"Initially the rankings were for Test cricket only, but separate One-day International rankings were introduced in 1998. Both sets of rankings have now been calculated back to the start of those forms of the game."

The all-time tables list all the player who have achieved a rating of 900 points or more in Test cricket. "It should be noted," the ICC stressed, "that these are not intended to be lists of the 'best' batsmen and bowlers, but rather of those who reached the highest peaks of form. Some of the players maintained a rating close to their personal best for several years, while others dominated their opponents briefly before fading away. The tables are complete to December 23, 2008, and usually several years pass between additions to each list."

BATSMEN WITH A PEAK RATING OF 900 POINTS OR MORE

1 Sir Don Bradman Australia 961. 2 Sir Len Hutton England 945. 3 Sir Jack Hobbs England 942. 3 Ricky Ponting Australia 942. 5 Peter May England 941. 6 Sir Vivian Richards West Indies 938. 6 Kumar Sangakkara Sri Lanka 938. 6 Sir Garry Sobers West Indies 938. 6 Sir Clyde Walcott West Indies 938. 10 Matthew Hayden Australia 935. 10 Jacques Kallis South Africa 935. 12 Mohammad Yousuf Pakistan 933. 13 Sir Everton Weekes West Indies 927. 13 Graeme Pollock South Africa 927. 15 Dudley Nourse South Africa 922. 15 Doug Walters Australia 922. 17 Neil Harvey Australia 921. 18 Denis Compton England 917. 19 Sunil Gavaskar India 916. 20 George Headley West Indies 915. 21 Ken Barrington England 914. 22 Mike Hussey Australia 912. 23 Brian Lara West Indies 911. 24 Kevin Pietersen England 909 and 25 Shivnarine Chanderpaul West Indies 900.

Incidentally, Tendulkar attained his highest Test rating of 898 points back in February 2002 whereas Pakistan's Mohammad Yousuf, the batsman at number two in the latest periodical ranking, hit a high of 933 in November 2006.

Tendulkar, however, occupied the top position in the ICC Test ranking at the end of the year 2002 while Yousuf has never gone beyond the number two position, in spite of a much higher number of points when he was peaking as a player!

Just this example should have been enough to confirm the ICC's belief that has been explained earlier. The 'all-time' lists by no means reveal that the players listed were the best in the given order.

There should be no doubts, however, regarding the stature Sir Don Bradman enjoys. Or do Sir Len Hutton and Sir Jack Hobbs. Logically viewed, perhaps the other players mentioned would more or less occupy the same spots they do in the all-time ranking.

BOWLERS WITH A PEAK RATING OF 900 POINTS OR MORE

Most critics would agree that England's Sydney Barnes and George Lohmann were two of the most outstanding bowlers in Test cricket history. Thus their one-two position at the top of the all-time Test ranking didn't raise any eyebrows. Pakistan's magnificent Imran Khan, with a highest rating of 922, claims third position in this exalted table. Here's how the most successful bowlers have been rated:

1 Sydney Barnes England 932. 2 George Lohmann England 931. 3 Imran Khan Pakistan 922. 4 Muttiah Muralitharan Sri Lanka 920. 5 Glenn McGrath Australia 914. 6 Curtly Ambrose West Indies 912. 6 Tony Lock England 912. 8 Sir Ian Botham England 911. 9 Malcolm Marshall West Indies 910. 10 Waqar Younis Pakistan 909. 10 Sir Richard Hadlee New Zealand 909. 10 Shaun Pollock South Africa 909. 13 Alan Davidson Australia 908. 14 Derek Underwood England 907. 15 Shane Warne Australia 905. 16 Sir Alec Bedser England 903. 17 Clarrie Grimmett Australia 901. 17 Bill O'Reilly Australia 901. 19 Bill Johnston Australia 900.

The position of Waqar Younis at number 10 is significant. Wasim Akram, in spite of his excellent international record, attained a highest Test rating of 830 points only.

ALL-TIME HIGHEST ODI RANKINGS

The following tables list the top 10 player rankings in the history of One-day International cricket. The tables are complete to January 5 this year and Zaheer Abbas of Pakistan gets pride of place as number two just behind the West Indies Master Blaster Sir Vivian Richards. Javed Miandad is at number six.

BATTING: 1 Sir Vivian Richards West Indies 935 in 1985. 2 Zaheer Abbas Pakistan 931 in 1983. 3 Greg Chappell Australia 921 in 1981. 4 David Gower England 919 in 1983. 5 Dean Jones Australia 918 in 1991 6 Javed Miandad Pakistan 910 in 1987. 7 Brian Lara West Indies 908 in 1993. 8 Desmond Haynes West Indies 900 in 1985. 8 Gary Kirsten South Africa 900 in 1996. 10 Allan Lamb England 897 in 1985.

Sachin Tendulkar went up to the top of the ICC ODI batting ranking, as the year 2003 came to an end.

BOWLING: 1 Joel Garner West Indies 940 in 1985. 2 Sir Richard Hadlee New Zealand 923 in 1983. 3 Shaun Pollock South Africa 920 in 2006. 4 Muttiah Muralitharan Sri Lanka 913 in 2002. 5 Glenn McGrath Australia 903 in 2002. 6 Ewen Chatfield New Zealand 892 in 1984. 7 Malcolm Marshall West Indies 891 in 1985. =7 Dennis Lillee Australia 891 in 1982. 9 Curtly Ambrose West Indies 877 in 1991. 10 Michael Holding West Indies 875 in 1985.

The report in 'The Hindu' further said: "The all-time list of highest-rated players does not by itself rank those players in terms of true greatness. For that reason some players, who are considered by most observers of the game to be truly great, such as Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Greg Chappell, and others, do not feature in the top 20 in the all-time high ratings."

The reactions in India were the loudest. Former captain and left-arm spinner Bishan Singh Bedi said: "It is not even worth reacting. It is so disgusting. I don't care if they rank me 150th, but what is the procedure? And what is the need?"

Sri Lanka fast bowler Chaminda Vaas had this to say: "The ranking does not really count for him [Tendulkar]. He is a great cricketer and has been scoring runs consistently for more than 15 years. He is a hero for this country."

A report by Andy Bull in 'The Guardian' newspaper said: "Some unfortunate PR, and how my heart weeps as I type that phrase, has made the regrettable error of offending India's greatest cricketer. You can almost picture them cowered in the corner, clutching their knees and rocking back and forth as they realise what they had done. All they had intended was to procure a little sly sponsorship for their client with a press release about Matthew Hayden, revealing that according to their oblique calculations, he was the 10th greatest Test batsman of all time."

"Of course, a bunch of bored schoolboys armed with a calculator and with access to www.cricinfo.com might have surely done a better job than the honourable experts to whom the ICC chose to hand over the job... But all this is not the point, really. The point is, we needn't have bothered," wrote Indian journalist Nirmal Shekar.

'The Age' in Australia suspected cricket's governing body was, frankly, good for nothing: "The ICC can be forgiven for struggling with some of cricket's intricate modern politics. It doesn't help itself, though, when it produces inadequate outcomes on what are nuts-and-bolts cricket matters like these."

Rahul Dravid said: "Perhaps, this is because there is not much international cricket right now featuring India. I don't want to give too much importance to these rankings. Just forget them."

RANKING SYSTEM 'LAUGHABLE'

A report in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' said: "The list has infuriated officials and fans in the subcontinent, with Board of Control for Cricket in India secretary Niranjan Shah describing the rankings system as laughable, further stretching relations between the powerful board and the game's official ruling body.

"The ICC released the list on Wednesday night trumpeting Hayden's placing in the top 10 the day after he retired from international cricket.

"However, eyebrows have been raised as the four leading Test run-scorers of all time -- Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Steve Waugh and Allan Border -- could not even manage the top 20. Zimbabwean Andy Flower is ranked ahead of Waugh on percentages, with the pair listed equal 28th.

"I don't know if anyone takes this ranking system seriously, it has no bearing on anybody," Shah told the Herald.

"There are so many other companies in India doing these sorts of rankings and the ICC just wants to get some publicity for their own system.

"Most people wouldn't take notice of this ranking, I don't think players take this system very seriously. Cricket is based on long-term achievement and that's what you have to remember, not this type of ranking system that changes every week."

"However, the ICC's list is indicative of players who had sudden surges in form and reached a lofty peak in the ratings, as opposed to those who continually performed over a long period of time. Also, a player's performance is assessed relative to his team's output, so batsmen who score many runs while the rest of the side struggles earn far more points than those who generally do well when teammates also score highly -- indicating that the pitch was flat and conditions were batsman-friendly.

"Shah said the ICC rankings already lacked credibility and it wouldn't matter whether their system was scrapped or not.

"Former Australian opener Justin Langer, a close friend of Hayden, said rankings were never discussed by players and he doesn't see its relevance. "It's probably good for people's egos to say they're No.1 but certainly in my time we never, ever spoke about it in the dressing rooms," Langer said.

"If you are the No.1 batsman in the world it might give you a bit of kudos but that's about it."

Yes, that's it. That's how most players perceive any kind of cricket rankings. For the common fan as well as the media, however, they provide endless discussions and points to ponder in conversations and debates. Perhaps, the team rankings are more significant because the ICC awards a handsome amount of prize money to the outfit that occupies the top position from time to time.

The ICC rankings do have a quirky nature though. There is no doubting that batsmen like Jack Hobbs, Kumar Sangakkara, Ricky Ponting, Mohammad Yousuf, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis and Everton Weekes are outstanding players from the past and current times, and that these men will be remembered as some of the greatest names to have ever played cricket.

But, are these players really better than luminaries like Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar, Don Headley and Rahul Dravid? Well, if one goes by ICC's all-time Test Player Rankings, then the answer would be Yes. While there is no disputing the fact that Sir Donald Bradman deserves the top spot in the all-time rankings, it defies logic that Gavaskar is ranked 19th, Headley 20th, Tendulkar 26th and Dravid 30th. In fact, the other members of the 10,000-Test runs club like Brian Lara, Allan Border and Steve Waugh don't even find a mention in the ICC's top-20 Test player rankings.

Tendulkar has scored the most number of runs and most number of centuries in Tests, while Gavaskar was the first batsman ever to make 10,000 runs in Test cricket. And, while Lara holds the world record for the highest individual Test match innings, Waugh and Border both did yeoman service for Australia with the bat in Test cricket.

While there is no disputing the fact that the likes of Sangakkara, Hobbs, Ponting, Len Hutton, Graeme Pollock, Hayden and Doug Walters were all good batsmen, placing them above legends like Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Border and Headley is certainly hard to digest.

The ICC ranks the players in its all-time list based on their highest ratings points. This, in itself, defies logic, because when all-time greats are being talked about, factors like the number of runs scored, centuries and half-centuries scored as well as the situation in which the runs were scored, have to be included in the mix. The ratings points are but an indication of a player's performance over time and can't be the overriding criterion for deciding the cricket's all-time greatest Test batsmen.

If the ICC follows the criteria mentioned above, then there is no doubt that Tendulkar would take his rightful place behind Bradman as the second-best Test batsman of all time. This would also see Gavaskar, Headley, Lara, Dravid, Border and Steve Waugh feature higher in the rankings, as is their right for being consistent and outstanding performers through their careers.

And, if one thought the ICC went wrong only in its all-time Test player rankings, think again because the same discrepancy also comes up in its all-time ODI Player Rankings, which has Tendulkar at the 12th position and Adam Gilchrist at number 30! Batsmen like Sourav Ganguly and Inzamam-ul-Haq just about to find mention as also-rans in this list.

This was, of course, some more public opinion aired after the release of the ICC's all-time ranking. But in all fairness it has to be said that the ICC simply made public a consolidated list keeping in mind cricket's entire history and did not make any changes to its system that has enjoyed universal acceptance since the year 1987.

ZAHEER PLEASED TO KNOW HE'S NUMBER TWO

Pakistan's legendary batsman Zaheer Abbas said he felt honoured to be selected at a prominent position in the All-time ICC ODI Player Rankings announced by the game's governing body.

Zaheer, 61, told 'The News' that he was pleased to know that he is placed at the second position in the elite list that is headed by West Indies' master blaster Sir Vivian Richards. "It's a great honour to be on this list," said Zaheer, who scored 2572 runs from 62 One-day Internationals at an average of 47.62.

Though Zaheer finds himself under the ICC spotlight for his one-day heroics, it was his achievements at the Test level that make him one of the greatest Pakistani batters of all time. In 78 Tests, Zaheer amassed 5062 runs at 44.79 with the help of 12 tons. "In those days, matches used to be really tough," he recalled.

The cricketing world might have been infuriated at the non-inclusion of several stars among the top players in the world, but it has to be admitted that the ICC rankings do provide a kind of assessement for the players' best form. They may not be taken seriously, as they have no bearing on teams' standings or the actual results, but they do provide a much-talked about item of interest.

And now the most importnat question. How do the Pakistanis rank, when judged according to the ICC rating system? We have a list for you here, of the top 25 batsmen and bowlers who represented Pakistan in Test match cricket. There are no surprises, but it must be noted that the top batsman Mohammad Yousuf never went above number two, although both Javed Miandad and Inzamam-ul-Haq have occupied the number one spot in their own times.

Four Pakistan bowlers rose to the very top in previous ICC Test rankings. They were Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, Fazal Mahmood and Mushtaq Ahmed. Wasim Akram went up to number two in October 1990.

Next week, we will have Pakistan's all-time One-day International rankings for you.

The writer is Group Editor Sports of 'The News'

BATTING

No Player Highest Rating Highest Ranking

1 Mohammad Yousuf 933 (27.11.2006) 2 (11.11.2006)

2 Javed Miandad 885 (24.2.1989) 1 (29.10.1983)

3 Inzamam-ul-Haq 870 (29.11.2005) 1 (15.2.1995)

4 Younis Khan 856 (4.8.2006) 3 (4.8.2006)

5 Saeed Anwar 824 (5.11.1999) 2 (16.2.1999)

6 Hanif Mohammad 819 (2.12.1960) 2 (9.12.1960)

7 Zaheer Abbas 803 (14.1.1983) 3 (2.1.1983)

8 Majid Khan 791 (1.4.1977) 3 (18.3.1977)

9 Saeed Ahmed 784 (2.12.1960) 3 (9.12.1960)

10 Mohsin Khan 770 (10.12.1982) 4 (10.12.1982)

11 Mushtaq Mohammad 767 (15.2.1975) 2 (29.12.1973)

12 Shoaib Mohammad 767 (15.11.1990) 4 (15.11.1990)

13 Saleem Malik 741 (19.1.1995) 2 (1.12.1994)

14 Sadiq Mohammad 719 (23.10.1976) 7 (23.10.1976)

15 Asif Iqbal 718 (14.1.1977) 7 (14.1.1977)

16 Wasim Raja 707 (30.12.1980) 9 (30.12.1980)

17 Taufeeq Umar 703 (24.10.2003) 16 (24.10.2003)

18 Aamer Sohail 691 (6.12.1997) 9 (4.1.1998)

19 Ijaz Ahmed 687 (22.8.1996) 11 (10.12.1998)

20 Azhar Mahmood 669 (6.3.1998) 15 (6.3.1998)

21 Mudassar Nazar 668 (30.1.1983) 11 (23.2.1986)

22 Imran Khan 650 (12.12.1991) 12 (12.12.1991)

23 Qasim Omar 637 (16.10.1985) 15 (16.10.1985)

24 Haroon Rasheed 605 (2.1.1978) 15 (15.4.1978)

25 Misbah-ul-Haq 597 (8.12.2007) 24 (8.12.2007)

BOWLING

No Player Highest Rating Highest Ranking

1 Imran Khan 922 (30.1.1983) 1 (29.7.1982)

2 Waqar Younis 909 (9.12.1993) 1 (2.1.1993)

3 Fazal Mahmood 895 (6.3.1959) 1 (6.3.1959)

4 Shoaib Akhtar 855 (26.12.2003) 2 (18.3.2004)

5 Wasim Akram 830 (28.9.1994) 2 (10.10.1990)

6 Mushtaq Ahmed 827 (28.11.1996) 1 (29.11.1996)

7 Saqlain Mushtaq 771 (8.3.2001) 5 (19.4.2002)

8 Iqbal Qasim 770 (14.3.1982) 7 (14.3.1982)

9 Sarfraz Nawaz 767 (10.3.1979) 3 (6.1.1979)

10 Pervez Sajjad 737 (17.6.1971) 3 (3.6.1971)

11 Khan Mohammad 728 (11.10.1956) 7 (24.12.1956)

12 Danish Kaneria 723 (12.10.2005) 10 (24.3.2005)

13 Abdul Qadir 710 (16.12.1987) 4 (25.11.1987)

14 Mohammad Asif 710 (26.1.2007) 6 (9.8.2007)

15 Intikhab Alam 684 (23.10.1976) 6 (23.10.1976)

16 Sikander Bakht 660 (25.12.1979) 11 (25.12.1979)

17 Shabbir Ahmed 647 (12.11.2005) 17 (12.11.2005)

18 Umar Gul 627 (27.11.2006) 15 (11.1.2007)

19 Tauseef Ahmed 605 (7.10.1988) 7 (13.3.1987)

20 Azeem Hafeez 602 (8.1.1985) 11 (18.1.1985)

21 Mushtaq Mohammad 589 (2.2.1979) 16 (2.12.1977)

22 Asif Iqbal 560 (24.8.1967) 12 (23.12.1967)

23 Nasim-ul-Ghani 553 (13.11.1959) 13 (25.3.1960)

24 Abdul Razzaq 524 (27.7.2006) 25 (13.7.2006)

25 Aaqib Javed 492 (22.9.1995) 23 (22.9.1995)

Cricket is undisputedly the single most followed game in Pakistan in despite the last ten or so years in which the cricket board has been beset by bad management and the team has performed most inconsistently. The popularity of the game has not substantially decreased and it remains the biggest game in town. It therefore requires the new management to lead the sport into better times.

In so doing it could also show the way to hockey, football, squash, athletics and other sports. We must recognise that the management of any sport is not the function of any government ministry. If we look at those sports that are entirely looked after by a government body it becomes apparent that this is NOT the route to follow.

The function of the Ministry of Sports must be to ensure that whatever resources the government allocates to this sector are distributed proportionately to those sports that are not able to generate funds. The Ministry must ensure that the funds are spent usefully and audit these efforts. It must also advise and devise schemes to assist these areas into becoming self sufficient and continuously encourage improvement.

They must delegate and not usurp authority. This presently is not the norm. A good example for us to follow must be Australia. It is a vast country with just twenty-one million people, yet it excels in almost every sport; be it cricket, hockey, rugby, athletics, squash, swimming or tennis. The list is most impressive.

We will find that the no chief of any defense force or the Minister of Sport in Australia manages or operates any board or association of any sport. We a country of some 160 million people with much interference from the government sector do not have any results that would encourage continuance of these systems. We have led the world in cricket, hockey and squash and during the periods we were at our peak, it was good leadership and total autonomy of action that permitted the managements to succeed in developing talent that exists in our land. We still have the talent but very limited success. The story speaks for itself!

The Pakistan Cricket Board is reportedly very short of funds. Newspapers are rife with statements as to what has brought about this very sad state of affairs. The undeniable fact is that over the last ten years we have been spending like there was no tomorrow.This is the same period during which a very successful constitution was ostensibly being improved. It is the same period during which we built new grounds in distant places that were never going to be maintained; we increased the staff of the PCB from some fifty or sixty to some nine hundred people. What was missing in all the managements of this period were accountability and the ability to counter this unbridled expenditure with matching income.

It has been recorded in these columns that the PCB's income in 2003 was some seven million dollars annually. At this time the television rights were unfairly awarded on the terms of a buyout as against a proven beneficial method of a minimum guarantee for a mere 42 million US dollars. As previous columns have described the gross revenues over this five-year period were well estimated over some 200 million US dollars.

The PCB inexplicably surrendered the possibility of earning an additional 100 million dollars. It bears stating that whilst the 'powers that be' are now most assiduously seeking answers and reasons for the wasteful expenditures and trying to find methods of apportioning responsibility this is an exercise in futility. History suggests that this has almost never been possible. I do wonder as to the reasons why similar people in authority did not even deign to examine the above described generosity of the PCB Management.

We await the return of the Sri Lankan team for the Test matches. It is obviously unsatisfactory that the tour is being played in two halves and we will always wonder as to the motives behind the BCCI's scheduling of their tour to Sri Lanka. In the circumstances it was a mature response on the part of the PCB to be flexible in their scheduling of this Tour.

A fair number of people have voiced the concern about the role of the ICC in these difficult times. It is of course the right of individual Boards to manage their own security but some respect should be paid to the body that oversees the scheduling of world cricket and also largely governs it. It has a fully manned security department and thus individual boards and players should pay some heed to its advice.

It appears that the ICC has consciously taken a back seat and appears content to only worry about security for the umpires. This is in effect abrogating their own authority and can only serve to weaken their hold on the game. On a number of occasions in recent times, problems that arose were not resolved with timely execution of authority thus resulting in lingering unpleasantness.

In the larger interest of cricket the ICC should get all the boards to agree that in principal country politics will not be allowed to play an active part in the decision making of the ICC. Currently the phenomenon of big money has made India the big boy on the block. This added to Commonwealth and other politics is causing problems and damaging the standing of the ICC. The IPL and ICL Leagues are further complicating a situation where equitable decisions are very difficult to take and execute. These are testing times for the ICC and need close attention.

The tour of the Sri Lankan team has hopefully opened the door for other teams to follow and we can start a process of rehabilitation of international cricket in Pakistan. This does require the PCB to be proactive in encouraging players and teams to undertake tours. Whereas the security issue is not within the control of the Board, it can start addressing other subjects which have also contributed to the reluctance of cricketers touring our country and have led some of the cruder ones to make derogatory remarks that are better left unrepeated.

There is a need to ensure that visiting teams enjoy themselves off the field. This requires some out of the box and inventive thinking which could be assisted by goodwill visits undertaken by delegated senior and popular cricketers to spread the word about the new, positive and professional approach of the PCB.

Finally, the desperate skipper Shoaib Malik lost his patience and openly criticised fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar over his performance in the first two One-day Internationals against Sri Lanka in Karachi.

"Form is temporary but class is permanent". It is a formula where you can judge the performance of a quality player whether he is in form or not. Shoaib Akhtar displayed not a shadow of his peak performance in the first two ODIs.

The first ODI was Shoaib's first 50-over international in 14 months and back-to-back matches were a real test of his fitness in which he failed.

After bowling just 13 overs in two matches, Shoaib conceded 88 runs and took only one wicket and these 13 overs he bowled in four spells. Shoaib was not the only culprit, his new ball partner and Pakistan's most successful ODI bowler of last year Sohail Tanvir also failed to provide breakthroughs in his opening spells. Sohail bowled 12 overs, conceded 85 runs and failed to take a single wicket.

The cricket management should move forward and learn to depend on young legs instead of experienced but unfit superstars. There are a number of young fast bowlers who are waiting their turn after extraordinary performances on the domestic circuit.

Captain Shoaib Malik was also not happy with Shoaib Akhtar's performance in the field as the fast bowler often hesitated to chase the ball. "If you look at his performances and record and the matches he has won, there is no question over his effectiveness. But the question is over his 100% fitness. Cricket has changed and if you aren't 100% fit then it is difficult," said the frustrated skipper.

Former Pakistan fast bowler Waqar Younis in an interview with a foreign newspaper advised Shoaib Akhtar that he should quit Test cricket and only concentrate on One-day Internationals and Twenty20 matches to prolong his international career. But the first two ODIs against Sri Lanka also put a question-mark on Shoaib's fitness for the 50 overs game.

Before starting the ODI series the management including coach and the captain were confident that Shoaib Akhtar was now fully fit after some hard work in the first-class matches and in the nets. This confidence was also shattered in the Abu Dhabi ODI series against West Indies when Shoaib Akhtar was selected, but he was again unfit and failed to play a single game on the fitness ground.

Shoaib Akhtar, known as the "Rawalpindi Express", is one of Pakistan's fastest bowlers ever produced. He is a one-man demolition squad when he finds his rhythm. He is a big man, full of energy and keen to break the speed barriers and be recognised as the No. 1 fast bowler in the World.

Shoaib has always remained in the headlines whether he is in the ground or off the field. His fitness problems have kept him away most of the time from international cricket. He made his debut in 1997 at Rawalpindi against West Indies and after a decade he has played just 46 Tests taking 178 wickets and 140 One-day Internationals with 220 wickets. During that period Pakistan has played 92 Tests, which means Shoaib has missed as many as 46 Test matches, mostly on fitness grounds.

His career has been full of controversies. His career was jolted when controversial Australian umpire Ross Emerson called his action as suspect in November 1999. But then Australian Cricket Board (ACB) chief executive Malcolm Speed ended the Shoaib Akhtar chucking affair after watching a 20-minute video tape of his action sent by umpires Emerson and Terry Prue.

But in December 1999 again, a nine-member International Cricket Council (ICC) committee banned Shoaib Akhtar from international cricket over his bowling action. In January 2000 the then ICC chairman Jagmohan Dalmiya of India had cleared Shoaib to play in the triangular tournament against Australia and India.

In November 2002, Shoaib Akhtar was found guilty of ball tampering in the first Test against Zimbabwe, according to match referee Clive Lloyd.

In May 2003, Shoaib Akhtar was fined 75% of his match fee and banned for two One-day Internationals for ball tampering. He was hauled before Gundappa Viswanath, the match referee, after television footage showed him scratching the surface of the ball.

In October 2003, Shoaib Akhtar was named vice-captain of the Pakistan team to play the home series against South Africa, and after just a few days was suspended for one Test and two One-day Internationals.

In October 2006, Shoaib Akhtar was banned from cricket for two years after being found guilty of using the banned anabolic steroid nandrolone, by a three-man drugs committee formed by the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) a day before starting the opening game of the Champions Trophy.

After clearance from the ban for doping, Shoaib Akhtar once again came into the headlines when he was fined Rs 10,000 by the organisers of the Twenty20 Cup for refusing to wear a sponsors' logo during the event in December last year.

Last year, Shoaib Akhtar unconditionally apologised to the board for criticising them. Shoaib condemned the board during the Pentangular Cup on the pitch condition. The Board issued him a show-cause notice to clarify his statement. Initially Shoaib refused to submit his reply but later he apologised to the board.

Now it's time for the PCB to think about Shoaib Akhtar's consistent injury and behaviour problems as it has become a regular practice that Shoaib starts a series with a bang but leaves the side in the lurch, especially for the Test matches his fitness is still debatable.

A few years back, famous broadcaster Harsha Bhogle wrote in an article that Shane Warne was a great cricketer but not a nice role-model to idolise for young cricketers. Now it appears that the case may not be too different with Shoaib Akhtar either.

After all misfortune, fortunately Shoaib Akhtar has been awarded a central contract for 2009 and been placed in the top of three categories. He will get Rs 250,000 per month.

Shoaib played just three Twenty20s in a four-nation tournament in Canada and missed all of Pakistan's other commitments through injury or the ban. But under another new administration and team management he has been reinstated to the premier rank of Pakistan's players.

Dr Nasim AShraf was an almighty administrator? He was once, and not long ago. Regrettably, he never used his uninterrupted power base taking Pakistan cricket out of the swamp, rather his policies combined with a useless team of managers ended up in a shambles. When Ijaz Butt, the ex-Pakistan cricketer, was invited to run the evidently hem and hawed PCB, it seemed unassuming, unwearied, realistic, efficient, grinding, courageous, unyielding and inspiring were the words used to illustrate his personality. Now, almost four months since his appointment the surprise is not that his handpicked directors barring people like Aamer Sohail are lacking in doggerel and flair but are also failing as quickly as their predecessors did.

To see Mr Butt amble in from his post quickly pondering some macroscopic shuffle of his managerial team, to witness their polite non-interest in a gettable target, is to watch a grand old game being played on tiptoes. To then hear all directors' satisfaction at escaping a media drubbing with a stop-gap home series against Sri Lanka is to realise something else: that the message has still not sunk in.

Ijaz Butt's arrival at the PCB was compared to the blessed eras of people like AH Kardar, Air Marshal Nur Khan and to some, the indefatigable and pretentious Arif Ali Khan Abbasi. But what the critics (though most of the loud-mouths have been given distinguished PCB jobs recently) after some months of hangover and disorientation have started to grapple that it wouldn't be an era different from the preceding two. It seems hope is over.

Exhilarating it could have been if it lasted, but seems going too soon, Kaput. And there will not, it turns out, we can finally assert with some certainty, be an AH Kardar-Nur Khan-Arif Abbasi era. No.

It is still too soon to guess how far the current regime might fall. It is not easy to pinpoint the exact moment they'll peak or nosedive? But it seems reasonable to suppose that despite bringing in ex-stars (voting out the voices against professional cricketers turning into administrators), and that Mr Butt's present team has aces in almost every department, nigh-on infallible heroes of the past, and just the right pinches of experience and capacity, polish and grit.

Underpinning all that is PCB's Director General Javed Miandad and somewhat responsive Director of the NCA, Aamer Sohail who could pluck dragonflies with their tongue, and a fair and clever Saleem Altaf. Having them in plenty still there are no signs that in their new roles (with the exception of desperately edgy Aamer) that this PCB team is going to be triumphant guzzling champagne of success in the balcony at Lahore's Gadaffi Stadium, only they barely survive.

Who else among the current lot might jag a spot on AH Kardar's or Nur Khan's map? Aamer would, coming in for a simpleton and pretty middle-of-the-road Mudassar Nazar and Miandad, despite his not so flattering statements would tip out trusty Saleem Altaf. No others.

To know than an almighty dynasty of capable managers is over we need to trawl back fourteen years. Where was Mr Abbasi when Ijaz Butt was being asked to replace the jaggedly honking 'Hulk' Dr Nasim? He was presumably very much around but without adequate support in the power-corridors. Anyway, there isn't much wrong with Mr Butt, but it seems, instead of putting his foot down, he has also decided to lean back on the reclining chair moving to and fro as he slips into comfort of movement.

Four months is time enough for a whole sport, let alone a management team of ex-superstars, to change out of sight. In the new world of biff and run, the present set-up looks like some other planet. Four twisting months of not much happening for long periods feel like some kind of a death rattle.

In the dust of political confusion, India's attempt to target not only our cricket, genuinely a trivial pursuit as compared to Pakistan as a country, and amidst quiet, at least five cricketers have been installed in the board to fill five giant pairs of boots.I still believe when Saleem Altaf was elevated as PCB's COO, there weren't any winks and Aamer came in next, an aggressor, the choices were most convincing. Not so hard-hearted an interrogator as Aamer was during his playing days, he bears a certain happy resemblance to a competent professional of top tier. He tried to understand the mechanics and working of the NCA and also readily agreed to cut down the expenses keeping in view of PCB's ominous policy of cost cutting.

He also consented to play with the psyches of handful self-centered, aimlessly loitering General Managers at the cricket academy. He tried to rely on means less conventional than his predecessor. He looked turning into a slow but sure bloomer. Aamer also appeared in several interviews giving his mindset emphatically, his in-floaters hanging on the breeze but now seemed messed up due to the absent patronage. It seems, more evidently that he is hand-cuffed.

Then Javed Miandad decided to hurl his authority by prominently featuring in the print media, his statements spitting and whizzing down, even at times Mr Ijaz Butt's authority and more predictably few loose ones. One fundamental flaw -- that Miandad was never a well-equipped and highly verbose trickster -- his straighter ones were also hit for sixes. And his public appearances as PCB's Director General remain problematic. Apart from Miandad, Abdul Qadir was trumped a couple of times by his own directors and Wasim Bari hasn't been heard much apart from his in-office claims that PCB was in a financial mess and so much so that the board had to defer legitimate payments of the service providers.It is very much known that Mr Bari is a great individual with lots of experience of corporate man management besides being a champion of cricket of his times but still he isn't the type to make a choice between finesse and immediate reactionary decisions. He believes in low-key smoothies. It is evident, keeping in view the record of Mr Bari's previous engagements with the PCB that he would like to sidestep whenever there is a controversy jumping his way.

I mustn't say a word about Mohammad Ilyas, the Chairman of the Junior Selection Committee. Most of his time in Pakistan since he returned from Australia and England to settle in Lahore has been exhausted in hunger-strikes and protestations. A nice guy, who was always anti-establishment and his choice furthered an argument that Mr Butt was trying to silence all voices hurled against the PCB.

An almighty PCB management team this is not. Opponents are easily enough spooked, though. The Ijaz Butt led PCB still, it is clear, hasn't radiated aura. They look the same, sort of: a row of bronzed cheekbones under board's banner, glowing in the harsh light. They sound roughly the same -- anyone who lingers long enough to irritate them still cops an earful. No doubt they will continue to dote on their achievements and legends as players, and now as showcased administrators.

They will write and read aloud to each other excruciatingly awful poetry in the name of 'professionalism'. They will leave no battlefields untrampled, until the package of critics cry 'no more'. And they won't take their caps off, unless it is to call for a helmet. If they want to be admired and win the comparison race from their predecessors they need to work competently and deliver. They must know, sometimes the drawing board is the best place to be.

There is only one way to find out, and nothing to fear. Ironically, other tried and familiar faces will make up the numbers. It is worth remembering that there is another way. Remember, too, that the Ijaz Butt era is a fresh era.

Cricket feels so trivial, so utterly irrelevant now. I shouldn't perhaps be writing a piece assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Mr Butt's management team but the deafening silence, consequently has started to have an impact on our cricket's ecosystem.I feel compelled, instead, to write this. I am not sure if the PCB or power-brokers in the country has any use for this. I will let the people concerned make the call. It's been that kind of time. Somehow I feel I understand what is happening now. I couldn't relate to it, but I understand and feel the agony of status quo. I even wonder about a foreseeable future when I could sit down and try figuring out what is driving the current PCB regime to such a maddening quietness. And this simply beyond my comprehension; this is not time for brinksmanship, power games or self-preservation.

This is a time for quiet and respectful understanding; Cricket must renew itself. Appraisal is only a small part of it, but it will matter, it will make a difference. Let me declare my interests. I love Pakistan cricket. If anything, the last couple of years of mismanagement have made me realise the depth of that love.

I have no authority, I have no standing to defend my views, but I can fight for its spirit. It sounds like a cliche, but cliches also happen to be true. I can't wait to see PCB corridors reverberating to the effects of competent management. Otherwise, to me if timely amendments are not made, to obtrusive, patient, pragmatic silence of Mr Butt, we might soon add two more words: 'Not Wanted'. Fact is, Pakistan cricket is fast slipping into nothingness.