From Safwan Umair, Pakistan

Saeed Ajmal is part of the best spin attack in world cricket today © AFP

Does an ODI series sweep over Bangladesh merit an overzealous celebration? Should we feel ecstatic and make merry? Given the state of affairs in Bangladesh cricket, a resounding ‘no’ is the answer. From the perspective of a Pakistani cricket fan though, this latest win marks 12 months of unusually consistent success.

There has been so much controversy in the past few years that any on-field performance or the lack of it hardly made headlines. Most news clips either focused on Pakistan’s cricketing venues missing international cricket, or lambasting the PCB's comical leadership. For many other media personnel, dissecting the dreaded spot-fixing fiasco was the only matter of interest. One wondered if the real essence of Pakistan cricket had been perpetually lost to a horde of incessant controversies.

Brick by brick and inch by inch, sanity, serenity and dignity is returning to Pakistan cricket. Various factors have contributed to this turnaround. The masterstroke perhaps, post the calamitous England tour last summer, was the appointment of the calm Misbah-ul-Haq as captain. One of the greatest ironies in Pakistan cricket also revolves around the same man. A natural captain and an automatic batting selection had turned 37 before sealing a permanent slot in the side.

The ODI results have been encouraging. A competitive Test side has gradually evolved courtesy a dependable set of openers and three solid, if unspectacular, middle-order batsmen in Azhar Ali, Younis Khan and Misbah. A mind-boggling flow of fast-bowling talent in Pakistan has ensured that the departure of Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif only helped unearth the likes of Junaid Khan and Aizaz Cheema. Saeed Ajmal is also at the top of his game, and together with Shahid Afridi, Abdur Rehman and Mohammad Hafeez, he’s part of the most potent spin attack in the game.

Names alone do not matter; numbers deserve a mention too. Statistically, in the past 12 months, Pakistan enjoyed the best ODI winning percentage among all international teams, 77.41% to be precise. During the same period, Pakistan’s Test match win-loss ratio stood at 4.00, second only to the unbeaten England side. Three of the four Test wins came against New Zealand, Zimbabwe and the West Indies but, more importantly, no Test series was lost. This included a respectable draw against South Africa and a recent win over a higher-ranked Sri Lanka.

The most pleasing aspect so far has been the elimination of the ‘unpredictability’ factor. Watching a Pakistan team play consistent cricket without the fear of an imminent collapse or controversy is a welcome relief. However, the true mettle of Pakistan’s cricketing progress will be tested by England in the UAE ,in January, in what promises to be a gripping contest.

From Abdul R. Siddiqui, USA

A few bad memories stain all the good things Misbah has achieved © AFP

Residual value is defined as the worth of something after it is no longer useful in or of itself. Considering the fear we have of being useless, coupled with the reality that there comes a time in everyone’s life where they repeatedly wake up less productive than the day before, it makes sense that we often strive for residual value; it is our savior. That we can tell ourselves we are useful because of what we have already accomplished allows us to embrace and accept that we are, in and of ourselves, useless.

Perhaps that is why reminiscing is the favorite activity of those who have essentially completed their run in life. However, the only way in which such reminiscence can provide solace to someone who sees their life fading is if those memories being recalled are good ones. Not just good, in fact, but good enough to outweigh the bad ones.

And herein lies the tragedy that many people have to face: good memories outnumber bad ones but are often unable to outweigh them. This is what eliminates the residual value of our accomplishments, this stigma of a few bad memories that stains all the good things we have achieved.

That is the stigma my hero, Misbah-ul-Haq Khan Niazi, will have to bear; that is his tragedy. And it is truly a shame, considering Misbah’s career. All his life, he was denied a permanent spot due to an ingrained belief in Pakistani selectors that anyone past their late teens or early twenties is not a long-term prospect for the team. Ironically, even after a debut at 26, Misbah went on to play for more than ten years.

Now, after finally becoming a permanent fixture in the team at 37 years of age, he genuinely isn’t a long-term prospect. What makes this injustice even more painful is that he is providing something to the team that it has been lacking for far too long: a batsman whose form actually improves following a captaincy appointment. Not just that, but Misbah even handled the Test side admirably following the innumerable crises that occurred last year and still kept his form.

Misbah leads from the front, and to do so in a team that sometimes makes that job incredibly difficult, that is admirable. And then there was the innings at Mohali. Perhaps not much else needs to be said. That is the stigma he bears; that is his tragedy.

From Ibrahim Moiz, Canada

	The PCB's punishment reeks more of a diversionary tactic © AFP

Cricinfo, as far as I can tell, isn't the place to vent one's frustrations. At the very least, one can outline valid reasons in an organized, mature manner. And that's why Samir Chopra's latest post "Should any 'family' be this tolerant?" strikes me as, in the author's words, "patently offensive".

I do agree with Mr. Chopra in one regard - that we should stop with the increasingly grating cliches of wonderfully unpredictable, charmingly volatile, and capable of spectacular blows both to itself and to its on-field opponents. It sounds entertaining enough, but it's not helping Pakistan cricket. A far more agreeable term for all concerned would be quietly clinical, thoroughly professional...but Pakistan isn't anywhere near that. The board, in my opinion, has exacerbated matters.

Yes, Pakistan suffers from too much player power and yes, it needs to be checked. But what exactly the bans slapped on two of the team's veterans, Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan, are supposed to achieve is anybody's guess. Younis, by all accounts a dignified and sincere member of the side, has been one of Pakistan's most stalwart performers over the years. His results may not impress in terms of Standard Deviation - a first-baller can be followed by a match-winning century, or some-such, but, in general he gets the job done. So he didn't particularly take to captaincy. He was certainly taking Pakistan in the right direction when political interference into over-hyped defeats in the Champions Trophy insulted his integrity. Few players have had so ill-deserved a send-off.

Yousuf, whose easy, graceful strokes could melt butter on a frigid winter day, was perhaps Pakistan's best performer of the topsy-turvy 2000s. A fluent, dashing stroke-player to begin with, he then displayed an increasing tendency to fight it out at the crease, culminating in a record run-tally in the calendar year of 2006. An undignified off-field spat with Shoaib Malik and some tactless comments during a disastrous captaincy aside, he hardly deserved so wretched a punishment.

The punishment reeks more of a diversionary tactic. In the aftermath of a disastrous Australian tour, the PCB needed to be seen as doing something. Like the shameless politicians before them, they tried a cheap distraction. And the sad thing is it's not the first time, either. Of course, as Chopra says, it would not be surprising if these banned players made a comeback. Pakistan has a history, not just in cricket, of confounding comebacks. And instead of affectionately oozing over the glorious uncertainties, Pakistan would do well to pick itself up and try to instill some consistency and accountability into its cricket.

But Mr. Chopra, with all due respect, seems to have taken this latest twist as an opportunity to vent a lifetime of misgivings. He has his right to, of course, and I hope he won't begrudge me my right to respond, but the stream of "endemic indiscipline" and "stunning lack of professionalism" seems to strike me as somewhat one-eyed. Yes, Inzamam-ul-Haq once lost his temper with a Toronto spectator. Shameful, and not pretty to watch. But it's all too easy to forget Khalid Latif's prudence when confronted with a worse situation just over a month ago. Those volatile Pakistanis, indeed. And not to make this a slanging match, but when accused of "Test-match forfeits", it's too easy to point out Bishan Singh Bedi and Sunil Gavaskar's tantrums against West Indies and Australia respectively; when accused of crying "racist", it's too easy to recall Indian fans' recent fits against an admittedly suspect Australia in 2007-08, as well as the infamous Mike Denness Affair of 2001-02; when accused of crying "umpiring conspiracies", it's all too easy to recall the Indian media's public mangling of Steve Bucknor, who admittedly had a terrible Sydney match, in 2008.

Yet Indian cricket, largely to its credit but also due to the sometimes ill-disguised indulgence of other nations, has emerged stronger. Mr. Chopra's lambasting of Pakistan cricket is correct in theory, not method, much as the Australian media months ago laid into a supposedly haphazard West Indies and were called to show some decency by an unusually-stirred Joel Garner. Does Pakistan cricket need to introspect? You bet. Is such open contempt and disrespect necessary for that to happen? Probably not. Perhaps Mr. Chopra's truest statement is "We could all do with a little tough love." Quite. Pakistan, much like West Indies and Zimbabwe, is in some strife at the moment. Hanging out all misgivings to dry is hardly an appropriate response. (P.S. I understand this post may be slightly inflammatory. No personal attack on Mr. Chopra is intended and I hope the editors understand.)

From Imran Coomaraswamy, United Kingdom

Mohammad Aamer has much delight in store for Pakistan fans this decade © Getty Images

Mohammad Aamer should bring a smile to the faces of cricket fans in the decade ahead. Six months ago, I was watching from the lower tier of the Grandstand at Lord’s, as Aamer ran in to bowl the first ball of the ICC World Twenty20 final. I nervously reminded my brother, who was sitting next to me, that I had earlier picked out Pakistan as the team most likely to halt Sri Lanka’s march towards victory. I knew that unlike the other semi-finalists (South Africa and West Indies), Pakistan were used to facing Sri Lanka’s unorthodox bowling attack, and although Sri Lanka had come out on top when the two sides met in the group stages, I was wary that Shahid Afridi’s sensational catch against New Zealand had sparked the kind of hot streak that always makes Pakistan a dangerous proposition at the business end of big tournaments.

But if I was nervous, how did Aamer feel? The left arm quick was just 17 and his international career barely two weeks old. Here he was in a major final at Lord’s. The outfield was a lush, brilliant green, but the stands were even greener, thanks to the masses of flag-waving, klaxon-sounding, Zindabad-shouting Pakistan fans. Over in Pakistan itself, a nation deprived of international cricket after the Lahore attacks was no doubt in front of its TV sets, while up in the Sky Sports commentary box, Aamer’s mentor Wasim Akram was at the microphone. On strike, awaiting Aamer’s first ball was the Player of the Tournament, Tillakaratne Dilshan, who up until then had sliced, diced and daringly Dilscooped anything that had been served up to him. How would the teenager begin?

With a bouncer. A rapid bouncer, and well-directed too, forcing Dilshan to duck out of the way at the last minute. Next up? More short balls, pushing 90mph and cramping the batsman for room. The plan was simple and the execution perfect. On the fifth ball of the over, Dilshan skied an attempted pull to short fine leg, and Sri Lanka were 0 for 1. To my left, four men dressed in orange jumpsuits forgot about waving their improvised banner saying ‘Guantanamo Bay: Day Release’ as they hugged each other in delight. Dil Dil Pakistan blared out of the stand’s PA system for the first time in the match, though you could scarcely hear it over the noise of the crowd. What a start for Pakistan, and what a start for Mohammad Aamer!

Abdul Razzaq then picked up three wickets, before Shahid Afridi stole the show with a tight spell of leg-spin and a mature, match-winning fifty. Aamer finished with the unremarkable figures of 1 for 30 from four overs, but his opening over - a wicket-maiden - was anything but unremarkable and played a big role in putting Pakistan on course for victory.

More recently, I was watching from the less atmospheric but rather more comfortable vantage point of my parents’ couch as Aamer ripped through the Australian middle order in the Boxing Day Test. On the fourth successive day of hot sunny weather at the MCG, he was generating 90mph pace from his 75kg frame and getting the ball to swing in both directions. Michael Clarke groped around for a little while before being caught-behind. Marcus North was castled a few overs later, bringing Brad Haddin to the crease. Coming round the wicket to the right-hander, Aamer nearly forced a big inswinger through his defences. The next ball swung away, found the outside edge of Haddin’s bat on the way through to Kamran Akmal’s gloves, and made Aamer, still 17, the youngest fast bowler to take a five-wicket haul in Test cricket.

The best bit, however, came a couple of minutes after that, as Aamer turned to walk towards the umpire at the end of the over. Facing him stood Shane Watson. The previous day, the Pakistani had blown the burly Queenslander a mock kiss after one particularly tasty bouncer. Now, exhausted but elated, Aamer broke out into a massive, toothy, teenage grin. Watson tried his best to maintain his frown but couldn’t - he too broke into a smile as he looked down at his bat.

From S.M Arsalan Arif Khan, Pakistan

I was sitting at the National Stadium of Karachi. All alone; surrounded by a pack of thirty four thousand, two hundred and twenty eight empty seats. It was a bright and sunny day, illuminating a lush green deserted park. Towers of flood lights, that once upon a time illuminated the sky.. they stood still, with no power nor activity; sadly looking down at a deserted meadow of sprouting grass, just as I did. There were clouds usually hazed in strips; as if a white candy floss man had practiced his abstract strokes on the sky. And the ears were restrained to an excruciating mute. It was peaceful, but silent.

But peace and silence aren't always positive, because peace could also mean loneliness. The feeling of being targeted and outcasts. It was a depressing sort of peace. Solitary isolation granted by force. The only noise I could hear was the sound of the air blowing from the west; a region elsewhere; a country another. The atmosphere was empty, like time had stopped. Like someone had stole the soul of this mega structure, turning it into a weeping baby. And then came the heart ache, because memories leave indentations of fortune ... and memories bring along the heart-breaking form of nostalgia.

The dejected feeling of happiness and distress when you visit a precious place where you grew up with innocence and faith in a future that only promised peace. My heart broke by just glancing at the pitch that lay there in the centre. Brown and rolled; often criticized; often cherished. A center of attraction where hearts broke; and love won. Where there was a time when the silence in the park was overwhelmed by a roar of thirty thousand passionate spectators, adding another hundred and sixty million set of eyes that glared at this stadium through the lens.

The day India visited Pakistan for their friendship tour; some people may not know this ... but an official holiday was announced at Karachi, and I had never seen it so empty. No cars moved, no men walked out side. It was like everyone was smothered by the event of watching Shoaib Akhtar bowl to Sachin Tendulkar. No one cared about victory because cricket was back. India would smash a glaring 346 and Pakistan dauntingly replied with a total of 6 runs short.

This was a place where Mohammed Asif was introduced to world cricket as a leading swinger. It was Shahid Afridi's home ground. It was a place where Sir Vivian Richards whispered 'Murghi-Murghi-Murghi' (Chicken-Chicken-Chicken) to a Pakistani wicket keeper after he extensively appealed in vain. It was a place where Sir Vivian Richards smashed 181 runs in a world cup match: An event my father witnessed being there, and he often tells me stories about it. It was a place where Mohammed Yousuf completed his 9th century in a calendar year, piling up the world record of scoring the most runs in a calendar year; something Sir Vivian Richards embraced previously. It was a place where England battled it out even in the dark; just to ensure a victory. And they did. And who could forget Kamran Akmal's outstanding century, taking Pakistan from 39/6 to an Innings defeat.

There is a history piled up in that lawn of grass. A history of facts I can't even state in an article; because I'd need a book. And then I came back to the emptiness, staring at the blank screen switched off. And I felt low because the terrorists had won and I wondered why, because the instability was influenced by a war we weren't involved in. And I sometimes wondered, looking at that park ... about roses that bloomed in deserts and died through thirst. I would think about the oceans of pain and vengeance that stormed through hearts we never knew. The victims of terrorism and wars. Cricket was destroyed, and hate grew further. And by just looking at that park I wondered if I could just discover a part that might understand human depression as a whole. If only I could know why people commit wrong deeds for the right reasons.

If I could hold a magic wand and fill in the stadium with thirty thousand peace loving souls, I would. And then reality bit me. I recalled the firing Team Sri Lanka must have heard. The eight policemen who died protecting them. It was almost dark, as I closed my laptop and walked down to the stands. My Uncle, who is a PCB official was done with his work. We drove out of the ground; and I looked into the sky which had transformed into an emerald made of sapphires; a sky bleached with a tinge of darkness that surrounded my dead stadium: A place I proudly called 'my' home ground. The towers of floodlights beamed out hazards of red lights, reminding me that the soul of The National stadium still exists; like its heart still beats with the flickering of those bright red lights ... telling me it will live again.

From Sreepradeep Pinapati, Australia

Following the cowardly and horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the finger of blame is immediately, instinctively and some may say, conveniently, pointed at Pakistan. The purpose of this article is not to debate the merits of the endless and somewhat ludicrous conspiracy theories that are put forth on cricket blogs (pakpassion.net for one) by paranoid Indian and Pakistani fans alike, but to analyze the cricket relations between India and Pakistan from now on.

Forgive me for bringing cricket at this most sensitive and inappropriate time, but give me a chance to explain my reasoning before I am endlessly bombarded by posts declaring how I gave a few meaningless cricket matches more precedence than the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. When my colleague and I were discussing the attacks, he responded with a deadpan expression on his face that so perfectly and eloquently summarized the resilience of Indian, and to a greater extent, human spirit - "Mumbai will return to normal the very next day as that's just the kind of place it is".

India is burning over the fact that terrorists had Pakistani connections and some have gone as far as saying an open war on Pakistan is the only option. Safe to say, India will not nuke Pakistan as America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in response to the Pearl Harbor bombings. However, the common consensus is that India should have nothing to do with Pakistan and should cut off all cricketing ties with immediate effect. How such a move will bring accountability to those who committed such atrocities or bring closure to Indians and Pakistani's, barring religious, cultural and ethnicity differences, caught up in the Mumbai bombings is anyone's guess, with your guess as good as mine.

If India do cut off cricketing ties with Pakistan and cancel the upcoming tour to cricket deprived Pakistan as a strong indication of their intentions, it will leave Pakistan, like Zaheer Abbas said, as "orphans in the international cricketing community", conveniently overlooked and forgotten.

It is a well known fact that the BCCI are the power brokers of International Cricket who use their financial muscle to pull off stunning power play moves that smaller and comparably weaker boards can only dream off - Not bad for a nation that was considered a minnow, financially, for the past 50 years or so. In regards to the "postponed", more or less a synonym for the "cancelled" Champions Trophy, make no mistake, India's stubborn backing of Pakistan in their futile attempt to stage the Champions Trophy on schedule is what gave Pakistan the opportunity to hold the tournament same time next year. If India and Pakistan give each other the silent treatment, as the media would have us believe, what happens to the Champions Trophy? Will it go ahead? What about the 2011 World Cup? Will countries continue to boycott the matches held in Pakistan but not India, for the next 2 - 3 years leading up to and including the 2011 WC even if Pakistan fork out a fortune on unprecedented level of Commando - type security that India are willing to provide to the English Cricket Team?

Pakistani fans have long argued that Pakistan is as safe as India, but are irked over what they claim as "hypocrisy and double standards" when foreign countries tour India but alienate Pakistan, in the same way an individual feels alienated, lost and helpless when bullied by fellow peers. Assuming for the moment that India is as safe as Pakistan, touring teams find India the more attractive proposition simply because of the wealth it generates - a simple risk - reward proposition, really. Even at this moment, teams will turn a blind eye to touring Pakistan but will think hard before refusing to tour India.

Besides political tensions and the fact that the two countries are arch rivals who continue to squabble over the disputed region of Kashmir, India have stood by Pakistan. If India abandon Pakistan, then, in effect they have left Pakistan cricket to suffer a slow, painful death with no hope of respite. Commentators have sympathized with India's current predicament and have suggested that Cricket will suffer. I respectfully disagree. The only country that will suffer more than anyone else will be Pakistan, who, after these attacks have lost their biggest backer in the BCCI. Players will opt out of coming to India, but that is no more than a short term knee jerk reaction. As an ardent Indian cricket fan, I am happy to report that Indian cricket will resume business as normal as soon as Reg Dickason okay's the tour

From Antony Chettupuzha, India

In a recent post, TJ recommends that the PCB temporarily (I've take the liberty of assuming he meant this) relocate to the United Arab Emirates, until security conditions in Pakistan are acceptable for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England (and some might add the West Indies too) to tour. This he contends will allow Pakistan to continue playing cricket matches while allowing their opponents not to fear losing their lives in the process. I found this very interesting for a number of reasons.

First the choice of the UAE is interesting, I've heard reports of the PCB trying to come up with a deal with the UAE for a 3 year period. But you wonder why these matches can't be shifted to India (or even Bangladesh) where there is good infrastructure and no dearth of available stadiums and interest to draw large crowds. Maybe some people like to associate Pakistan with that region and so it seems fitting that it should be the neutral venue for the "home tests", but I see no reason why these matches should not be hosted in stadiums that have hosted Test cricket in the past.

Second, are the costs incurred by the PCB for shifting these matches outside the country passed on to their reluctant guests? These countries do after all have an obligation to play a certain number of matches with Pakistan, and if they decide not to despite getting official clearance from the global governing body, shouldn't they foot the bill for forcing the event to be hosted elsewhere, just as they should if they outright cancel?

But the point I am most interested in is best summarized in a hypothetical scenario; Let us assume New Zealand has suddenly acquired a reputation for attacks on people of Asian origin. The four subcontinental teams decide not to tour New Zealand, landing a crippling blow on New Zealand cricket's income. Imagine if Vanuatu, which is experiencing a financial boom and has an operational stadium with one more on the way, now has an associate level cricket team. How many of you honestly think Cricket New Zealand would consider relocating to Vanuatu until conditions in New Zealand improve, or that such a suggestion would even be entertained? I also guess what I mean to ask is, would NZC go that far to "host" these few nations? Perhaps they would if they were fighting for the survival of the game in their country. Perhaps they wouldn't if the Asian boards had to pay compensation for every canceled series. I don't know.

The question remains that if a country is unable to host cricket matches, should it seek a temporary suspension until an environment of normalcy returns? Some might argue that this would kill the game in that country forever, so perhaps we can only sit back and admire the fact that despite these extremely trying times, the passion that Pakistanis have for the game is forcing them to seek an alternative "home" venue. Again some might argue that the PCB is forced to turn to this option due to financial obligations. But no matter who you are the one point that is indisputable is that the situation becomes infinitely more complex when it is not all, but only some countries that cannot tour.

From TJ, New Zealand

I am concerned for Pakistani cricket. I'm concerned for cricket in general - the only good news in recent times being Sri Lanka cricket's recent decision vis-a-vis the ICL, but I'm concerned most for Pakistani cricket. It was after all the Pakistani fast bowlers of the 1992 World Cup that made me fall in love with this game.

There are many ills to the game in that country, and like other subcontinental nations they seem cursed to endure incompetent or self interested bureaucrats being in charge. I don't expect that to change any time soon. Neither do I expect the violence that plagues their country at present to subside. Violence that will surely continue to deter teams from touring there. This means either we don't see any more Pakistan matches, or we see the ICC force play. Neither is acceptable. We want to see Pakistan matches, but we don't want to see them play opponents who are in fear for their lives.

This is why I suggest that the Pakistani cricket board re-locate to the United Arab Emirates. There is a seizable Pakistani diaspora in the UAE who I'm sure would appreciate the opportunity to watch regular cricket. And of course, there are no major security concerns in the UAE. If the Pakistani team and board is based in the UAE, in addition to saving money on travel costs to attend ICC meetings, they can work with the local UAE team to help them towards more success.

Finally, I'm sure any self-interested bureaucrats will enjoy the lifestyle Dubai offers (or the more conservative Sharjah if that's more to their taste).

From Brendan Layton, Australia

I'm taking time out to lament to decline of the Pakistan cricket team, which has fallen from world beaters to chugging along side the West Indies in a struggle to catch up.

Pakistan once boasted one of the most formidable line ups in the world. In the 90's, they had players of the calibre of Wasim Akram, arguably the greatest left arm quick of all time; Waqar Younis, his incomparable (And injury ravaged) sidekick; Inzamam-Ul-Haq; the chubby and dominant batsman as well as class acts such as Saeed Anwar, Ijaz Ahmed, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mohammad Yousuf. Pakistan has not won a series since 2006, and that was against the West Indies. The last series they played was against India, in which they lost 1-0, and they haven't played since. Nor are they slated to play anyone within the next 9 months.

What happened to Pakistan cricket to bring it down the notches it had scaled to reach amongst the top three in world cricket?

As much as we would like to say cricket and politics don't mix, it is unrealistic to believe it. Pakistan's unstable political climate and unfortunate status as terrorism target is not conducive to attracting cricket teams, sponsors, or fans. To further my point about politics, South Africa was isolated from world sports for decades due to its apartheid policy, a purely political reason for isolating it. A similar issue is going on in Zimbabwe, yet I have already raised my annoyance at the lack of initiative on that problem.

Their cricketers have battled controversies which have tagged along like dead weights. The match fixing accusations, ball tampering, Shoaib Ahktar's histrionics, the drug disgrace surrounding Shoaib and Mohammad Asif, and the forfeited test have all contributed to Pakistan's state of mind. Their bizarre selection policies have also contributed, with players who have made successful forays overseas such Yasir Arafat all but ignored (Arafat did manage one test, in their previous series against India). Mushtaq Ahmed churned out hundreds of wickets for Sussex and helped the county to its first championships, but was not picked again.

Cricket wants a strong Pakistan team. While the board has become something of a little brother to the powerful BCCI, the health of cricket needs more competitiveness and what better time with plenty of money in the game to encourage it? There is going to be another Wasim there, another Imran, another Javed. Pakistan needs to go and find them, not only for its own sake, but for crickets.

From Abdullah Khalid, United Kingdom

The recent admission by Marcus Trescothick that he used minty saliva on the ball to shine to aid it to swing more is another example of the two yardsticks used in cricket. When Wasim and Waqar in '92 demolished England with reverse swing they were labelled as cheats, but when England uses the same reverse swing it becomes an 'art' perfected by the English bowlers.

Similarly, during the 'Oval' fiasco, Darrel Hair was so quick in penalising the Pakistani team for ball tampering that he did not even give it a second thought, and on what evidence...his instincts ! However, here we have someone admitting that he did use something to aid swing, and I hear that it is legitimate. Micheal Kasprowicz went on saying that he wished they had applied more so the ball missed his glove. Huh! Let me be very honest, if this had been admitted by any Pakistani player, the whole series would have been scrapped or worse the scoreline reversed. The only reason this has not been possible is that it has never been proved that Pakistan did it. If it was so, then the current Pakistani fast bowlers would be winning matches as well, which they cannot, because perfecting the art of reverse swing is difficult and it was only the great Khan and the Ws who could do it perfectly.

Double standards have always been the norm for Australia and England. From the '87 incident involving Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana to Ross Emerson/Darrel Hair and Muralitharan to the Oval fiasco, there have always been double standards applied by these nations. It is time we have one law for all rather than different laws for different countries. We already have seen the split in ICC, the CT and Zimbabwe issues are clear examples of this split. Round 1 (Zimbabwe) was won by the Asian bloc, Round 2 (CT) to the non-Asian bloc. What happens next. We might be hearing Lalit Modi soon saying the IPL Champions League will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi and Lahore. What will happen then?

From Aniruddha, Australia

The CT has been postponed till oct 2009. The PCB had done all it could to provide security and infrastructure for the event to take place but 4 major nations pulled out and thus the tournament has been postponed. Pakistanis have been saying that bomb blasts have become part of our life be it in Pakistan, Mumbai or London and hence Pakistan should not be isolated especially since they have done their best to provide Presidential security.

My point is, the Pakistani government has to do a lot more for the world to believe that the common Pakistani people are as much victims of terrorism as anywhere else in the world, rather than being looked upon as those who support and breed terrorists. Cricket players are normal human beings who have families of their own, so it is not fair to expect them to be irresponsible to their families and risk their own lives. Presidential security was not good enough to save Benazir Bhutto and with Musharraf gone (perhaps the only man fighting against terrorists in Pakistan), no amount of security cover would suffice.

My final point is the standard of Pakistan cricket as it stands today. What attraction does one have of playing there? By not playing against Pakistan, you are no longer missing playing against Wasim, Waqar, Inzi. Yes Yousuf and Younis are world class but just as the security cover, that's not good enough. A word for the cricketer who voiced concern over playing in Pakistan. Cricketers are not soldiers and live in a free world, no one can force them to play. If the soldiers had this freedom, I doubt if they would be fighting in Pakistan.

World cup 2011? Your guess is as good as mine.

From Ibrahim, Saudi Arabia

Well here we go again. A reader summons up the guts to defend Pakistan's place in the CT, and in come mails telling her--a resident of Pakistan, mind you, who not only sees the situation everyday but lives it--not to take it personally and reminding her--a resident of Pakistan, mind you--that Pakistan is an unsafe country. What, I wonder, will it take to convince you people?

For the past seven years Pakistan has been taking this sort of treatment at the hands of other boards. First the West Indies' tour was shifted to Sharjah. Understandable, considering it was right in the wake of 9/11 and there was a bit of uncertainty as to safety. Then New Zealand pulled out of an unfinished tour--again understandable, considering the bomb blasts near their hotel. Then, of course, it was Australia's turn, as what were originally supposed to be Tests in Pakistan were shifted to Sharjah and Colombo. The next year Bangladesh toured, with no sign of hostility. South Africa, after an undue amount of thought, ventured to tour, with all of Pakistan holding its breath. Then New Zealand condescended to send a security-stuffed team largely devoid of its experienced old soldiers--again, no threat, apart from on the field when Mohammad Sami and Shoaib Akhtar were ripping out stumps, Imran Farhat and Yasir Hameed were registering 100-run stands like they'd gone out of fashion, and Abdul Razzaq was unleashing his lower-order blitzes. Then, after much debate, India pulled in.

It ended up a historic tour, not only because it was the first Indian tour in Pakistan for 13 years, but because of the hospitality of the hosts and the generally good atmosphere. Then--you'd think, wouldn't you, after the Indians, and then the Zimbabweans and Sri Lankans, came and left without a hair of their heads harmed, that it was all right--England huffed and puffed for months over whether or not to play a single ODI in Karachi--absurd because Karachi's only ODI against India the previous year had been played with terrific spirit and without nary a sign of hostility. When they eventually arrived, seaming at the sides with security, there wasn't a sign of local hostility, and, to rub it in further, they were crushed by a record 165 runs. So much for that. India came and went--surely we'd proven ourselves now?--and so did the West Indies, and so did the South Africans, and surely Australia would tour now. Not a chance of it, apparently.

Even when Inzamam-ul-Haq, retired now from international cricket, decided to do his country a last favour and simply talk--yes, talk, because we Pakistanis can talk reasonably and rationally, contrary to popular belief--to anybody with doubts, his honour Mr Dickason wasn't satisfied. A few more years and Australia might condescend to play a benefit match in Lahore...it's closer to India and its IPL, isn't it? Lalit Modi might send a couple of bodyguards over.

Before anybody decides to send in posts about "insecurity" and "uncertainty" and a thousand other excuses, let me say that, yes, despite its numerous pluses (and believe me, they ARE numerous) Pakistan has its problems. There are bombings, there are tragic deaths. Even to point out that rarely is such an attack aimed at foreigners (and please, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, don't flatter yourselves as "Westerners"), and never has an attack been aimed at a cricketer, would be a disrespect to all the Pakistani non-cricketers who have been killed.

Before you object again--bombings are bombings, why send ourselves willingly into this hole that Frederick Forsyth so delightedly set his totally fictional thrillers in--there is always a certain amount of risk involved in touring any country. The dangers of the subcontinent have been well-documented--Pakistan's more than others--but other countries have more than their fair share of dangers. Well might Pakistan refuse to tour England in future, citing gang violence; well might Pakistan refuse to tour Australia, citing hostile crowds (Mark Boucher could tell you); well might Pakistan refuse to tour New Zealand, with its "dark secret" of domestic violence; and well might Pakistan refuse to tour South Africa, where the crime rate, partly thanks to "illegal", desperate-driven immigrants from across the Zimbabwean border, is unnaturally high. Enough is enough.

Pakistan, unless there is some conspiracy to mask the past dozen tours as pretenses of hospitality and friendliness (and I wouldn't put it past some of our ungrateful ex-"guests" to assume just that), has proven itself, time and again, as a safe country for a cricket tour. If Kevin Pietersen and Jacob Oram, both of them having come and gone from Pakistan without so much as a scratch, really don't want to play, then they don't have to. Just kick 'em out for the tournament and replace them, temporarily or otherwise, with hungrier players. No player is bigger than the game. If the Champions Trophy is moved from Pakistan, it will affirm the fact that the game in Pakistan, certainly, has been the worse for our alliance with the West.

From Neville Menezes, New Zealand

The outcome over the staging of the Champions Trophy in Pakistan has consequences for 2011 Whatever the decision arrived at on whether or not to proceed with the Champions Trophy in Pakistan, a line in the sand has proverbially been drawn for what is to come for the ICC's truly show-case event in three years' time - the World Cup (also to be co-hosted by Pakistan).

The ICC know they have now been backed into a corner by the vexed issue of security and racial undertones that have resulted following the 'white' cricket nations' reluctance to tour an Asian cricket member. It is difficult to predict what political situation (or, for that matter the administrative state of the PCB) Pakistan will be in in three years' time but if the (recent) past is any guide, then the signs are not a good omen for 2011 when the subcontinent next hosts the 50-over aside event. It is interesting also to know what the reaction might have been had this event in 2008 been the World Cup (whether 50 or 20 overs a side).

The advent of the World Twenty20 has effectively consigned the Champions Trophy to the status of also-ran in the ICC trophy hierarchy. Its origins of ten years ago when first created as the Knock-Out have since been surpassed by the latest Twenty20 revolution taking hold. I dare say that player associations would have swallowed even the most harrowing of security reports to proceed to Pakistan had this been the World Cup at stake. The conundrum for the ICC is a clear lack of leadership at the present time. The prevarication on making a definitive statement re repercussions for no-shows and sticking by their decision to proceed with Pakistan is lamentable for the sport's world governing body.

For there to be no repeat of the 2008 shenanigans in 2011, the ICC must act now with authority. The clear way ahead is to stand by its decision to proceed with Pakistan as the venue for 2008 if the ICC remains convinced on the facts that the security situation can be addressed through more than adequate security measures. And if that means member boards/playing associations decide to boycott the event, the clear response must be sanction - most evidently a financial one. Money talks and, inevitably, players will walk.

From Maha Hussain, Pakistan

So we are back to the beginning, with the debate about where the Champions Trophy will be held and the concerns of various players and teams. I thought it had already been decided the event would proceed in Pakistan, but here we go again. It may or may not make a difference to anyone, but I am writing as a sixteen-year-old, Pakistani cricket fan who feels she should voice her opinion since nobody else is doing anything to help Pakistan's chances.

This piece may be strongly worded and possibly offensive to some, but writing is my way of venting my feelings of anger and frustration, and I shall do so without hesitation. I want to ask all the players from all the countries who have problems with Pakistan: Do you seriously think terrorists are interested in bombing you up? You are not willing to tour Pakistan for the reason that you are afraid of your safety among terrorist attacks and political violence. Ironically, when seventeen blasts went off in the Indian cities of Bangalore and Ahmadabad, I never once heard of any reluctance of the part of the Australians or the English about touring the country later this year. So is this what cricket has come to?

Blind love for money and disdain for a country at odds with itself and facing enough grief already? Alright, you can go ahead and refuse to tour. There is probably just enough time, difficult and costly though it may be, to move the tournament to Sri Lanka, a much, much safer and more peaceful place to play cricket in, don't you think?

If you had already made up your minds to boycott the event in Pakistan, why on earth did you wait until three weeks before the start to listen to security briefings, only to stubbornly shake your heads and say you have not been convinced? You have caused immense trouble for the ICC, as if the numerous problems it is already encountering were not enough. Geoff Lawson flew down to the Southern Hemisphere for the sake of persuading the Australian and New Zealand cricketers to agree to come, because he lives in Pakistan and he feels safe. He lives in Lahore, one of the largest cities in the country, and possibly very susceptible to attacks of violence and terror.

Is he not Australian? Does he not spend his days without fear in the country you all are so afraid to enter? Terrorism plagues parts of Pakistan, but we are not alone; several other countries experience such situations. Have you forgotten the blasts in London days before the start of the 2005 Ashes? Or the repeated attacks in Sri Lanka? Or the bombs in Jaipur earlier this year, during the IPL? Did you all rush out of India fearing for your lives? No, you stayed and played. The captain of one of the national teams continued to play in the very city it all happened in. What motivated you to continue playing there, but prevents you from coming to Pakistan?

Is it because you are showered with money, or glory, or whatever it is you want, when you take part in such lucrative events, but Pakistan has not much to offer you and the Champions Trophy has little significance for you? I feel you all owe an explanation to the people of Pakistan: why are we being singled out? Why are we the only nation to be treated like this, to be isolated from good competitive cricket, despite the fact that foreign cricketers here are respected and honoured a dozen times more than they are in their own countries?

Pakistan is terribly unfortunate to be caught in this web of political turmoil, a mess not in the slightest being helped by the idea that four countries are refusing to tour for a cricket tournament. The arrogance and disdain with which you view the situation in Pakistan has aggrieved many, many people desperate for some good games of cricket to look forward to, a positive light in a time of darkness and difficulty for our country. Terrorists and suicide attackers do not want to target sporting teams, and with the amount of security being arranged for you it is hard to see what your problem is.

Politics and sports do not mix, as countless influential Pakistanis have repeatedly mentioned. Your lives are by no means being taken lightly; every effort is being made to ensure a risk-free tournament, but it still doesn't seem to be enough to convince you. In truth, your safety cannot be guaranteed anywhere in the world. You, and your families, may well be afraid for your safety, but just take another, less biased, look at the things being done to satisfy you. Some of you feel that the security plans are brilliant but implementing them would be difficult for a country experiencing political trouble. Why, I ask you, would such complex plans be made if they could not be implemented? I'm positive we have the means to arrange everything perfectly, it is just your condescending attitude towards us that makes you feel Pakistan does not have the resources to provide you sufficient security.

Go ahead and say you will not tour, have the Champions Trophy moves to wherever you like, and enjoy playing in that risk-free new environment with the satisfaction that, in the end, you had your way with the ICC.

After all, it hardly matters that because of your stubborn and uncompromising attitude, so many millions of people, who were hopeful of a fortnight of vigorous cricket action in their country, will have their expectations ground into dust. It really doesn't matter, does it, because your problem has been solved. It really makes no difference to you what becomes of cricket in a nation with such a glorious history in the game. It makes no difference at all, in the end, because you are safe. Because you feel safe. And that is the way of this new cricketing world.