Spot-fixing is already yesterday’s news but let’s not forget that three former international cricketers have been confined to English jails. The convictions of Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif, and Mohammad Amir are no surprise, and their incarceration is nothing unexpected.

Many cricket fans and international cricketers believe the sentences to be appropriate, some wished for harsher punishment. Yet as much as the tainted trio deserve condemnation, fines, and lengthy bans from cricket-related activities, I worry about these sentences.

Prison is a place for criminals who are a danger to society or mastermind amoral crimes. Is it the right place for Amir, who Justice Cooke admitted was young, uneducated, coerced and threatened? He was caught in a sting. No bookmakers were defrauded, were they? Nobody’s money lost except that belonging to the News of the World, whose own reputation is in the gutter.

English prisons are overcrowded. They are an unlikely place for rehabilitation, an education in criminality more usual. A custodial sentence is best avoided when it does not serve the better interests of society or the individual. What societal or individual benefit does the confinement of these cricketers serve?

While Messrs Butt, Asif, and Amir adapt to their new lives in prison, the Mr Bigs, the ‘persons unknown’ at the end of long distance telephone calls remain untraceable and untraced. It was possible to decipher every deleted text and message from the phones of our misguided cricketers but sleuths and software experts are unable to offer any clues about the mafia men of Mumbai, Karachi, and Dubai.

For a week I’ve tussled with the conclusion that jail isn’t the answer when it comes to punishing these sportsmen, thinking it was a temporary sympathy that would abate. Instead, I’m even more persuaded that in this instance suspended sentences, fines, and bans from cricket would have been punishment many times over. A guilty verdict itself was utmost humiliation.

As much as I condemn his role in spot-fixing, Butt is right to appeal his sentence. Asif and Amir should follow suit. Even convicted criminals deserve justice that is appropriate.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Te issue is so complex and fault lines so many that a root and branch reform of Pakistan cricket and its governance is mandatory © Getty Images

Southwark Crown Court has a functional feel to it, hidden behind Tooley Street’s chic shops and restaurants. No marble steps or sweeping staircases to lead you to the scene of possibly the most momentous trial in the history of cricket; a quick bag search and body scan bring you straight to a lift that deposits you outside courtroom 4, a judge’s lair that damned three famous Pakistan cricketers.

I didn’t know how I’d feel, a voyeur at the prosecution of Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif? There was no thrill at being party to historic events, only sadness, regret — how did we come to this? Butt, Asif, and Mohammad Amir, the third man, were young men of dreams, hopes, and ambitions; to serve their nation and delight their countrymen on fields of cricket that might seem prosaic to most but represent the struggle of millions.

Those emotions remain with me after today’s verdicts. Butt and Asif face jail terms. Amir might too, depending on his lawyer’s ability to negotiate a reduced sentence in exchange for an admission of guilt. We will soon discover what will become of the men who confirmed the shameful indulgences of Pakistan cricket.

I was in Multan at Salman Butt’s Test debut in 2003. Pakistan’s 18-year-old left-handed opener made 12 and 37 in a dramatic Test that Pakistan saved thanks to a defiant hundred from Inzamam-ul Haq at his home ground. It was a special moment for Inzamam but equally special for Butt, who played fluently with the extra time that only a batsman of genuine class possesses. His future looked bright, an opening problem solved.

Three years later, Mohammad Asif raised his mastery of the bowler’s art to a new level on another controversial tour of England. That 2006 series pitted Asif against the unofficial batting champion of the world, Kevin Pietersen. Asif made Pietersen his bunny, sending the champ back to his hutch almost the minute after an arrival at the crease. The McGrath of Sheikhupura we called him. Asif’s metronomic deception was surely set to mesmerise the world for years to come?

Another three years ushered in the World Twenty20 in England. Pakistan shorn of hope, international cricket and, unusually, bowlers looked grateful to be mere participants. Also-rans became World Champions, in a dramatic tale of defiance and dazzling cricket. At the heart of the victory was Mohammad Amir, a 17-year-old fast bowler with the world at his feet and magic in his left arm, who started his career as if greatness was his birthright.

Now those dreams, hopes, and ambitions of the players and their supporters have ended in disgrace in a London courtroom. It took an English jury and a discredited British newspaper to confirm the failures of the Pakistan Cricket Board and the ICC.

There have been instances of corruption in cricket extending beyond Pakistan, and corruption in sport extends beyond cricket. Anybody who believes that we can now draw a line under spot-fixing and move on is delusional. Hansie Cronje, Mohammad Azahruddin and Marlon Samuels are just a few of the names that remind us that international cricket has a major problem. All that the London case has established is that the cricket authorities have failed to address this issue adequately despite thousands of words and millions of dollars. A fake Sheikh proved smarter than Interpol.

But that should not be used to deflect criticism from Pakistan cricket, which might not be the only culprit but it could be the most culpable. Corruption in cricket is an extension of the failures of Pakistani society. The proceedings in Southwark Crown Court paint a picture of arrogant disregard for morals and standards. The Pakistan Cricket Board is a failed institution that has declined to address the evident issues of corruption among its cricketers. The ICC has failed in its duty to protect international cricket from bookies and match-fixers. They have both missed opportunities to pursue leads and intervene.

Today’s spot-fixing verdicts have provided a deterrent against future corruption, nothing more. They should force the ICC and cricket boards like the PCB to address this danger more pressingly and ruthlessly. In Pakistan’s case, the issue is so complex and fault lines so many that a root and branch reform of Pakistan cricket and its governance is mandatory.

In the same week that Pakistan’s great captain talked about his beloved country rediscovering its ideals, his successors are damned for corruption in an English courtroom. These young men have shamed a proud nation and an honourable sport. They have also cruelly epitomised the crisis at the heart of Pakistan: as a cricket team, a nation and a people we are full of dreams, hopes, and ambitions, but crippled by corruption. Dreams, hopes, and ambitions are better served by deeds of pride and honour.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

The three players who brought dishonour to cricket © Getty Images

Tombs to unnamed soldiers are symbolic memorials to unidentifiable warriors who have died on the battlefield. Wisden’s withdrawn accolade to the unnamed Pakistan cricketer has heavy symbolism of its own: a memorial to the identified and unidentified cricketers who have brought dishonour to the game of cricket.

Selection as one of Wisden’s Five Cricketers of the Year is the ‘oldest honour in cricket,’ rarely awarded to Pakistanis. Englishmen, Australians, South Africans, West Indians, and Indians have all been more frequently honoured. Fazal Mahmood was the first Pakistani in 1955, and those who have followed include Asif Iqbal, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Hanif and Mushtaq Mohammad, and the two Ws.

The editor, in this case Scyld Berry, takes the decision. There is no science to it, only a reasoned judgement, and to leave one of this year’s spots vacant is a measure of the impact the spot-fixing scandal had on last year’s international cricket. It is a moment of extreme frustration and deep shame.

Some might argue that Berry should have chosen an alternative, and he is unnecessarily humiliating Pakistan cricket, but that would be to misunderstand the man. Corruption has been damaging international cricket for over a decade, yet after each spur of controversy we rapidly move on to more comfortable themes, eager to banish the notion that what is enthralling us could be a stage-managed farce.

While Pakistan isn’t the only country to be dishonoured by corruption, its players have become corruption’s most constant bedfellows, admittedly for many complex reasons. Indeed, what chance do the players have when its own cricket board acts with disregard for integrity?

Only yesterday Pakistan’s senate was informed that journalists from national newspapers, news agencies, and broadcasters had taken payments from the Pakistan Cricket Board. Travel expenses to support a poorly funded profession might just be allowable, but much more was paid on top, to the tune of $70,000 in cash over the last 3 years. What was this money for? Why was it never declared by the journalists or the cricket board? A culture of corruption is never a culture to nurture progress.

In our desire to move on, we may have already forgotten how Pakistan’s young team was winning hearts and accolades last summer with incredible Test victories over England and Australia. The skills of Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif had created an excited buzz. Salman Butt’s young leadership was impressing peers and skeptics. But it was a grand deceit; the three architects of recovery were revealed as the conspirators of Pakistan's doom. It was a time of shock, horror, and grief.

Berry has remained silent about the unnamed cricketer of the year, offering arguments for any one of three banned cricketers, but can there really be any doubt? Only one man took the world by storm in the last 18 months, destroying batting orders around the world with a youthful exuberance that made him an instant star. Only one man’s loss to international cricket is truly lamented, his rise from rags to riches a modern-day morality tale.

Pakistan is still feeling the consequences of Amir’s ban. The touring party for the one-day series against West Indies is short of experienced pace bowling; rookies Junaid Khan and Sadaf Hussain selected to support Wahab Riaz, whose performance against India in Mohali suddenly casts him as Pakistan’s go-to bowler. But this is the time to rebuild with fresh blood and cleansed souls, to begin the process that ensures the next time a Pakistan cricketer is one of Wisden’s cricketers of the year his name his spoken with pride and not censored in disgrace.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Denial, anger, bargaining, sadness, and acceptance: the five stages of the grief reaction that Pakistan fans have experienced over the spot-fixing controversy. Denial and anger were left behind in the English summer. Bargaining for a better outcome was almost exhausted by the Doha hearing and the criminal case launched by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service. It may continue with an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But now that we know the ICC’s verdict, the predominant sentiments are sadness and acceptance.

Once the News of the World videos and transcripts were released the future looked bleak for Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif, and Mohammad Amir. The integrity of cricket had to be protected, and the ICC had to do that by pressing charges. Encouragingly, a healthy proportion of Pakistan fans have shunned knee-jerk defence of their fallen heroes in favour of a desire to ensure that corruption is punished.

Appeals are inevitable. None of the punished cricketers will want to give up their best years in international cricket without a fight. The ICC process has been questioned at regular intervals as if to prepare the ground for such an appeal. And with the ICC tribunal’s admission that more flexibility in sentencing would be desirable, the defendants have a hope to cling on to.

Not that many Pakistan supporters have great sympathy for a reduction in sentences, except in the case of Mohammad Amir. Effectively, the suspended portion of the sentences aside, all three players will serve a five year ban; equity in sentencing that appears inequitable. Salman Butt might have got more and Mohammad Amir might have got less. ICC’s punishment needs to be severe but those passing sentence do require greater flexibility when determining bans.

Where all this leaves Pakistan cricket is an interesting question? It might have been a body blow to the image of cricket in Pakistan, but the last decade has seen that image dragged through the lowest gutter. Expectations of noble deeds have almost vanished. It might have been a body blow to the prospects of the team, but a team shorn of tainted cricketers has produced some of the best results in recent memory. Pakistan have lost some star quality and regained some spirit. As Liverpool football fans will avow after the loss of their £50 million pound star striker, Fernando Torres, no player is bigger than the team. Nobody is irreplaceable.

The verdict might have also brought the Pakistan Cricket Board to its knees, humiliated and broken as a governing institution. Those impressions of the PCB might still stand but the stark reality is that the cricket board and its head are immune to any pangs of conscience or acts of contrition. Strangely, as far as the PCB is concerned, the issue is entirely between the players and the ICC. A proper administration would now be deciding, based on its own evidence and judgement, on which players to punish further and which to support in appeals against their sentence.

But these are shameless days. Integrity is dead, corruption is king. Fans have become indifferent to the endless stream of controversy. The UK’s court case might also tarnish reputations beyond those already snared by the ICC. There is no vision of a brighter future in Pakistan cricket except in the performances of the current squad, who have rallied to salvage some honour from this miserable age. In that, at least, there is some hope. Indeed, I have not abandoned hope for Pakistan cricket but I have abandoned grief.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

If any of the players emerges with a career that can be rescued, Pakistan fans should consider that a bonus © Getty Images

Pakistan’s ex-cricketers are lining up to condemn a delay in the spot-fixing verdict. Zaheer Abbas, Asif Iqbal, Rashid Latif, and Sarfraz Nawaz have all joined the chorus. Yet they miss the point. It matters little whether or not these players are available for the next World Cup. How important is that tournament when the integrity of cricket and future of cricketers is at stake?

Above all, the verdict that Michael Beloff and his team reach must be a considered one based on the evidence that has been presented to them. They will understandably take some time to digest the events in Doha. At the end of that deliberation the verdict must be one that can be substantiated. Any verdict against the players will inevitably meet with an appeal, most likely against a process which the players and their legal representatives have already muttered about.

On the face of it — and a behind-closed-doors hearing doesn’t present much of a face —punishments can be expected. Salman Butt, in particular, must be dreading a life ban. Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir will be hoping that they have sufficiently distanced themselves from any evidence of corruption. But the ICC is clearly in no mood to allow the players to escape. If any of the players emerges with a career that can be rescued, Pakistan fans should consider that a bonus.

The players and the cricket world are in limbo until 5th February while lawyers mull what they have heard. In their hearts most Pakistan fans wish that Amir, at least, is somehow innocent. But smoke signals from Doha have not been encouraging, and the players look to have only earned a stay of execution.

The best supporters of Pakistan cricket, however, can only want a fair verdict. If any corrupt players are lost to international cricket then so be it.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Amir and Salman Butt shouldn't be expecting friendly verdicts in Doha © Getty Images

In the middle of last year, three men held the future of Pakistan cricket in their hands. A young captain in command of possibly the most compelling new-ball partnership in world cricket. A triumverate that might save Pakistan cricket from implosion. Instead Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif, and Mohammad Amir face calamity. Pakistan cricket is once more on the brink of disgrace.

The three players have responded to adversity in very different ways. Butt has been most vocal with shifting statements of bravado, innocence, and counter accusation. Amir has spoken up too, but generally to extract sympathy for his plight, describing the current proceedings as the toughest test of his career. Meanwhile, Asif has been monkish in his silence. The differences reflect their personalities to some degree but are probably most indicative of the legal advice they have received.

Their cricket board, for its part, after an embarrassment of bluster has virtually abandoned the defendants. Bluster comes easily to Pakistan cricket administrators and politicians, hence this dramatic change, after the intervention of the ICC to improve anti-corruption mechanisms within Pakistan cricket, presents a bleak outlook for Butt and his fellows. The present and future of Pakistan cricket forsaken on a nod, wink, and slap from the ICC.

With the reputation of Pakistan cricket about to be dragged through another gutter, whatever the outcome of the Doha tribunal, the cricket board should not be allowed to slip into the shadows so easily.

Players are responsible for their individual actions and, at the very least, for the friends they choose and whose advice they follow, but it is the PCB that facilitated the creation of a necrotic environment around the national team. The PCB and its chairman have survived this scandal relatively unscathed. Ironically, the instability of the current Pakistan government is a bigger threat to the current PCB regime than any sanction from ICC.

The Doha tribunal is the first test of the ICC's new anti-corruption code. Video recordings present worrying evidence against the players. Haroon Lorgat, ICC chief, is determined to flex his muscles. His organisation has never deviated from its determination to prosecute. What would be the ramifications for the integrity of international cricket of a failed case against spot-fixing? The ICC must have thought this one through, and supporters of the three cricketers should not expect good-news verdicts.

On the face of it, Butt is in the deepest trouble. He was the closest associate of Mazhar Majeed. Pakistan's bowlers were under his instruction. He had the most money in his room. Subsequently, Butt has made the most noise. His is the key verdict. If Butt is cleared then so must be his fellows. Equally, Butt could fall alone or earn the harshest punishment.

Asif's record of previous indiscretions, one of which is the reason why the hearing must be held in Doha and not Dubai, places him in a precarious position. Serial offenders, whatever the offences, can expect to be more severely punished. A further ban could leave Asif with insufficient time and heart to stage another comeback.

Which leaves Amir with the best prospect of leaving Doha with an opportunity of resurrecting his career in international cricket. Leaked testimonies of Waqar Younis and Shahid Afridi certainly suggest that possibility. The ICC can deliver life bans or less severe punishments depending on degree of involvement, and Amir will probably seek to argue complete ignorance of any spot-fixing arrangement even if that charge is proven against others.

Yet no true cricket supporter should seek clemency simply because of affection for Pakistan cricket or any individual cricketer. Nor should people seek punishment for the forsaken trio because of any distrust of Pakistan or its cricketers. A just verdict based on the evidence and devoid of emotion is essential.

Indeed, the three players are not the only ones on trial in Doha. By proxy, the PCB's failed system of governance is under scrutiny, as is the fairness of the ICC's new anti-corruption code. Whichever way Michael Beloff's hammer falls, one conclusion is predetermined: the integrity of cricket can only be further damaged by the events that will unfold in Doha.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Zulqarnain Haider deserves understanding © AFP

A week that promised to deliver the right kind of headlines for Pakistan cricket has once more deepened everybody's sense of bewilderment. Zulqarnain Haider's covert escape from the international squad and his arrival in England has quickly banished the euphoria of two nail-biting victories over South Africa.

What drove Zulqarnain to this extreme measure isn't entirely clear but he is certainly a troubled young man. Threats to Pakistan cricketers are not new, and at the very least Zulqarnain's act will help people outside Pakistan understand some of the pressures that he and his colleagues uniquely face. Pakistan cricketers, like other human beings, aren't born corrupt. They are products, even victims, of their peculiar environment.

Experienced voices in Pakistan are already condemning Zulqarnain's behaviour. He should have turned back to Pakistan and his cricket board in the first instance, they say. Perhaps so. But it is equally understandable that he might feel unable to trust the current malfunctioning cricket board, despite the ICC task force's rather hasty announcement of the PCB's wonderful progress in combating corruption. Naturally, he would feel safer in exposing his concerns in England than in Pakistan, or even Dubai.

Whistleblowers in any walk of life face being discredited. They are marginalised, lose their jobs, and may experience personal danger. They are quickly dismissed as attention seekers and scandalmongers. Zulqarnain might turn out to be either of these but for now he deserves understanding. It takes guts, extreme provocation, or both, to walk out on an international career, something you have worked all your life for and dreamed every night about.

Zulqarnain might not be the most talented player to represent Pakistan but he has shown plenty of guts and determination on the cricket field. He clearly wants to win. He puts his country first, he says. He has dedicated victories to Imran Khan's cancer appeal and Pakistan's flood victims. To me, this is the behaviour of a man whose heart is in the right place, only an extreme cynic would think otherwise.

Where Zulqarnain's mind is, however, is anybody's guess. But now that he has set off on this lonely road he needs to fully expose everything that has gone before, whatever the short-term cost to cricket and cricketers in Pakistan and elsewhere. Once we know the full extent of Zulqarnain’s trauma that will be the time to properly judge the man who wanted to be Pakistan's wicketkeeper.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Shoaib Akhtar in action at Lord's on Monday © PA Photos

Lord’s wasn’t full but it was resplendent. A healthy crowd enjoyed a perfect late summer’s evening, by the end of which you might have been excused for forgetting that international cricket was on the brink of calamity. Sensible heads in the ECB ensured that the fourth one-day international between England and Pakistan took place despite a unilateral attack by Pakistan’s bumbling chairman, Mr Ijaz Butt.

Nerves were fraught following a night of anger in the England camp and bewilderment in Pakistan’s. The tension even spilled over into a pre-match clash between Jonathan Trott and Wahab Riaz, and it was still etched on the furrowed brow of Andrew Strauss at the post-match press conference and the perspiring forehead of Pakistan’s coach Waqar Younis.

Waqar, it seems, has become Pakistan’s one-man crisis management team. I’m not sure these delicate media situations come naturally to him but he has done admirably enough in fending off hostile questions, at least attempting to focus on cricket instead of fanning the flames of controversy. He described England as a great venue to tour and relations between the teams as superb. Although the latter statement might have been stretching the bounds of credulity, Waqar has always had affection for cricket in England despite the controversies.

He believes his squad composed of the young and the recalled deserves praise for its spirited performances in the one-day series, especially in light of the storm swirling around them and friendly fire striking amidships.

This series, however, is unlikely to be remembered for its cricket unless in relation to allegations of fixing of some variety. The 22 players made a noble attempt to reconnect supporters with the fascination of a hard-fought contest—and the crowd responded. The surreal mood of the morning was replaced by an uncharacteristic buzz of excitement at Lord's as England chased victory under lights.

For what it’s worth Pakistan have begun to excel again at defending a competitive total. With Shoaib Akhtar leading the line and Umar Gul smashing stumps, the last two internationals have been a throwback to the way Pakistan used to go about their business more than a decade ago. Even Razzaq’s blitzkrieg in the last two overs was an echo of past adventures.

There was also fight here from Shahid Afridi’s boys, a determination to show the world what they can do. How long it lasts is anybody’s guess but Pakistan have the momentum going into the final match of the series. England, meanwhile, were shell shocked, first by Butt’s unbecoming accusations and then by the passion of Pakistan’s fightback.

Yet all the players, English and Pakistani, must take credit for playing out an enthralling contest in probably the most controversial environment in the history of one-day internationals. By the finish there was renewed hope that the spirit of cricket lives on. The fumblings of the ICC and the damage caused by Pakistan’s cricket chairman might yet be contained. Pakistan’s players celebrated victory as if they had won back their souls from the devil.

The evening at Lord’s was a reminder that the fascination of cricket lies in the battle between national heroes and the interplay of that intense contest with the emotions of an enthusiastic crowd. These magic ingredients will live on when the mistakes of the ICC and the stupidity of Mr Butt are consigned to the landfill of history. Match-fixing allegations in their various guises may be harder to shake. After all, they began on English fields in cricket’s earliest days.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

Was Paul Collingwood right to question the target set for West Indies by the Duckworth Lewis Method? I believe he was right, and it was disappointing that Frank Duckworth dismissed his concerns so readily. Statisticians, and I work with many, have their preferred methods but the best statisticians will always accept that each method has its flaws. Show me a statistician whose first answer to a statistical question is 'it depends . . .' and I'll show you a statistician with wisdom.

Here's why Collingwood has three arguments in his favour:

1 The statistical argument: The higher number of data points available, the more reliable any statistical estimate. With only 14 balls bowled by England before the rain set in, the sample was too small to reliably estimate the trajectory of the West Indian innings. Duckworth's argument that those fourteen balls dictated the target exposes the unsuitability of the Duckworth Lewis Method when only a small proportion of an innings, around 10% in this case, has been completed. In this circumstance, there are insufficient data points (balls bowled) to reasonably predict the trajectory of an innings.

A fairer approach would be to set a minimum number of overs before wickets lost are taken into consideration. For example, if that minimum number of overs in T20 were 5 overs (ie 25% of the innings completed), the wickets West Indies had lost in those 14 balls would be irrelevant. The target set would assume that no balls had been bowled. The West Indian target should then have been higher. After 5 overs, and only after 5 overs, the runs already scored and wickets already lost would be taken into account. A more suitable minimum number of overs might in fact be 8 or 10 overs.

The alternative would be to increase the weighting in favour of the side batting first in these circumstances.

2 The spirit of cricket argument: Anybody who has played cricket at any level knows that it is much easier to score around ten runs an over for 6 overs than it is for 20 overs, especially when 10 wickets are available in both situations. It is wrong for Duckworth to suggest otherwise. When the target set by the Duckworth Lewis Method feels wrong and against the spirit of the game, then the numbers thrown up by a stastical analytics package are irrelevant.

3 The regulatory argument: The pressure for a resolution by the Duckworth Lewis Method is created by limits on playing times. In major T20 tournaments, often staged at facilities with floodlights, these regulations seem absurd. Half an hour's extra play is clearly insufficient. The option of an extra hour, at the very least, is essential. I'm confident most specatators would prefer to stay an extra hour or so to watch a proper contest than witness a farce that allows them to get home earlier.

I believe the ICC needs to act and reconsider the application of the Duckworth Lewis Method in T20 cricket. What happened to England earlier this week was unfair for several reasons. Collingwood had a point, Duckworth had a Vera moment.

Note: I edited this article on 6th May to clarify the issue of what is currently considered when a revised target is set. Duckworth Lewis takes into account the overs lost and the wickets lost at the time of interruption and not the runs scored--that's a whole other issue of potential unfairness (thanks to Cricinfo's S Rajesh for clarifying this point).

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

PCB’s latest investigation that has come down heavily on the players is a brazen attempt to save the skins of senior board members © Associated Press

The PCB committee of inquiry wants to punish Pakistan’s cricketers. The reasons are several, some known others only to be guessed. Unfortunately the whole episode is an exercise in passing the buck. The architects of the disastrous failure of Pakistan cricket have investigated their own performance and decided to blame some other people, the players.

When it comes to sympathy I have none for failed administrators and bureaucrats, who cling on to Pakistan cricket like leeches sucking every drop of lifeblood from a once vibrant national enterprise. These inquirers have a misplaced sense of justice: he who has sinned has cast the first stone. Isn’t the PCB’s latest diversionary investigation a brazen attempt to save the skins of senior board members?

Let’s take the accusations and the punishments. Shahid Afridi has already been punished by the ICC. The Akmal brothers could easily have been fined and disciplined without the hoopla we have had to endure, a self-inflicted public relations disaster. What Rana and Malik have done, nobody is yet sure? If it is match-fixing then how can one year bans suffice? It can’t be that.

If it is subversion of team spirit then there has to be better way of dealing with this. Indeed, the board encouraged this disruptive behaviour. When Younis Khan stepped down because a group of players refused to back him, the cricket board should have supported the captain. Instead, Mr Butt and his fellows undermined the institution of the national captaincy.

Who appointed the captain, coach, and manager for this debacle, and other recent ones? Who is ultimately responsible for discipline and professionalism? Yes, the grand inquisitors who are hoping that if the players take the flak they will escape without censure. Moreover, how can a squeaky clean board have dalliances with cricketers tainted by previous scandals, including the match-fixing scandal of the 1990s?

Ill-discipline from players does require sanction. Match-fixing requires life bans. But what about the members of the cricket board, who will hold them to account? Ultimately, it is the cricket board’s duty to manage issues of discipline and misconduct. It is in the governance and management of these very issues that the Pakistan Cricket Board has failed. Yet only Iqbal Qasim has accepted any responsibility. Power without accountability, this is the tragedy of Pakistan and Pakistan cricket.

J’accuse the cricket board, Mr Butt, and Mr Zardari for bringing dishonour to our national game and our nation. The players are puppets, yes glamorous puppets to be sure, but it is the puppet masters that are the root of the problem. Senior management creates an organisation in its own image. For shame go, but we all know these puppet masters are without shame.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/KamranAbbasi

A week after the Lahore atrocity we are left without answers. Who were these attackers? How did they manage to annihilate the "security" forces? How did they all manage to escape unscathed? Instead of answers, we have witnessed unseemly and offensive posturing from the Pakistan Cricket Board and a perplexing silence from the President of Pakistan, who also happens to be the Patron of the PCB.

Apart from establishing the cause and the identity of the attackers, the main objective must be to dream up a formula that avoids the isolation of Pakistan cricket and nurtures an environment that facilitates the return of international teams. It is hard to understand how the approach of the PCB chairman, Ijaz Butt, is enabling any of those desirable outcomes? The tragedy of the Lahore attacks is followed by a frightening realisation that the salvation of Pakistan cricket lies in the hands of Butt.

Aakash Chopra's recent blog explained what presidential level security really is. It highlighted the complaints of match officials and the evidence of our own eyes that security was woefully inadequate. Instead Butt defended the security presence. Policemen died, is his limp argument. Nor will he accept any responsibility for the security arrangements, choosing to pass the buck to the Pakistan government. Yet he expects international cricket to return to Pakistan in six to nine months. How?

With all this nonsensical chest-thumping, Butt simply exposes his own inadequacies in heading an organisation of immense national importance. Frankly, no cricket board could contemplate sending a team to Pakistan while the PCB is under Butt's self-deluded leadership. Butt and Javed Miandad are confusing patriotism with insult. There is no pride in defending incompetent security arrangements and berating victims of a terrorist attack.

The only clear answer we have had this week is that the current PCB management and the Pakistan government are, surprise surprise, ill equipped to deal with this calamity. Not even a single official has offered to resign despite the catastrophic failings. How will these organisations inspire the confidence of a sceptical international cricket community when they can't even convince supporters of Pakistan cricket? How hard can it be to find a few good men of competence and common sense to shepherd Pakistan cricket back from the wilderness?

As with much of this decade of Pakistan cricket, it only ever gets worse.

The attack on Sri Lanka's cricketers has left the world in shock, Pakistan cricket in exile, and cricket across South Asia in jeopardy. The single most edifying feature has been the dignity of Sri Lanka's cricketers in response to an incident that could have cost them their lives, and caused several of them injuries. But the single most upsetting fact is the role of Pakistan's security arrangements in enabling this calamity.

Yesterday's events and the ease with which the attackers rained bullets and then escaped did not equate with "presidential level" security. How could the assailants take on security forces in this manner for many minutes and then flee unharmed? The conclusion that is emerging is that the security arrangements and performance were criminal in their negligence. A view supported today by Chris Broad, a man known for speaking his mind without fear of causing offence.

All credit to him. I share his anger. This was the highest profile sporting event in terms of ensuring its safe passage, and it had been promised the highest level of security. Clearly, this did not happen. Such a disastrous security failure is either a conspiracy or a murderous case of negligence. Either way it has plunged the reputation of Pakistan to an all time low. All Pakistanis who care about the reputation of their country should be indignant.

The PCB and the Pakistani Government have some serious questions to answer. But who will hold them accountable?

	The darkest day in Pakistan's cricket history © AFP

Today's attack on Sri Lanka's cricketers is a despicable act, a coward's agenda. Nobody should lose their life over a game of cricket, and no sportsman, official, or spectator should be injured in pursuit of the game they love.

The sole purpose of this barbaric act is a craving for the oxygen of publicity. There can be little political or strategic mileage to be gained by an attack on sportsmen. Indeed, we can only hope that such mindless violence will deeply damage the cause of the perpetrators, and precipitate their rapid downfall.

Brave Sri Lanka did not deserve this insult, and all sympathies are with their players and the officials who have been injured. Questions will inevitably be asked about the security arrangements, despite the regrettable deaths of several policemen. How could such a high profile tour have been allowed to have been ruined in this way? What do Pakistani security guarantees count for?

The least of the consequences of this disaster is that those who have advocated the continuation of international cricket in Pakistan - including me - have been proved wrong. No international team will now visit Pakistan, and the Pakistan Cricket Board should voluntarily arrange all future tours at neutral venues for the next year, may be longer.

This the darkest day in the history of Pakistan cricket and it occurred in a pleasant suburb of Lahore, a once great city of gardens and tranquility, not far from my own family home in Pakistan.

This is the end.

	The plummeting trajectory of Pakistan cricket has claimed Mohammad Yousuf as a major victim © Getty Images

The Pakistan Cricket Board is inquiring again into the circumstances of the forfeited Test at The Oval in 2006. It is an inquiry without a clear purpose. The match is now recorded as a technical defeat but the result is an irrelevance.

Although it was a moment when Pakistan cricket fought its corner in the world of cricket politics, two consequences have caused immeasurable damage. First, the rift between Inzamam-ul Haq and Bob Woolmer became ever wider. Second, the controversy ushered in Naseem Ashraf's disastrous reign as head of Pakistan cricket.

It was also the year that Mohammad Yousuf claimed the record number of Test runs in a year. Yousuf batted beautifully. He was easy on the eye yet his mind was tough. He was unbeatable and unswerving in his commitment to score more runs. The best years of his career were upon us. But the plummeting trajectory of Pakistan cricket has claimed him as a major victim.

Yousuf has done himself few favours. He has harboured a thinly veiled grudge over the cricket board's failure to appoint him as captain. His decision to turn to the ICL was rash and career threatening. And now, it is hard to imagine that his decision to see out his ICL contract is driven by principle rather than self interest.

Nonetheless, Yousuf has just cause for complaint. The purge of religion from Pakistan's team identified him as its most obvious target, and Shoaib Malik failed to bind his senior colleagues--and most notably Yousuf--to his cause. Too quickly, Yousuf moved from being indispensable to being yesterday's man, when his form and ability merited a greater respect and expectation.

The greatest failing, however, is that the Pakistan Cricket Board, like all other international cricket boards, slavishly followed the BCCI's lead in condemning ICL cricketers to a career without recognition or international cricket. Hence, whether Yousuf has arrived at his position through laziness or greed, the central point is valid: Why should players be unable to hold ICL contracts and play international cricket?

If there is an inquiry that the PCB needs to conduct with urgency it is one that questions the legitimacy of the stance of its fellow cricket administrations. Indeed, Pakistan cricket has lost more current international cricketers than any nation to ICL. How long will this abuse of cricketers and their international careers be allowed to continue without a serious challenge? This may not have been Mohammad Yousuf's intention but it should become the cause that reunites Pakistan cricket and gives the new cricket board immediate credibility.

	Pak Spin: 'He [Saleem Malik] should have no part to play in international cricket' © PA Photos

It seems there is no limit to the wonky logic that pervades Pakistan's cricket administration. The decision to lift the ban on Saleem Malik was barely supported by a whisper of reasonable argument. If that wasn't unprincipled enough, the Pakistan Cricket Board looks to have endorsed his redemption by appointing him head coach of the national academy.

Malik was a magical cricketer, sublime wrists and an eagle's eye made him a joy to watch. Imran Khan labelled him a flat-track bully but Malik outgrew those jibes to become a batsmen for a crisis. Yet he became the biggest victim of Pakistan's match-fixing inquiry, a career ended prematurely in disgrace.

The Pakistan Cricket Board's decision, if indeed it is that, is a moment of genuine sadness. Any semblance of ethical or moral responsibility has been discarded by the PCB. An appointment of this kind could only be made by an organisation devoid of integrity.

Indeed, the PCB is not the only organisation to muddle its principles. The England and Wales Cricket Board made the silly decision of hiring Mushtaq Ahmed as its spin bowling advisor. Mushtaq, for all his Sussex excellence and born-again piety, is another cricketer tainted by Pakistan's match-fixing controversy.

Mushtaq may argue that he has a stronger case for clemency than Malik. But Malik's case looks clear cut to me: he should have no part to play in international cricket. The tragedy is that Ejaz Butt's PCB seems to have done the unthinkable with unthinking, indecent haste.