24 March 2004	Wednesday	02 Safar 1425

MY father was a doctor but I am not. But it is my understanding that the malaria bug cannot be got rid of once it has entered one's system. It lies dormant but it is there and it can become active.

I see match-fixing as a malaria bug. It was too good to be true that there had been no allegations of any sort until the Lahore ODI. And some doubts are being raised about this match.

It is being suggested that Pakistan 'threw' the match in order to provide for a grand finale. Why would Pakistan want to do this? Irrespective of the outcome of the fourth ODI, the fifth and final one would have been a sell-out. No extra revenue was to be had if the series was undecided.

When a boxing match is fixed, and the perception is that many of them are, both fighters are in on the 'fix'. Is it being suggested that both teams were playing out a charade?

There are simpler and less sinister reasons why Pakistan lost. India played with greater intensity and Pakistan lost the plot once the ball had become slippery like a wet soap-bar because of the dew factor. I am not a fan of one-day cricket and an even lesser fan of cricket under lights. We know that playing conditions change.

The toss becomes crucial. Perhaps, it might have been better for Pakistan to have fielded first. The dew factor is not an unknown. It is fairly predictable and the dew can be heavy.

If Saurav Ganguly should finally succeed in winning the toss, what will he decide to do? It will be interesting to see how much weight he gives to the dew factor. Before the dew forms, there is some slight advantage for the bowlers because the white ball tends to swing more, unless it is an optical illusion.

I don't know the statistics but are more wides bowled under lights, though it must be said of the Pakistan bowlers that they will bowl wides, lights or no lights. It's a habit-thing with them and like smoking, bowling wides and no-balls is addictive. I will come to this later in the column.

India's batting in the Lahore ODI bucked conventional wisdom. The fall of wickets should slow down the run-rate, India kept losing wickets, and there were big ones, but the run-rate kept galloping.

This left Pakistan with no other option but to bowl India out under 293 and if India could make sure that it did not lose wickets in a heap it would cruise home.

Pakistan's bowlers had put in an extra effort and it was fairly evident had run out of steam. In the absence of a quality spinner, the bowling had been tamed. The spinners, in case, were ineffective with a wet ball.

India got many of its early runs from edges and miscues but once Yuvraj Singh and Rahul Dravid got together, the fate of the match seemed sealed and Yuvraj getting out meant only the arrival of Mohammad Kaif and that was the ball game.

When the ODIs started, the general belief was though India had the superior batting, Pakistan had the edge when it came to bowling. It is Pakistan's batting, led by the incredible form of Inzamamul Haq himself, that has delivered but the bowling has been not only been good in parts, like the curate's egg, but profligate in terms of conceding extras.

Last week I wrote that Pakistan did not need a bowling coach but I meant to be sarcastic. It's sticking out a mile that a coach with a cattle-prod that gives electric shocks is needed. Imran Khan is absolutely right that "no team can afford to concede so many extra runs and hope to win".

Both the captain and coach are batsmen and do not have the expertise to look after the bowlers' troubles. Imran has recommended the name of Aaqib Javed as bowling coach.

Javed Miandad does not agree and argues:" What can a bowling coach do when the player himself does not want to improve. A coach can only guide from the outside, it is up to the bowler to improve and overcome the flaw."

Miandad had used a similar argument when the PCB were thinking about getting a fielding trainer though it must be said thinking but not too seriously and for so long that it was able to say that it was too late.

Miandad had felt that fitness was the responsibility of the players themselves. Javed is on dangerous ground. If fielding and bowling is the responsibility of the players themselves, that leaves only batting. Make that too the responsibility of the players, what is there left for the coach to do? Is he trying to talk himself out of a job?

My choice for a bowling coach would have been Wasim Akram but he seems to have an ambivalent relationship with the PCB. Wasim says that he would accept an assignment from the PCB. The PCB says it would love to hire Wasim. Yet though there is a meeting of minds, the two positives have created a negative.

Aaqib Javed seems an excellent choice. Where is the harm if he was asked to help out?. I think I have the credentials to make some observations on the television commentary we are getting these days all over the world.

Ex-Test cricketers bring a lot of expertise though it is the wisdom of hindsight for in their playing days they were making the same mistakes that they castigate now.

Have these commentators any idea of their target audience? What percentage understands the technical mumbo-jumbo to which they are subjected? How many viewers watch television to improve their cricketing skills? Why is television commentary being turned into a coaching lesson?

The cardinal rule of television is that the picture tells the story and if a commentator can't improve on the picture, there is no law that says that he must keep on talking.

And finally, don't talk down to your audience and you don't have to sound like the Pope, speaking ex-cathedral, that is what the Pope does when he speaks informally but he's still the Pope.