For some time now, there were rumours of under-performance and match-fixing against the Pakistani players. The Sydney Test match of 2010 between Pakistan and Australia had been so badly tainted that even those who followed the sport on the periphery thought that there was something wrong with the result.

The coach of the Pakistani side during that series, Intikhab Alam, had said it in as many words to the disciplinary committee that was appointed to investigate the cause of the lack of performances on that tour.

Yet, only six months on, the Pakistanis are at it again. Another series, another country, similar results
and suspicion of match-fixing. Except that on this occasion the British tabloid that had managed to
expose the few of those involved had shown enough proof to the world for everyone to sit up and
take notice.

Except the PCB of course. Here is a video which shows a player agent, close to the Pakistani players, accept money from a sting operating journalist to fix the delivering of no-balls by Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif – something that goes on to actually happen in the game. On moral grounds, if not anything else, the least that the PCB should have done is to suspend the three players at the centre of the controversy, and strive to find the truth.

Instead, the PCB, as is their wont, have been fighting tooth and nail to defend their reputation by turning the other way. They have been defiant, after initially refusing to suspend the players, have said that the players were mentally down and hence would not play in the series.

The one thing that comes out of this episode is that it is not only the players that need to be cross-examined. But also the board themselves. The question though is, has the ICC got the gut to do so.

England were jolted out of their winning streak by Pakistan at Oval, while Sri Lanka hammered India in a Micromax tri-series game at Dambulla last week.

Pakistan were on the back-foot from the start of the Test match, being 0-2 down and then having lost the toss. However, debutant, Wahab Riaz seemed to be bent on proving his critics wrong as he went through the English side with a five wicket haul. At one stage, the hosts looked to be getting out even before getting to 100, but recovered to get to 233.

Matt Prior made 84, while Stuart Broad chipped in with 48.

In reply, Mohammad Yousuf celebrated his comeback with a half-century whereas Azhar Ali was unbeaten on 92 to guide his side to a crucial 75-run lead.

England were propped by the return to form of Alastair Cook, who scored a century in the second innings. However, the rest of the batsmen capitulated to the combination of Mohammad Aamer and Saeed Ajmal and set Pakistan a target of only 148 for a win.

There were a few stutters on their way, but Pakistan did manage to get to the target with four wickets standing.

The other game saw India collapse to 103 all out in the return game against Sri Lanka. None of the batsmen could get a move on except Yuvraj Singh, but four incorrect decisions by the umpire broke the Indian backs. Any hopes of any kind of a comeback was thwarted by the Lankan openers, who scored 63 in eight overs without getting separated.

In the end, Sri Lanka triumphed by eight wickets.

The preceding week saw one of the more controversial ODIs in recent times at Dambulla. It was an India-Sri Lanka game at the Micromax tri-series; the third match of the series.

India had been crushed and hung to dry in their first game by New Zealand, whereas Sri Lanka had over-powered New Zealand in the second. A loss for India would almost have ended their hopes of making it to the finals even before the last two league games, and with Yuvraj Singh ruled out of the side due to fever, India continued to struggle with their fitness concerns.

As it turned out, Sri Lanka won the toss – another huge advantage on the Dambulla track – and decided to bat first. Fortunately for the Indians, a good bowling performance by the Indian bowling department – pace and spin alike – allowed the tourists to restrict the Lankans to a manageable 170. At one stage, it looked highly unlikely that the Lankans would even get there, but Suraj Randiv batted well to score a 40 and propel the side to a score that they could think of defending.

In reply, India lost three wickets for 33, before Virender Sehwag and Suresh Raina bailed them out of trouble. Raina was looking good to get India home before pulling the ball to the square-leg fielder, but MS Dhoni batted in company of the swashbuckling Virender Sehwag to take the side home.

The drama of the game was off the last over, when Sehwag needed a single for a win and Randiv sent down a no-ball to deny them the victory. The media was enraged at the under-handed tactics, and despite the apologies from Randiv, the Sri Lankan board have banned him for a game. T Dilshan was heard to be exhorting him to bowl that no-ball was also fined his entire match fee, but Sri Lankan captain, Kumar Sangakkara, while apologising for what had happened, also criticised BCCI and Sehwag for fanning a dead issue.

One has clearly not heard the last of it!

Much has been made out of the Suraj Randiv no-ball that saw Virender Sehwag miss a much-desired century. The situation was such that the batsman was on 99, and India needed a solitary run to win, whereby the bowler decided to bowl a no-ball to prevent the batsman from getting to the hundred.

Two days on, the repercussions from the incident have threatened to carry on and on. This, despite the bowler having apologised, the captain having done the same, and the secretary of the Sri Lankan board also expressing his regret for the incident.

First of all, what Randiv did was within the laws of the game. Whether it was within the spirit of the game is what the debate is. Probably, it happened in the heat of the moment, and the bowler seems to have accepted that and called upon the batsman to apologise. Why should be penalised now? Either by the board or the ICC?

Only ten days back, Stuart Broad has thrown the ball back at Zulqarnain Haider after fielding it on his follow-through. Haider was injured, and he misses out on two Test matches. What will one call that incident? Against the spirit? Against the laws? Or both? And yet, Broad was fined only 50% of his match fee. Compare that with what Haider would have had to go through – he was a debutant, and is now out of the series. It was probably a career-changing injury.

The point one is trying to make is that if a bowler deliberately bowls a no-ball to deny the batsman a century, it is hardly in the same league as another who injures the batsman with an unnecessary and deliberate throw, or for that matter, someone who swears at the batsman for no plausible rhyme or reason. Time to understand that Sehwag’s greatness will not be challenged by remaining unbeaten on 99 in the game.