Salahuddin Ahmed (Sallu) Photo CricInfo

Normally one does not find occasion to sing the praises of the Pakistan Cricket Board. Lately I have, however, come across some initiatives, which are both daring and positive in nature. Daring because they were likely to draw flak, and they did, but, what I admire even more, the PCB stuck to its guns. That shows courage of conviction, and must be applauded.

It also reflects that the incumbent management in PCB is quick to learn from its mistakes, and is keen not to repeat them. This attitude and resolve are also heartening.

After the debacle against England in the last Test, which will keep haunting them for a while, they were quick to draw the conclusion that their forte was pace, and they should back it to the optimum. As a result we see that the squad now playing against New Zealand has a predominance of quick bowlers. That is the way the selectors should have gone about their business in the first place. Specially when we do not possess a really high class, well-rounded spin attack. The cupboard in the spin department is bare to the extent that we had to recall Mushtaq Ahmed for the ongoing tour. We all know that Mushtaq, despite being a reasonably good practitioner of the art of leg-spin bowling, is way past his peak. And we are also aware that since Iqbal Qasim called it a day in the late `80s, we haven't had a slow left-arm bowler of matching class. Unlike Muttiah Muralitharan, Saqlain Mushtaq, despite his calibre, has somehow failed to establish himself as a match-winning bowler on his own in the longer version of the game. This is something for the coach to look into, because I do not find any reason for him not to be equally formidable in tests as he is in the one-dayers.

The point I wanted to make, not for the first time I am afraid, was that looking to spin to defeat England was really inexplicable when we had a plethora of high-grade pace bowlers.

Anyway, that mistake stands corrected now, and we see that the accent is again on pace. I'm sure that our pace attack, with the support of a spinner or two, is good enough to prevail on any opposition in any conditions provided the batsmen put up enough runs on the board. The way they dominated against the Kiwis in the first one-dayer and didn't allow them to get really close to the third is a case in point. In the second match, the batting display was rather pathetic, and the Kiwis took the match at a canter. They may have still won, but perhaps Shoaib Akhtar, had he not limped off the field in only his second over, would have made it a trifle difficult for them.

The second initiative I want to talk about is the realisation in the PCB boardrooms that something should be done about the state of the Pakistani wickets. And they have gone about the business of preparing a number of sporting pitches all around the country in a most professional manner by hiring a good professional from England for consultancy and seeking scientific help, like soil tests and so on, to bring about the transformation.

We often condemn our batsmen for their inconsistency; about their caving in the moment they encounter a quality attack on a bouncy or seaming wicket. Yet we have never provided them the facility of such tracks at home so that they are not absolutely alien to the conditions they are likely to face in Australia, South Africa and England, our three premier touring destinations. The result is that even our best batsmen struggle to adjust their techniques, and by the time they do so the tour is over and the issue is sealed by the host side. In England we have been winning since 1987, because we were man-to-man so superior to the home side, and also due to our pace attack being primed to take maximum advantage of the conditions. But the results in Australia and South Africa have not been so encouraging as our batting has folded up once too often.

The change of character of wickets not only stands to improve the techniques of our batsmen, it is also likely to have a salutary effect on the all-round quality of cricket, generating further interest in the game, more competition for slots in various national teams and an abundance of finished articles compared to raw talents who learn their basics in the cutthroat environment of international cricket.

The third positive initiative, and the most audacious as well for it earned the Board quite a bit of opprobrium, was hiring Geoff Boycott for a coaching stint. Having realised that the technical flaws need to be removed, especially in the youngsters and in the fringe players, it went about the job in a decisive manner, and stood firm in the teeth of opposition.

For those who opposed Boycott's stint, I have only this to offer: there is no harm in learning what we do not know. And who could have been better than Boycott, perhaps the most technically solid batsman of his era, with the exception of Sunil Gavaskar. The criticism really baffled me, because it pleaded remaining bogged down by ignorance than improving youngsters by importing the expertise.

Some people here don't realise that you pay, and at the market rate, to acquire expertise, and if you do not have comparable quality, you import it. Look at the various counties hiring our talent at what might seem such exorbitant fees of 100,000 to 150,000 pounds sterling for a season. What are these counties paying for? They are paying their top pound to hire talent, which improves the quality of their cricket, enhances their ability to win and consequently attract and entertain the patrons and the members. Nobody cribs about a Shoaib Akhtar or a Wasim Akram being paid a king's ransom. They are worth what they charge. And so is Geoff Boycott.

Anyway, I am certain that with time, when the result of these initiatives is realised, Pakistan cricket would be genuinely better off.

Ed: Salahuddin Ahmed (Sallu) is a former Test cricketer, and has served as a PCB selector nine times; his last stint (1999-2000) was as chief selector.

© CricInfo