In the 1987 World Cup semifinal at Lahore, Dean Jones was run out by miles from a direct throw and though there was no third umpire then, TV replays showed that there was no doubt.

He was given not out much to the astonishment of the Pakistan fielders and my own disbelief since I was doing the TV commentary and was on the air. The umpire involved was David Shepherd.

Now, some 17 years later, Shepherd is still umpiring, a portly figure whose chest has slipped down to the mezzanine floor as P.G. Wode house described one of his characters but in the estimation of those in the ICC who appoint the elite panel of umpires, still eagle-eyed and no impairment in his hearing, indeed his hearing has got better since he can pick up sounds when there aren't any.

Shepherd gave Inzamamul Haq out caught behind with such swiftness that the orchestrated appealing by the Australians was still resonating. Replays showed that he had got it horribly wrong.

As if to show that there was consistency in his incompetence, he also gave Yousuf Youhana out caught behind. On both occasions he gave the benefit of the doubt to the bowlers!

Some readers of this column may not be aware that teams actually rehearse appealing and what may sound like a spontaneous appeal is pre-planned. Australia being best at cricket is also best in gamesmanship. Perhaps, Shepherd is in awe of the Australians rather like Tony Blair being in awe of George Bush.

Were these honest errors? I would like to believe so and I am prepared to give Shepherd the benefit of the doubt. But they were costly errors and as they say one man's meat is another man's poison. Australia won and Pakistan lost.

Can the PCB politely suggest to the ICC that Shepherd not be invited to supervise Pakistan's matches? Chris Broad, a former England batsman was the match referee. I wonder if he mentioned those two decisions (Inzamam's and Youhana's) in his report?

A lot was made of the wicket for the final. It was unsuitable for limited overs cricket. It was difficult but not a mine-field. My mind goes back to the times when wickets were not covered and batsmen had to bat on rain-affected pitches and which were called "sticky".

It was a real test of batting and even Don Bradman had to struggle but he made runs. Perhaps, too much soft living by way of covered wickets and helmets and other protective gear has made it too easy for the modern batsman who not only gets runs but gets rich.

Despite the poor umpiring Pakistan could have won the final. The bowlers had done a good job though it was hard to understand what Shoaib Akhtar was trying to do in his first spell by not going flat out as Brett Lee did when he came on to bowl.

Shoaib Akhtar redeemed himself in his second and third spell when normal service was resumed. The fielding has improved, so has the body-language. Yasir Hameed and Imran Farhat did not chuck it away and saw the new ball off through some resolute batting.

I was not happy about Shoaib Malik coming one-down but feel no shame in admitting that I was wrong. It seems to me to be an inspired decision and Shoaib Malik's response has been magnificent. This trust in him has also affected his bowling for he is turning out to be more than an useful off-spinner.

But two back-to-back run outs was too much and Youhana may be a soft-spoken man but he needs to make a call before setting off blindly for a run. This foolhardiness cost Pakistan the wickets of Shoaib Malik and Shahid Afridi.

Abdul Razzaq too played an out of character shot and committed hara-kari. Thus the good work of Yasir Hameed, Imran Farhat and Shoaib Malik was undone. Bob Woolmer has his work cut out. It is these details that make the difference between a good team and a great team. Pakistan need not be disheartened. It may not have won the final but made a fist of it.

Some umpiring blended with some poor cricket does not make a match-winning brew. And this final thought: the tail-enders are required to make some runs. They should be made to get in as much batting practice as possible in the nets.

The news about Umar Gul is upsetting. Apart from losing the services of a most promising bowler, it reflects poorly on those who passed him fit. Luckily, he was sent to South Africa for a second opinion and the stress-fractures were discovered. Just as well we have a professional support-structure and injuries will be detected and the players will have to pass fitness tests.

Umar Gul's non-availability for the Australia tour brings Rao Iftikhar into the reckoning. Why not send him to England so that he could be with the team and train with it and soak up the atmosphere of a major international tournament?

It would not cost too much and would be money well spent, better spent than having Greg Chappell and Barry Richards come over for a week for just having a look around. Once we have identified a talent we must groom it and make an investment in the player. This is what is called forward-planning.

Pakistan will play India in the preliminary round of the ICC Champions Trophy. It should be a terrific match and will be played before a full house made up of Pakistanis and Indians.

The venue may be neutral but the crowds will not be. This brings its own pressure and the crowds will be partisan. I would consider this to be healthy were it not for the fact that the rivalry has nothing to do with cricket.