Ah, sweet victory! I had forgotten how good it tastes. The winnings ways have returned.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Minus a blast from the past by Abdul Razzaq (five beautifully clean blasts to be exact), we would still be eating humble pie at the conclusion of this two-match series against England. If the last weekend was anything to go by, Pakistan still has ways to go towards getting its house in order. Drawing this series after being comprehensively beaten in the first game cannot in any respect be viewed as a return to form, particularly as statistics correctly suggest that we are supposed to be the best Twenty20 side in the world. No disrespect to England, but we should have won both games convincingly. The fact that we didn’t reflects the sickness that has crept through the team since the traumatic defeat in the second Test to Australia.

There are a number of problems apparent to anyone who watched the Twenty20 games against England. Our openers are ticking time-bombs - not in the explosive sense, but in the self-destruct category. I’m hardly a Salman Butt fan, but with the likes of Umar Akmal, Shahid Afridi, Razzaq (and perhaps Kamran Akmal back in the shorter formats at least) don’t we have enough firepower to opt for a more non-maniacal batsman such as Butt?

Speaking of that, our middle order could also do with a sensible accumulator of runs, even in a format as frenzied as Twenty20. As Eoin Morgan and Kevin Pietersen commendably displayed in the first game, it’s not all crash-bang-wallop, even by players more than capable of such fireworks. There will be scenarios perfectly suited for nudging the ones and twos and playing oneself in. I guess we have Shoaib Malik and Umar in that capacity, but I don’t trust the skill of the former.

Pakistan’s bowling remains its get-out-of-jail-card and, without Mohammad Aamer, we managed decently enough. Umar Gul’s dramatic change in fortunes post last year’s Twenty20 World Cup is a worrying trend which should be addressed. He is certainly not at the stage where he warrants being dropped à la Sohail Tanvir. But it’s getting harder to expect his four-over burst in the middle to generate wickets and suppress run-scoring. It may just be a case of form and confidence, but it has lasted long enough and is costing Pakistan the services of an effective third seamer.

Speaking of seamers, Yasir Arafat was very disappointing throughout the series. He served up a number of full tosses and was lucky to end up with the tally of wickets that he did. I’d like the selectors to give Mohammad Sami a try in this format – he can’t be any worse than Arafat and at least his offerings come with an extra burst of pace.

However, before any of the above problems can be addressed, Pakistan must first sort out an issue which has been plaguing the team since Younis Khan’s abrupt departure, and which has become more conspicuous following Afridi’s suspension. The problem is one of leadership, or at least the mere durability of it.

Afridi’s ball-biting didn’t really bother me on too many levels. By that time into the Australian tour, the manner of our defeat in the Test series had left me numb to any further pitfalls. If anything, I took Afridi’s actions as a reflection of my own frustration with the tour and yearning for some semblance of success - I empathised with him on that level. However, one way his utter stupidity did hurt us is by creating a vacuum at the top of our team.

In cricket, perhaps more so than any other international sport, the role of captaincy is critical. And I’m not talking about whether the person filling that role is a good captain or not. The mere presence of an undisputable leader is vitals towards lending a modicum of stability all the way down the pyramid. We can tinker with the batting and bowling as much as we please, but unless the players know exactly where the chain of command originates from and who they are answerable to there can be no cohesion and direction. You can’t expect individual pieces to fall into place while the foundation is shaky.

The leadership of the Pakistan cricket team is uncertain at best. Mohammad Yousuf was originally supposed to be a stand-in captain but, at least at the Test match level, seems to be the selection committee’s choice as Younis’s successor. However, as anyone who witnessed his ultra-conservative field placings in the final morning of the second Test will attest to, Yousuf lacks the tactical acumen to be effective in that role. He was always supposed to be a temporary solution and there seemed to be an understanding that he was keeping the seat warm for either Younis or, eventually, Afridi.

In the ODI arena things are trickier for Yousuf as, in addition to his weaknesses as a field marshall, he has the added weight of establishing his place in the playing eleven. In the Twenty20s, Afridi appeared to have established himself as the leader of the side. But the repercussions from the ball-biting incident remain unresolved with some quarters still asking for more stringent punishment. Hopefully, Malik is just filling in Afridi’s shoes, but you couldn’t blame the PCB for considering shielding Afridi from a position of authority while his international stock is so low. Going into a World Cup, it’s a bit of a PR debacle having the face of your national team munching on a cricket ball.

All this leaves the captaincy position rather blurry. Malik cannot be considered a long term solution in any format of the game due to his own problems in maintaining his place in the side. Yousuf has the same problem (not in the Test arena though) and one can’t help shake the feeling that either candidate’s tenure could be curtailed at any point. Moreover, you cannot expect a team to be cohesive under players who are obsessed with slinging mud at each other.

Afridi would have been an ideal candidate to take over both the shorter formats (with an eventual elevation up to the final rung) not because he would necessarily be a good captain but, rather, because he seems to command the respect of the entire unit much like Inzimam did, and unlike Malik and Yousuf seem capable of doing. Inzimam’s tenure demonstrated that strategic prowess isn’t as important as captaining a Pakistan team as is unquestioned deference.

The PCB needs to make a clear and unequivocal statement regarding the identity of the captain for the next two years as we have been in virtual limbo since Younis left. I am not a proponent of different captains for different formats, but there should at least be one captain for both the shorter formats who, for the time being, may be distinct from the Test match captain. The sooner the PCB addresses the situation, the sooner we can start formulating a strategy going forward. It’s not all doom and gloom for them though. On the lighter side of things, they can always take heart from the fact that Shoaib Akhtar has thrown his hat into the captaincy mix.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.