Putting the team before the individual

India and Pakistan contests are nothing if not bloated with significance and implications for both teams. For Pakistan, the forthcoming series will go a long way towards answering two long-standing questions at the centre of their cricket - two that hold repercussions well beyond the coming year.

At the heart of the first lies, unsurprisingly, Shoaib Akhtar and the Pakistan team, and more specifically whether the two are compatible. In most countries, it wouldn't even be a question - and nor should it be - but this past month has been a strange, almost perverse test for the complex relationship between the two.

On his return from Australia, Shoaib did what Shoaib does. He was outspoken, self-obsessed and injured, and he pissed a lot of people off. He said, forlornly, that he carried the attack single-handedly in Australia. And who could doubt him? After all, Danish Kaneria, that notoriously uncommitted, work-shy layabout, only bowled almost double his number of overs and contrived to pick up more wickets than Shoaib did. This is why Pakistan loves to hate him.

He provoked a typically muddled reaction from the PCB: "hard talks", allegations of poor discipline (fancy that) and poorer fitness (surely not!), endless committees and enquiries - all to determine whether he should go to India or not. And just when everyone had finally had enough, along came the news that he wouldn't. Relief? Not really. No attack would be happy about losing one of its top bowlers (and whatever else one thinks of Shoaib, his talent cannot be questioned). This is why Pakistan needs him.

It is an uneasy duality. Before his withdrawal, people insisted that Pakistan could adjust to life without him. Now, when he is finally out, the insistence doesn't seem quite so forceful. Of course, whether Pakistan or Shoaib Akhtar like it or not, the question will eventually be answered, one way or another. Such is the magnitude of his attitudinal problems that, if Pakistan manage to win the series without him, his future would immediately be uncertain. If, on the other hand, Pakistan lose, then his standing as the premier fast bowler of the land would enable him to return, vindicated and probably harbouring even greater delusions of grandeur. Both scenarios offer further headaches for the PCB, which could not have made more of a meal of the issue if it had tried.

But then no administration has been as schizophrenic as the PCB in the legacy it wants to leave. This leads us nicely to the second question - that of leadership. If the PCB has not been as transparent as it promised, it has at least tried gamely to revitalise domestic cricket. If the PCB has stalled over its constitution, it has at least tried to engender a sense of stability in the team. And if the PCB has bungled the Shoaib affair, it has at least identified a leader for the future, at the moment when such a man was most needed.

For some time now, Younis Khan has been regarded, unofficially, as the heir apparent. In an interview with Wisden Asia Cricket after the 2003 World Cup, Rashid Latif earmarked Younis, off the record, as the man he was to groom as his successor. And in an interview with Cricinfo in November, Shaharyar Khan was also complimentary about his leadership skills, and Imran Khan has since publicly backed him as captain. Rahul Dravid, who seems as good a judge of character as any, is reportedly very impressed by him.

Thus, in this context, his elevation to the vice-captaincy takes on a considerably greater significance than any previous appointments, because it is perhaps a semi-official recognition that he may be the next man to lead Pakistan. If so it shows, on the PCB's part, unprecedented foresight. Not since Imran himself has any Pakistani player had the fortune to be identified and groomed as a leader.

The timing seems right. A gruelling, high-profile tour lies ahead, and given the state of Inzamam's back, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Younis will be called upon to lead at some point. It should prove to be invaluable experience. And if Inzamam's tenure is as fragile as rumours suggest then, at 27 and with 32 Tests behind him, Younis is as ready, by Pakistani standards, as he will ever be to take over. Above all, his own position in the team finally seems secure.

His batting, which has been erratic on occasions in the past, is currently in better shape than it has been for some time. He is still beset by an inability to convert good starts into great ones; his one fifty in Australia should have been one century and at least three fifties, but aside from one horror shot at Perth, he looked reliable. He had an indifferent year in 2004 until he was recalled against Sri Lanka, but by bestowing as much faith in him now when he is in form, his confidence is only likely to be boosted further. If he succeeds, Pakistan's leadership dilemma could be resolved. If he doesn't, a more familiar state of panic awaits, as does the return to a vacuum of leadership.

Last year, a series against India brought with it, in the shape of Bob Woolmer, an appointment that could still have a profound impact on Pakistan cricket. This year's series, it seems, is set to do the same.