The only good thing to come from the most stupid and ill-conceived experimental rule ever codged together by the International Cricket Council goes under the name of Liam Plunkett.
The Durham 20-year-old pace bowler is a real uncut diamond, unlike James Anderson who flashed on to the international one-day scene three years ago in Australia in glittering fashion - since when the attempted polishing of his diamond qualities have revealed an inherent flawed aspect.
Plunkett is simply a different class, but only played on Saturday in Lahore as one of the allowable "super-subs."
Even then, had Marcus Trescothick lost the toss, Plunkett's participation in the game would would have been the same as Pakistan's Arshad Khan. Namely, nil. When asked why Khan played no part, Inzamam-ul-Haq said "we lost the toss."
That explains why Bob Willis has called for the resignation of the committee responsible for the experimental rule, which started a 12-month trial last July in this country against Australia.
It makes a mockery of cricket being an 11-a-side contest, because winning the toss is all. Win that and you win the match, or more or less, with 24 of the 35 ODIs since July having been won by the side batting first and then having the huge advantage of doing what England did on Saturday.
They batted first, racked up a record 327 runs and then brought in Plunkett instead of Kevin Pietersen.
Former England new-ball bowler Angus Fraser is a member of the ICC cricket committee which made the wretched decision under the chairmanship of Sunil Gavaskar.
Fraser admits that at least one amendment is necessary. Both captains presently have to name their super-subs before the toss, resulting in an unfair handicap to the fielding side.
If the present rule lasts until the 2007 World Cup, it will devalue the premier one-day competition in world cricket.
The only thing that could equalize the toss is to allow captains to nominate their super-sub after the toss, but even that still makes a nonsense of the bedrock of cricket - the fact that a match is an 11-a-side contest.
Plunkett's selection, ahead of Anderson, for last week's third and final Test in Lahore surely sounded the death knell of the latter's Test career.
The first peal came loud and clear at The Oval when, having called up Anderson to replace Simon Jones, the selectors virtually admitted that they could not trust the Lancashire youngster and picked Paul Collingwood instead.
* What do you think? Visit our messageboard and give us your opinion. *
A second alarm bell rang before the Lahore Test, a game England needed to win.
They opted for Plunkett ahead of Anderson and rightly so, because Plunkett is easily the most promising bowler the England selectors have picked in recent years.
Forget Anderson and also forget Chris Tremlett. The Hampshire man is the third in a family line of distinguished cricketers - grandfather Maurice and father Tim - but, his injury problems notwithstanding, he is way behind Plunkett in basic technique.
England's win on Saturday was down to two bowlers - Plunkett and Ian Blackwell. Andrew Flintoff might have cleaned up the tail, but he and Steve Harmison went for 56 off their first seven overs and 91 off 11 , while Blackwell ' s figures of 10-0-45-0 applied a crucial squeeze which Plunkett followed with two matchwinning overs for seven runs.
He deserved his three wickets, but it was the control of technique and temperament under the most extreme of pressure which marks him out as a bowler with whom England must persevere.
Everything about his cricket oozes class. His action repeats, because everything stays in a straight line from head to toe in the delivery stride.
Anderson's head still falls away at the crease, while Plunkett looks at the batsman when he releases the ball. He is open chested, but there are no Fred Trueman lookalikes in the modern game because the medics say that such a pivotal action leads to back strains. Isn't it funny, then, that Trueman's fitness record was virtually unblemished?
Although a sideways action is not any guarantee of an outswing hand action, it makes it more difficult for someone such as Plunkett to control the wrist. Hence his fault, understandable for a lad who has still to play in his 30th first-class match, of occasionally straying down the leg side. That should be easy to correct, however.
As for Blackwell, he was the real star for county colleague Trescothick, who deserves high praise for the way in which he responded to the battering of Flintoff and Harmison in the first half of the innings.
He kept his nerve and bravely showed faith in the right bowlers at the right time.
Blackwell's spell was terrific. Whether he will feature instead of Ashley Giles or with him depends largely on the Warwickshire spinner's fitness and also pitch conditions.
Both left- armers have much to offer with the bat and it would be no great loss to have them bat in the same side at Nos 8 and 9, even at the expense of a seamer.
This series in Pakistan is a big one for two reasons. Should England lose, they must qualify for next year's ICC Champions Trophy in India and coach Duncan Fletcher has roughly 30 ODIs before the World Cup to settle on his best team and squad.
The next question to resolve is the batting position of Michael Vaughan. If he and Andrew Strauss bat in the first three, whither Matthew Prior who looks a lively pinch-hitter at the top?
Can he and Geraint Jones play in the same side? The Kent wicketkeeper has received an abundance of stick in this column, but he has done little wrong on this tour and claimed three catches and a good run-out on Saturday.
If England won the toss in the second game at Lahore which began earlier today, they will have enjoyed three advantages; that of the super-sub, the continued absence of Shahid Afridi and the poor light in the last two hours of the match.
That is no reflection of the quality of the floodlights but more because of the difficulty of seeing a dirty white ball in twilight that is made worse by mist and smog.
The ICC has much to answer for after scheduling a three-Test, five-ODI tour of Pakistan in November and December, when proper cricket is not possible for much more than six hours a day and floodlit cricket is impossible after 7pm local time.
More culpably, they deserve a raspberry for reducing one-day cricket to a lottery in which the toss- winning side has a near-10 per cent advantage with 12 men against 11.