The first thing a bowler needs is a good action: not one that generates pace... but one that's simple enough to be eminently repeatable (even when things are not working)... one that gives them a chance of bowling an intended line even if the length may stray... one with the bowling arm reaching as high as possible, without the non-bowling arm dropping too early, without the head falling away or some such other failing.... and one that has potential for adding both a stock ball that shapes one way AND a variation that goes the other way.

After gaining that initial impression the coach should surely be looking for wrist position: if it's as promising as Pathan's was you take note... as that bodes very well indeed. It suggests that in due course you might add swinging the new ball either way, splitting the fingers to deliver slower balls with the disguise of Fernando, switching to cutters at the drop of a hat and so on.

Now of couse... if some hits the jackpot on the above AND (as Pathan did) has the mechanics and physique to add a yard or two of pace you have a potential Lindwall on your hands... but you have something special even WITHOUT that pace.

Sadly... most don't hit the jackpot on the above... and that's where, in desperation, you might look for pace: not because it's a sensational asset... but because bowling at 90+ does allow even a fairly crude bowler like Flintoff (who'd be a nothing bowler at steady 84-85mph) to partially hide deficiencies and to overcome lack of promise.

That's the bit Mahmood get's wrong: the best thing about his bowling was always the natural action and wrist position rather than the pace... and whilst he needed to develop "technique and control"... what always excited was the potential for guile.

I still have high hopes for Mahmood.... but I really do see Mahmood's biggest obstacle being himself: he really does need to get his head around what's helped Hoggard become England's no 1 bowler and start applying himself to following Sidebottom's lead rather than talk tosh about bowling fast!

ps. Your examples of where bowling with pace might lead to wickets highlights it's failings: all a batsman need do to avoid getting "beaten for pace" on the cut or pull is forget playing square of the wicket to the new ball - no-one plays the pull to a ball that's low enough to hit the stumps and no one SHOULD try the cut to a ball straight enough to hit the stumps... so why not just let the damn thing go through? The yorker might be less avoidable... but if you are set to defend (with a low backlift and low hands) it's no big deal for a top-level batsman: the folk who get into trouble (aside from tail-enders) are the guys who set themselves up to play expansively - which ain't required.