***Official*** England in Pakistan

[C_C]

England has historically been the team to push the edges of respectability and change/attempt to change rules when it suits them.
Closely followed by Australia.
Closely followed by Pakistan.
Rest all are pretty much the same.

 

[luckyeddie]

AS far as the most hated team is concerned, i think some ppl would like to add the name of England too.Pakistani team is obviously not very popular in England, likewise English team is not very popular in Subcontinent.

Well, there is a bit of previous between the two teams.

As you rightly suggest, many in Pakistan obviously hold England largely responsible, similarly many in England think that the Pakistanis are not exactly blameless.

 

[vandemataram]

You can't prove anything with Bell. There's no doubt whatsoever about the twinkle toed cheat who got off very lightly as expected. The message from cricket should be heard loud and clear, cheats do prosper.

Yes by not banning Bell , cheats are getting prospered!

I can't imagine a guy trying to defend a cheat in Bell , and yet at the same time is not satisfied with 1 test and 2 ODI ban on Afridi.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes by not banning Bell , cheats are getting prospered!

I can't imagine a guy trying to defend a cheat in Bell , and yet at the same time is not satisfied with 1 test and 2 ODI ban on Afridi.

Do you think Trescothick's edge to the keeper carried today?

 

[Pratters]

Who? Learn to ****ing spell before you bring all your biased crap on here.

That was uncalled for. Not every one can spell every thing corectly and such behaviour to a new member is deplorable.

 

[magsi23]

Do you think Trescothick's edge to the keeper carried today?

It sure did, no question about it

 

[Pratters]

Apparently Inzamam also appeared in the hearing of Afridi? They both are shown about to go to the hearing in a picture on cricinfo in the article which contains the news of Afridi being banned.

Regarding Inzamam acting cooly when asked by Hair and him acting surprised, what do you expect? Him to say 'I told Afridi to tamper with the pitch.'even if he did?

As I said its very difficult to prove Inzamam had a hand in it ot not but personally I think that it would be very surprising if Afridi did it without Inzamam's prior knowledge

 

[Top_Cat]

England has historically been the team to push the edges of respectability and change/attempt to change rules when it suits them.
Closely followed by Australia.
Closely followed by Pakistan.
Rest all are pretty much the same.

Don't make me bring up Arjuna Ranatunga in Adelaide 1998. By the way, I'm not referring to the walk-off but the threat of litigation in the meeting after the match. A walk-off was bad enough (although understandable) but threatening to sue and no-one getting in any trouble over that was a bit much I thought.

I agree with the top two but surely SL has been more guilty of this stuff than Pakistan in the last few years?

 

[Pratters]

If we start abandoning a series like this then the Ashes series should also have been abandoned as Ponting was very unhappy with some of Vaughan's tactics!

The tour should be abandoned because:

1) The tour side games had pitches not to the liking of the English
2) England is in a poor position in the series at the moment and it will be very tough for them to win it from here.

 

[C_C]

Don't make me bring up Arjuna Ranatunga in Adelaide 1998.

I agree with the top two but surely SL has been more guilty of this stuff than Pakistan in the last few years?

I am looking at the overall picture here - I think PAK, owing largely to its test status from the late 40s/early 50s has significantly built up her account compared to SL, who's test history is barely 20 years old.

 

[Pratters]

England has historically been the team to push the edges of respectability and change/attempt to change rules when it suits them.
Closely followed by Australia.
Closely followed by Pakistan.
Rest all are pretty much the same.

The dominance of the West Indies lead to quite a few rules changes but that just shows how strong they were.

 

[luckyeddie]

It sure did, no question about it

That's a relief, then.

The only thing I noticed was that it went almost totally unscrutinised - I guess 4 international incidents is more than enough for one series.

 

[C_C]

The dominance of the West Indies lead to quite a few rules changes but that just shows how strong they were.

And not for the first time either.
Must realise that ENG + AUS had veto power in the ICC till the mid 80s or so. Rules were also changed when Valentine and Ramdhin bamboozled the ENG batsmen in ENG.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And not for the first time either.
Must realise that ENG + AUS had veto power in the ICC till the mid 80s or so. Rules were also changed when Valentine and Ramdhin bamboozled the ENG batsmen in ENG.

Was that the "must strike in line of stumps" for LBW change?

 

[luckyeddie]

As I said its very difficult to prove Inzamam had a hand in it ot not but personally I think that it would be very surprising if Afridi did it without Inzamam's prior knowledge

I find that (the suggestion that Inzy put him up to it) quite preposterous - seeing as the incident occurred during the 10 minutes that everyone's attention was focused on errant drinks trolleys, and NOT as the BBC suggested, at close of play (1-0 to me, eat it, BBC).
The only way Inzy would have been able to have prior knowledge of what Shahid Afridi was going to do, logically, would be if he knew there would be a diversion.

You're not suggesting that, are you?.

 

[a10khan]

Who? Learn to ****ing spell before you bring all your biased crap on here.

i cant imagine jokes like u are allowed membership on this forum

 

[luckyeddie]

And not for the first time either.
Must realise that ENG + AUS had veto power in the ICC till the mid 80s or so. Rules were also changed when Valentine and Ramdhin bamboozled the ENG batsmen in ENG.

Are you seriously suggesting that the ICC is still an English country club?

What on Earth am I saying? Of course you are.

 

[luckyeddie]

i cant imagine jokes like u are allowed membership on this forum

In fairness to Steds, this new member Shahid_Afridi_6 joined today and immediately posted a dozen semi-inflammatory messages. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that a new member is a troll.

 

[Pratters]

You're not suggesting that, are you?.

No. Just after the explosion Inzy could have just had a word with Afridi quickly and he might have acted on it. Or maybe it was pre planned to tamper with the pitch when possible and then the diversion occured.

It cannot be proven whether Inzy had a part to play in it. But I just cannot imagine Afridi to be so stupid to do it on his own - its such a serious offence. It puts Afridi in such a poor position individually.

As it cannot be proven its speculation and thus does not have much reason to be discussed more than it has in my opinion. Also I cannot say I am 100% sure Inzy had a role to play in it but it seems unlikely to me Afridi just did it without the captain's knowledge.

 

[C_C]

Are you seriously suggesting that the ICC is still an English country club?

What on Earth am I saying? Of course you are.

No, but giving a bit of history lesson to our rather clucky and annoying scaly avian friend from your neck of the woods