***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Kweek]

scorecard?!

 

[Kweek]

It does irratate me how the idea of Britain being one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world is lost on a lot of people. Instead of being lauded for having a diverse population we get accused of stealing cricket talent from other countries.
It's not as if a/ we're scouring the streets of India and Pakistan for cricketers and then bribing them to play for us or that we're in anyway forcing people like Mahmood or Panesar to play for England. They want to play for England because they feel English.
I grew up in a part of London and it really annoyed my 'Asian' school friends too when they got asked where they were from as the answer was just London.
Let's please stop asuming that anyone with a non-English name has either been poached from somewhere or coerced into playing for us.

ignore the tool Barmy, Im really annoyed with people like him, but not much that you can do about it! they are just a bit..stupid.

 

[TT Boy]

Tis a shame Mahmood did have his heart set on playing for Pakistan however.

 

[silentstriker]

It does irratate me how the idea of Britain being one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world is lost on a lot of people. Instead of being lauded for having a diverse population we get accused of stealing cricket talent from other countries.
It's not as if a/ we're scouring the streets of India and Pakistan for cricketers and then bribing them to play for us or that we're in anyway forcing people like Mahmood or Panesar to play for England. They want to play for England because they feel English.
I grew up in a part of London and it really annoyed my 'Asian' school friends too when they got asked where they were from as the answer was just London.
Let's please stop asuming that anyone with a non-English name has either been poached from somewhere or coerced into playing for us.

Good post. If I had the talent, I would definatly play for England over almost any other country. Being Asian, England is probably the best country to get ahead in (outside the Asian countries of course). I have nothing but respect for the English game. I know it used to be bad a while back, but times change, and I think England is definatly one of the best countries to play if you are not white.

England do not scour the streets of England and Pakistan looking for players (though they might be doing that in the streets of SA ) Mahmood is not a Pakistani player, he's an English player whose parents are from pakistan. There is a big difference.

I completely agree about being asked that question. I get asked all the time - "where are you from?". I usually just reply, "South Philly". Why do people assume that I think of myself as an 'Indian' first and an 'American' second? I don't, and most young people under the age of 30 who've lived here most their lives don't think so either. At least from my experience.

 

[shortpitched713]

1st ODI

Well here's what I figure England and Pakistan will go in to the first match with as far as playing XI.

England XI
1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Andrew Strauss*
3. Ian Bell
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Paul Collingwood
6. Jamie Dalrymple
7. Chris Read+
8. Darren Gough
9. Jon Lewis
10. Sajid Mahmood
11. Steve Harmison

Alastair Cook misses out in favor of Bell due to Bell's experience in ODIs. The bowling looks to be a shambles with "Never knowingly underbowled" Lewis getting a recall. The batting should theoretically have depth with the resurgent Read at 7 and Gough, no mug with the bat, at 8. Still, ones got to feel that if their top/upper middle order don't fire that they'll have difficulty scoring enough runs. Overall, its definitely not one of the better sides that England have fielded.

Pakistan XI
1. Shoaib Malik
2. Imran Farhat
3. Younis Khan
4. Mohammad Yousuf
5. Inzamam-ul-Haq*
6. Abdul Razzaq
7. Kamran Akmal+
8. Shahid Afridi
9. Naved-ul-Hasan
10. Iftikhar Anjum
11. Shoaib Akhtar

Imran Farhat is chosen over Mohammad Hafeez for his performances in ODIs for Pakistan, which hasn't exactly been a strong suit for Hafeez. Iftikhar Anjum is chosen over Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul just randomly. You've got to expect some randomness when it comes to the Pakistani team. Not that Iftikhar Anjum doesn't deserve a recall to the national side, as he has toiled hard for Pakistan in ODIs on mostly unhelpful pitches. This Pakistani side includes the core of a group that has served Pakistan well in ODIs for a while now, and it seems unlikely that England would be able to pull of the upset under normal circumstances. However, one wonders how focused the Pakistan side will be with the specter of Inzi's hearing looming ahead.

 

[JASON]

Having Madugalle as ICC Match referee was very convenient for the ICC IMO.

They can use it by saying its another Asian making the decision , suits their purpose !

And knowing only too well of Madugalle ( a legend in his own time at my old school in his school cricket days) , the best I will say is , he is real stooge and a Puppet of the ICC's powers that be .

So I only hope the Pakistan Team and Management are aware of this , because if they are counting on Madugalle to be Neutral, I can say quite clearly and categorically he will be anything but Neutral, IMO.

And they may be in for a Rude shock , if they are counting on Madugalle being neutral.

 

[SJS]

One always felt that Harsha Bhogle should has stayed with cricket writing. Here is another proof of it.

Excerpts :-

- I know we all speak with the benefit of hindsight but it would have been so simple for Pakistan to play on, win the match and, since they are so certain of their honesty, win their appeal as well. They would have won a cricket match and they would have won the moral high ground.

There can be no more resounding victory than honour questioned and vindicated. But Pakistan chose to sit out and I’m afraid that was a huge failure of management.​

- I have heard the word ‘racism’ come into it and that is sad. We use it too lightly, it is our first shelter now. But even racism has to bow to achievement and the more we achieve in our part of the world, the less relevant racism will become.

That doesn’t mean Hair’s attitude is acceptable. He is domineering, rude and uses his authority like it were a fly-swatter. Rather than saying “lets not get there” he is liable to say “if you get there this is what I will do to you...” An umpire cannot be a tyrant.​

- We haven’t seen the ball, no journalist has, no columnist has. If Hair is indeed wrong, he will be condemned but what if he is right? I think we need to hold our judgement till a verdict is arrived at.​

- I think international sportsmen should spare us the “honour” bit. One of the most disquieting things about sport in recent times is the realisation that virtually everybody cheats. The World Cup of football was full of it and I know of no cricket team in the world that doesn’t go up in appeal in a wonderfully convincing manner when they know a batsman isn’t out.

If that isn’t cheating, then nothing is. Sportsmen abuse each other, their families, their culture, their religion and no dictionary includes that alongside the word “honour”. If you cheat, you have no honour to defend.​

 

[JASON]

And Hair warns those who vilified him will pay when he has had his say at the enquiry.

Is he about to provide 'the evidence' ??

His confidance surprises me... And there can be only one of 2 answers for that , IMO..


1 He has evidence that the ball was tampered by a player and he can conclusively proove it , footage and all.

or

2 He knows the Judgement will be on his side regardless of whatever passes before it. ie. the Judge is the ICC and the Judgement is by an ICC appointed referee .

I think he is relying more on no.2 above than 1 . I hope he and ICC are aware of Inzy's Legal Team . They better be, for otherwise he and the whole ICC are going to be dragged through the Court system with Legal Suits and Counter Suits .

I bet all the top Lawyers in the United Kingdom are happily looking forward with glee !

 

[SJS]

I bet all the top Lawyers in the United Kingdom are happily looking forward with glee !

You bet.

Though its sad to see lawyers getting involved in an on field cricketing matter. Its a terrible precedent. PLUS we will probably hear more legalese and much less will be known of what actually happened.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Will Inzy have grounds to sue? Isn't the whole point that Hair has acted outside of the spirit of the game, but within the rules? How much legal standing will that give Inzy/other Pak players? And he hasn't accused Inzy directly of ball-tampering, the only reason that he's fronting any disciplinary hearing is because he's captain.

And I couldn't see why would Hair want to sue?

Anyways, it seems all a bit facetious at this point, considering that the punishments haven't been handed out, and we're talking about legal action in retaliation to something that hasn't occurred yet.

 

[SJS]

Will Inzy have grounds to sue? Isn't the whole point that Hair has acted outside of the spirit of the game, but within the rules? How much legal standing will that give Inzy/other Pak players? And he hasn't accused Inzy directly of ball-tampering, the only reason that he's fronting any disciplinary hearing is because he's captain.

And I couldn't see why would Hair want to sue?

Anyways, it seems all a bit facetious at this point, considering that the punishments haven't been handed out, and we're talking about legal action in retaliation to something that hasn't occurred yet.

Has any one talked of suing ?

I thought the lawyers were going to be used only at the hearing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Has any one talked of suing ?

I thought the lawyers were going to be used only at the hearing.

Sorry, misconstrued this part.

I think he is relying more on no.2 above than 1 . I hope he and ICC are aware of Inzy's Legal Team . They better be, for otherwise he and the whole ICC are going to be dragged through the Court system with Legal Suits and Counter Suits .

 

[JASON]

Even if they do not hand out a punishment, if they imply anything bordering on illegality , ie by implication suggesting that cheating took place in some form, You can bet your bottom dollar , Inzy and his legal team will have grounds to sue for defamation of character .

The only way out for the ICC , is to drop the cheating issue completely , regardless of Hair's ****iness and charge and penalise Inzy for Forfeiture of a cricket Match.

But having listened to Mihir Bose and some others discuss this , even this can be challenged .

Because there are several grounds and ways to challenge "the Assumption of Forfeiture " as well (because that is what it was when Pakistan did not come out while the Umpires waited).

 

[honestbharani]

And Hair being a confirmed racist and a lousy judge of the condition of the ball is a 'fact', isn't it ?

I never called him completely racist. I think he likes to be a little too authoritative for an umpire, esp. against the subcontinental sides. Maybe he just thinks it is easy to pass his authority over the subcontinental sides more than the sides like RSA and Australia. That is not exactly racism. Maybe he thinks these people ask lesser questions of him and therefore behaves like this.


BTW, I still would like to see proof that made Hair conclude the damages were done manually. And I would still like to see proof that it was in fact some Pakistan player who DID it. It still seems to me that Hair acted upon conjecture and it is quite a big thing to accuse Pakistan players of tampering with the ball (considering how big an issue it is with them) based on just conjecture. He sees the ball, he thinks "this cannot have been natural. Someone has done this to the ball. who could it be? Well, who else but Pakistan. So let's fine them and show them who is the boss." Sorry, he could have and SHOULD HAVE handled this better. If every umpire is to follow the rules alone in the strictest sense a million controversies would erupt. That is why umpires are generally older, because it is hoped they would be wiser, smarter and prepared to use common sense as much as possible. I am sorry, I still maintain that Hair shouldn't be in the panel, inspite of him being someone who does good work as far as the normal stuff is concerned (like LBWs and caught behinds etc.)

 

[honestbharani]

Good point...

but that's football and this is cricket. The saying isn't "It's not football", is it? Whatever the present situation may be, cricketers were (and I believe still are) believed to be more honest than footballers and it is generally assumed that a cricketer would never go to very low levels to win the game. I am sure there are exceptions, but generally, that is the belief and from what I have seen, it is true as well.

 

[honestbharani]

Different people have different styles.

Darrell Hair, off the field, is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.

On the field, he obviously takes the attitude that he is there to adjudicate the game based on a strict interpretation of the laws not to make conversation.

That, in itself, is not a weakness.

As to whether a more laid back approach could have difused this situation, that's open to debate.

Obviously he felt that there was evidence of ball tampering.

Let's say that, rather than penalising Pakistan, he merely warned them.

Do you really think that Inzy's reaction would have been any different - his team has been accused either way.

Should he have remained mute in the knowledge that Pakistan were gaining an unfair advantage?

Of course not.

IMO, it all comes down to the fact Pakistan reacted badly and now Inzy is compounding his error by attempting to black-mail the ICC into exonerating him by threatening to pull out of the tour should he be found guilty.

To be honest, havnig had time to think it all over and having read a lot about it (mostly here) I do agree that the way Pak handled it was very bad indeed. I mean, if it was so bad to them, they should have walked off straightaway and not cared about the game. After all, what is a win or loss when your morality is at stake? But they didn't and then they tried to protest and then they came back out again. It was all very stupid and very unfair to the spectators. I agree with all of that. I think they should get some sort of punishment but I would rather PCB face the sanctions than Inzy because I don't think he is the cause here.


Having said all that, isn't it obvious that someone like Hair being on the panel is only detrimental to the game? I honestly don't think he has enough evidence to back up his claim that Pakistan did tamper with the ball. I think he is reckoning on the ICC backing him up more than the presence of any real evidence. If he has evidence, well and good. But even if he has, he still needs to be talked to about his role as an umpire and the way to handle potential crisis situations. Umpires are there to diffuse tension not to intensify them. And if he does not have the evidence (which I more than half suspect is the case) I think he should be removed because the point here is that Pakistan will never play under him. If Sri Lanka too make a similar statement, then he is left with umpiring in only half of the matches at best. The ICC can make an example of both here. They can ban Hair to show that how umpires SHOULD NOT behave in crisis situations and they can slap fines and sanctions on PCB to show that the commitment of all teams at all times should be towards the paying public.

 

[honestbharani]

Mohammad Sami is a remarkable cricketer. At such a young age he has some of the most astounding achievements in the history of the game. Here are a few.

1. He has conceded 126 runs per test match played. :
No fast bowler (in the side as a bowler) in the entire 129 year history of the game has given as many and survived to play even 20 tests in his entire career. Our Sami has already played 28 and there should be more to come, Inshallah !!
2. He is also joint second fastest in the race to conced 3000 test runs amongst all fast and medium fast bowlers in the world for the last 129 years !! :

- Our Sami achieved this feat in a fantastic run of 25 test matches. Bedser may have done it in one test fewer but look at the sneaky way he achieved that – by bowling as many as 1200 or so overs. Our Sami did us proud by doing it in just 850 overs !!

- And look at how profligate Bedser was. He had to get 93 wickets in his 24 tests to get tp this coveted target. Our Sami did it by bothering the umpires only 65 times.


- Even the other five pretenders, Hadlee, Roberts, Devon Malcolm, Jeff Thomson and Danny Morrison who matched Sami’s feat got 502 wickets between them and at a combined average of 30.4. Our Sami stands proudly at 47.2 for his economical tally of 65 wickets !!

3. Of the hundred odd bowlers we compared. Sami was head and shoulders above everyone else in his “strike rate’ at the end of the 25 test matches.

His strike rate (wickets per test match) stood at an astounding 2.60 wickets per test match !!

It is clear that on the overall criteria of average, strike rate, race to reach runs targets our Sami is head and shoulders above any fast bowler in the history of the game. We are confident that given the kind of support such a bowler deserves, he will set up records that future generations of fast bowlers will look back at in bewilderment.

The only player in the entire history of the game who comes close to challenging our Sami is that elephant-eared God from Mumbai. Their figures make interesting comparisons.

BOWLER…TESTS…..OVER..RUNS…..WKTS….AVG…..STR RATE…W/T…5-for

Sami…………28……….997…3531………65……48.4……….81.95…….2.28…….2
Agarkar……....26………809….2745………58…….47.3………83.74….....2.23……1

Very tough fight indeed. Imagine if India were to join hands and both these amazing bowlers played on the same side. That would be a treat!!

SJS, you are a senior poster here. You know The Great One is off limits as far as criticism is concerned.



BTW, all this controversy has taken us away from discussing the return of the English AA: Rikki Clarke..... Where is Eddie when you need him?

 

[honestbharani]

No-one denies that.

But by a similar principle, the umpires haven't been proven wrong yet.

They are the accusers. And so long as they haven't provided proof, it is only right that we assume that the accused are innocent.

 

[barmyarmy]

BTW, all this controversy has taken us away from discussing the return of the English AA: Rikki Clarke..... Where is Eddie when you need him?

That was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news. Where are Clarke-watch when you need them?

 

[Tom Halsey]

They are the accusers. And so long as they haven't provided proof, it is only right that we assume that the accused are innocent.

Until the hearing we have no idea whether they have proof or not. Hence we do not know yet if they are right or wrong. They have yet to be proven wrong.