***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Fusion]

You have to admit that Inzi behaved like a spoilt child today when it all went off?

He isn't the first and he certainly won't be the last or worst but today, he spat it. And was still going on to the umpires about it at least 15 mins after it happened. I honestly thought he was going to go off again when the commentators started talking about Inzi's honour and other such things.

I haven't seen the incident. But let me take your word that he was throwing a tantrum. Like you stated, he wasn't the first and he wont' be the last. It had nothing to do with the Hair issue or race. But some people here took this opportunity to make satirical comments and attack Pakistani supporters in general. To me, the fact that they would attack in such a manner shows something about their personalities and how they feel about Pakistani's (or sub-continentals) in general. I am disappointed about that. When I firmly criticized Hair during that whole incident, not once did I generalize and say "white people" or "Australians" are racist and bad. I had a problem with ONE MAN…Hair. I don't even think he's racist, just that he's a bad umpire. But some Hair supporters want to attack all Pakistani supporters and it seems would take ANY opportunity (however insignificant or irrelevant) to go in attack mode. I guess I’m just disheartened by their anger and how they view Pakistanis.

 

[PY]

That's fair enough and I can see how it would anger you because it would anger me if it happened to me.

However, would you not say that Inzi did play the race card, as it were, when he claimed that what happened on that cricket field was a matter of national honour and thus, he had to go off. This means he's using the fact that he comes from a different culture which allows him to break the rules and complain about the punishment handed out. Now I know that isn't skin colour, but to me (and probably not anyone else because I'm a little distorted on this stuff) that's still playing the race card.

You may have not called Hair a racist yourself and I have a lot of respect of that because people have been very quick to yell it out but you have to admit that quite a lot of people on here have called Hair a racist for what he did. Thus, again, it's been made into a racial issue when IMO it shouldn't have been.

 

[PY]

However, would you not say that Inzi did play the race card, as it were, when he claimed that what happened on that cricket field was a matter of national honour and thus, he had to go off. This means he's using the fact that he comes from a different culture which allows him to break the rules and complain about the punishment handed out. Now I know that isn't skin colour, but to me (and probably not anyone else because I'm a little distorted on this stuff) that's still playing the race card.

Not sure that gets my point across, it sounds really bad.

 

[aussie]

Just turning attention to the Ashes squad selection. As some of you would have seen during the Lunch break Atherton, Lehmann, Knight & Holding discussed what they thought the ashes sqaud should be at if my memory is correct i think it was:

Flintoff* - Captain
Read
Jones
Strauss
Trescothick
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Dalrymple
Panesar
Harmison
Hoggard
Mahmood
Plunkett
Broad

Decent idea of a squad, just don't get how they didn't pick Anderson since surely he MUST BE PICKED of either Plunkett/Broad/Mahmood.

Also the picked Dalrymple as the second spinner, with the idea that picked Gilo & having two left-arm spinners doesn't make great sense. Gilo is a great performer but i have to agree.

Jones as the second keeper IMO is not a certainty since he hasn't gone back to get & done that great, i like the look of Foster this season & the emergence of Davies i think they have as much of a chance of going as back-up to Read.

Also i guess based on the 98 & 2002 tours i think England will pick 17 men again & that would be another batsman i guess and for me Joyce would be my pick.

 

[Fusion]

That's fair enough and I can see how it would anger you because it would anger me if it happened to me.

However, would you not say that Inzi did play the race card, as it were, when he claimed that what happened on that cricket field was a matter of national honour and thus, he had to go off. This means he's using the fact that he comes from a different culture which allows him to break the rules and complain about the punishment handed out. Now I know that isn't skin colour, but to me (and probably not anyone else because I'm a little distorted on this stuff) that's still playing the race card.

You may have not called Hair a racist yourself and I have a lot of respect of that because people have been very quick to yell it out but you have to admit that quite a lot of people on here have called Hair a racist for what he did. Thus, again, it's been made into a racial issue when IMO it shouldn't have been.

I would disagree that Inzi used the race card. He did say that his and Pakistan's honor were insulted. That is different from saying "we were victims of racism". For example, an American can insult an Englishman's country/honor without being racist. Keep in mind that Naser Hussain had said he would've had the same feelings as Inzi if the situation had happened to him. I don't think Naser was saying that Hair is racist. He was merely saying that he could empathize with one's honor being challenged.

I know that some people here did call Hair a racist, and again I respectfully disagree with them. I think it actually weakens their argument when they say that. However, not once did a Pakistani PLAYER or PCB OFFICIAL claim that Hair was racist, to my knowledge. So why are people attacking Inzi for using the race card? Why immediately start making jokes about "he's going to come off the field now claiming bias" when this INSIGNIFICANT incident happened? I'm just asking to debate the issue(s) without resorting to such negativity and anger.

 

[social]

Grow up. Are you referring to Inzi as a cheat because he thought he claimed a fair catch? And comparing that to what Hair did? How absurd. The comments posted from some people here show how close minded they are at best, and how hateful at worst. Go ahead and defend that beacon of truth, liberty, and justice that is Darryl Hair for all I care. At least don't grasp at straws when making your weak arguments though. To anyone neutral, you come out looking childish and foolish.

All that and u havent seen the incident?

Some misguided people tried to draw a correlation between Hair's decision at The Oval and a subsequent attempt to have his contract paid out.

Please explain to me how that is any less far-fetched than looking at Inzy's behaviour today and drawing the conclusion that "if he's done that then maybe there is something to Hair's accusation."

In any event, today was just another example of why Inzy and the Board of the ICC need to be punted.

One obviously thinks that he is bigger than the game, the other is too gutless to do anything about it.

 

[Fusion]

All that and u havent seen the incident?

Some misguided people tried to draw a correlation between Hair's decision at The Oval and a subsequent attempt to have his contract paid out.

Please explain to me how that is any less far-fetched than looking at Inzy's behaviour today and drawing the conclusion that "if he's done that then maybe there is something to Hair's accusation."

In any event, today was just another example of why Inzy and the Board of the ICC need to be punted.

One obviously thinks that he is bigger than the game, the other is too gutless to do anything about it.

I don't need to see the incident to know that there was a dispute about a catch. And from what I've read here and on cricinfo commentary, there is a chance that Straus was out and Inzi took a clean catch. There is a massive difference between something like this (which happens frequently in cricket) and what Hair did. Hair accused Pakistan of cheating, plain and simple. That's a massive allegation and does not compare at all to a dispute about a catch. If you think the two incidents are one and the same, you need a lesson in perspective. Also, people criticized Hair because though he acted on "principle" on the whole thing, he was more than happy to walk away for cash. There's something dubious about that.

The fact that we are discussing the Hair issue again on a completely irrelevant and unrelated incident shows me that some people here have an ax to grind, and a lot of anger to spew out.

 

[Legglancer]

OK can someone tell me this win for England is after how many losses?

 

[PY]

Well against any of the big 8 Test nations, it's the first since the tour of India I believe.

The only one this English summer was against Ireland.

EDIT: 9 since our last win against Test-playing nations.

 

[marc71178]

If it is proven, I will be the first to call out Inzamam and apologize to Hair.

Regardless of outcome, Inzy deserves everything he gets (under the current rules as he is captain, even though I don't think it was his decision) for the disrepute charge.

 

[marc71178]

Brilliant death bowling here from Sajid. Strauss really made a great decision to give him the penultimate over.

Oh yes, the replace the man who bowled an over for 1 run with Saj option is always a good one (!)

 

[marc71178]

Unbelievable. Hundred of the last ten?

Probably, but only because of the 70 from the last 4!

 

[marc71178]

Broad is an obvious candidate for death bowling because he's so tall, the other death bowler I would say should have been Yardy because his pace is deceptive and because there aren't any other obvious candidates.

Would've been a brave man to take Yardy off when he was doing such a good job in the middle period though.

Have to say I'd have possibly brought Lewis back for his 2 overs when Pakistan were 6 down, because 1 more wicket would've left an end open.

 

[marc71178]

And i don't think taking the word of the feilder is the safest course of aciton for any party,

When the ball is that low down I don't think any person can actually say for certain if they caught it or not to be honest.

 

[silentstriker]

Regardless of outcome, Inzy deserves everything he gets (under the current rules as he is captain, even though I don't think it was his decision) for the disrepute charge.

That depends on the outcome. I do not think its disreputable to walk out on a racist umpire who thinks of himself above the game and who has a history of bias, this was just the final straw.

We will see what happens.

 

[grecian]

Again the word "racist" without any proof whatsoever.

Disgusting, argue hes a bad umpire, theres proof on that, none that I can see that hes "racist".

 

[silentstriker]

Again the word "racist" without any proof whatsoever.

Disgusting, argue hes a bad umpire, theres proof on that, none that I can see that hes "racist".

Then you need to look at his history, and his demeanor to certain teams.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, Grant Flower, the brown-skinned slime, or was he just overdoing the sunbed?

Pathetic, as I've said before, its a really nasty insult to be called a racist, almost intolerable, but some need no proof before they label someone.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah, Grant Flower, the brown-skinned slime, or was he just overdoing the sunbed?

Pathetic, as I've said before, its a really nasty insult to be called a racist, almost intolerable, but some need no proof before they label someone.

As I've said before, it's not in who he penalises, it's moreso in his demeanour with certain teams....I can't necessarily provide concrete evidence, but believe me, if you've had to experience racial prejudice throughout your life, you get to recognise it when you see it.

 

[nightprowler10]

As I've said before, it's not in who he penalises, it's moreso in his demeanour with certain teams....I can't necessarily provide concrete evidence, but believe me, if you've had to experience racial prejudice throughout your life, you get to recognise it when you see it.

Good post. I feel many people don't understand that.