***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

Brownies and Darkies vs. The Whitie's?

My money is on the Brownie's and Darkie's.

No, its not about race. Its more about politics and money. Well, I shouldn't say that. Race is just a side factor.

 

[JBH001]

LOL!

I was just joking SS - though if I was to be totally honest, I should say partly joking.

One other thing, apart from Hair I think Inzi and the Pak officials handled this badly too.

If he and his team were incensed by Hair's actions surely the best thing to do would have been to lodge a protest with Hair and Proctor (March Referee) and carry on with the game.
Also making sure to inform the PCB and the ECB and perhaps a press conference too after the game. Walking off the game was perhaps a tad petulant, not to mention short sighted. But then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Dasa]

Anyone seen the articles at Cricinfo in the surfer section? Interesting how the majority of English writers/articles side with Pakistan, while all of the Australians are with Hair. Some of those articles are looking disturbingly close to racism as well as those Australian writers taking this issue as an excuse to vilify Muralitharan, again.

 

[JBH001]

I am not surprised that they are backing Hair.

Apart from a possible antipathy toward Pakistan by some Australian commentators - Hair is an Australian and most of his fellows and mates would band around him, especially if he seemed to be under seige. It's unAustralian to do otherwise!

Moreover Hair is seen as someone who stand up and stand by what he believes and says. Something that is seen as a virtue in Australia - and dare I say it, other parts of the world too, but perhaps especially in Australia.

Don't get me wrong - Hair does seem to be a straight shooter. A trait that is to be admired, however, Hair does tend not to aim or - worse - take potshots in entirely the wrong direction.

 

[Fusion]

I am not surprised that they are backing Hair.

Apart from a possible antipathy toward Pakistan by some Australian commentators - Hair is an Australian and most of his fellows and mates would band around him, especially if he seemed to be under seige. It's unAustralian to do otherwise!

Moreover Hair is seen as someone who stand up and stand by what he believes and says. Something that is seen as a virtue in Australia - and dare I say it, other parts of the world too, but perhaps especially in Australia.

Don't get me wrong - Hair does seem to be a straight shooter. A trait that is to be admired, however, Hair does tend to not to aim or - worse - take potshots in entirely the wrong direction.

I agree. It's no surprise that Australians would come to the defense of their fellow countryman. Specially since Hair is looked upon as a man who is single handedly defending cricket's ethics by a majority of Australians (a view that I don't share of course). What is more satisfying to me is that the overwhelming majority of neutrals (the English chief amongst them) have supported Pakistan.

 

[pasag]

Wait, where do you see a majority of Australians supporting Hair? I haven't seen it, not in the media and not on this forum.

 

[silentstriker]

Wow, ironic that Aussies are calling it a low blow, whereas they can't even stop themselves from dragging Murali into it. Any chance they get, they just can't stop taking shots. Sucks, part of the reason why I support the Australians less and less since rooting for them in the Ashes last year.

 

[Fusion]

Wait, where do you see a majority of Australians supporting Hair? I haven't seen it, not in the media and not on this forum.

Well from the sample of articles displayed on cricinfo, it seemed like Aus was solidly behind Hair. If that does not reflect reality, than I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

 

[SJS]

By and large, those who think Inzy and his team were correct are talking of the ball tampering 'accusation' and the 'cheating' implications that follows from it, while those who think they were wrong are talking of the decision of Inzy (and who ever else was involved in the decision) to stay back in the dressing room SO long that the match was ultimately forfeited.

What both sets of 'supporters' dont want to address, it would appear, is that they could both be correct and probably are!

People tend to first decide which side they are on (and by implication decide who are NOT on their side) and then blindly (and with unhearing ears) keep placing their point of view in opposition to those of 'pre-determined' other side.

 

[SJS]

Nothing has come to light so far to show that there is any direct evidence of any Pakistani player having tampered with the ball. The damage to the ball is circumstancial evidence at best and not particularly solid.

Similarly, nothing has come to light to show that Inzy and his team had any intention of returning to the ground after 'a few minutes of protest'. Clearly they were 'forced' into coming out when Sharyar and co. realised they had landed themselves into an unholy mess a good 50 minutes after the original protest started.

Both Hair, unless he has evidence or saw something that we are nmot yet aware of, as well as the Pakistani team/captain made grave errors and that is what people on either side of this debate need to realise.

The fact that we continue to think one or the other is completely right and the other completely wrong is because of our own pre-conceived notions and inability to look beyond deeply ingrained but misplaced sense of loyalty to our own.

 

[pasag]

I don't like either side tbh. I think each party screwed up big time and its unfortunate that it seems Inzi will bear the brunt of this fiasco.

Also I am not a fan of the front page images of burning effigies. But I have recently learned not to take much notice of front page pictures.

 

[Dasa]

Wait, where do you see a majority of Australians supporting Hair? I haven't seen it, not in the media and not on this forum.

Not the Australian people, the Australian writers featured on Cricinfo.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Robert Craddock'ss anecdote about a county umpire sniffing the cricket ball, and joking about which type of mint the player were using on it, was humorous. However, it doesn't change the fact that he sleeps with Darrell Hair.

But seriously, the Australian cricket media has to take a lot of blame for the way that Murali has been treated over here.

 

[Slow Love™]

Both Hair, unless he has evidence or saw something that we are nmot yet aware of, as well as the Pakistani team/captain made grave errors and that is what people on either side of this debate need to realise.

The fact that we continue to think one or the other is completely right and the other completely wrong is because of our own pre-conceived notions and inability to look beyond deeply ingrained but misplaced sense of loyalty to our own.

Very true, but much of the anger on one side of the debate probably revolves around the suspicion that, even if no further evidence is presented to support Hair's claim, one side (the Pakistanis) is likely to be disciplined in isolation. Which is a likely outcome, let's be honest.

 

[SJS]

Well from the sample of articles displayed on cricinfo, it seemed like Aus was solidly behind Hair. If that does not reflect reality, than I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Why should we be surprised when almost all Pakistanis support Inzy, Sri Lankans support Murali and so on.

Remember this 'support' is more strident and overwhelming when 'faced' with the protagonists from the 'enemy camp'. It is a kind of seige mentality most of us suffer from but refuse to admit. Unfortunately it causes all debates to degenerate into 'us' versus 'them' but. unfortunately, its only as 'us' most people feel confident and self assured.

 

[SJS]

Very true, but much of the anger on one side of the debate probably revolves around the suspicion that, even if no further evidence is presented to support Hair's claim, one side (the Pakistanis) is likely to be disciplined in isolation. Which is a likely outcome, let's be honest.

You are probably right and that would be very unfortunate.

I hope those adjudicating can be the first ones to do the right thing in this ugly drama and dock Hair (if there is no proper evidence) for the ball tampering accusation and Inzy for the 'cussed hotheadedness' masquerading as hurt national pride.

 

[SJS]

If they support Hair (again assuming there is no further proof) on ball tampering allegation, ICC would be doing it due to a misplaced notion of 'support-your-umpires-in-their-onfield-job' which would be tragic and increase the divide between players and ICC. ICC's torn and tattered umbrella needs to cover all those involved in the game (including players and spectators) and not just those who are hand picked by them ...and in the final assesment they have to stand by what is right.

 

[Sanz]

It seems a bit coincidental that England are now accusing Asif of tampering with the ball after he's taken wickets against them. It seems like there's no proof either. I wonder how the English management would react if Simon Jones of Flintoff were accused of ball-tampering after the Ashes.

England have a history of accusing players who get some success against them. They even accused Chetan Sharma of taking drug or something in 1986 after he took 16 wickets against them in that summer.

 

[Anil]

If they support Hair (again assuming there is no further proof) on ball tampering allegation, ICC would be doing it due to a misplaced notion of 'support-your-umpires-in-their-onfield-job' which would be tragic and increase the divide between players and ICC. ICC's torn and tattered umbrella needs to cover all those involved in the game (including players and spectators) and not just those who are hand picked by them.

you said it yourself, their umbrella is torn and tattered and does not cover even themselves....

 

[JustTool]

Anyone seen the articles at Cricinfo in the surfer section? Interesting how the majority of English writers/articles side with Pakistan, while all of the Australians are with Hair. Some of those articles are looking disturbingly close to racism as well as those Australian writers taking this issue as an excuse to vilify Muralitharan, again.

Well. They are. The Australian press AND a sizeable number of fans are racist. Small minded bigots. Pea brained morons. How much more evidence does one need ? My vote is that ALL countries boycott playing cricket in, and with, Australia until they shape up.

Sounds drastic. Then, just look at Hair's idiocy. To say nothing of Dean Jones' inane comment. If there was ever a time for united outrage it was now.

I cannot believe in this day and age we put of with this crap from these numbskull Aussie Press and fans. Amazing.