In case if Hair was doubtful about the ball's condition and lawfully got it changed, how did it became a slur on Pakistan's national pride

  By Dr Nauman Niaz

I still strut without understanding between an entrance of skin and an exit of soil. It is too much to expect the things lost at the Oval by Pakistan would come back, in the same form. Molecule by sweet molecule reassembled returning to us as an image to redress what it was before the fateful match began. Pakistan's Captain Inzamam-ul-Haq and Shaharyar M Khan, the Chairman of the PCB, must know now for as on a pond a child's paper boat was blown out of reach by the smallest gust of wind, so too have our image was blown out of reach by the smallest whisper of controversy.

Directing the guns towards PCB, if we rationally analyse The Oval incident, accusations of this nature should have been handled with high level of maturity and thoughtfulness by Darrell Hair but at the same time it was rancid to see one of the members of the PCB Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman of the PCB purposelessly coming in the middle of the crossfire. What they intended to do so early into the problem left one too many skeptical; cynical about their knowledge of the game, its laws and bylaws. 

In case if Hair was wrong due to his abrasion, contemptuousness and racism the PCB's hierarchy were also no angels. They went to the world hollering that Hair needed to substantiate his charges with evidence and in the process contravened and flouted ICC's Code of Conduct. One must not defend Hair's intransigence but at the same time one needs to listen to his point of view.

In case if he was doubtful about the ball's condition and lawfully got it changed, how it became a slur on Pakistan's national pride? He was not there sloganeering against the country or calling someone on face a cheat. The issue could have been dealt with sobriety and a walk out was in fact no more than a schoolboy mentality. By not taking the field and forfeiting the match and PCB's Chairman appearing on Sky Sports, waffling in his attempt to justify an unlawful act made happenings look imprudent. He was so unprepared that his calculations of the time spent went drastically wrong. He was talking about a 'protest' period of few minutes whereas it was contrary to reality. 

What Hair did was morally and ethically wrong nonetheless legally acceptable. However what we did was even worse. It was nothing more than an overreaction. What Hair did was like punishing a criminal on the spot without taking him to the court. We lost our strength when we jumped on the racist bandwagon and labelled Hair the main scalawag, the perpetrator. 

The Oval Test, like other international matches was being played under common agreed upon rules. By boycotting the match we actually inflicted injury to our credibility and demeanour. Leave aside everything, Pakistanís walking off was actually unfair on people who had paid money to attend the Test. It was equally unfair what Hair did regardless the legality of his act. Where do we stand now? So many people have pointed towards Darrell Hair calling Muttiah Muralitharan for chucking. Wasn't the rule amended or made flexible by the ICC (with consensus) to accommodate the off-spinner considering his reputation and status.

One must candidly express that the current fuss is just another in a long sequence of controversies that had lasting ill-effects on cricket. However, a trivial incident was blown out of proportions. If Hair left an unattended burning matchstick near the pile of explosives, the Pakistan management triggered sparks within the heap of gunpowder. Things blew off. It was an inevitable sequel of the dopey, unsophisticated and impractical handling of an incident. 

It was a small drama that turned into an opera. In 1976-77 Bishen Bedi had almost forfeited the Test resenting West Indies injudicious use of bouncers against the tail-enders. He had termed it as intimidation. The management again had a role to play; an expected forfeiture was avoided. When Colin Croft deliberately elbowed one of the umpires in the New Zealand-West Indies Test in 1980 it seemed a clear cut case of ragging. Sunil Gavasker in 1981 after being given out lbw had reacted, holding Chetan Chauhan by his arm and taking him off the field. India's manager jumped in the fray and evaded an ugly scene; the Test continued.

One very much doubts if there had ever been a more unpleasant incident in a Test match than that which happened in Perth in 1981 when Dennis Lillee first deliberately blocked the Pakistani captain, Javed Miandad, as he was completing a single and then launched a kick at him when he had made his crease. Over the years Lillee had been involved in probably more unpleasant incidents than any other Test cricketer. He had seemed almost to make a habit of trying to bait and upset his opponents in the most unpleasantly petulant manner. Javed reacted but the match continued. Pakistan didn't walk off or refused to take the field.

Pakistan manager Ijaz Butt and the BCCP Secretary Arif Ali Khan Abbasi acted conscientiously, maturely and as a 'bridge to peace'. They didn't stand up shouting that Pakistan's image had been slurred. Their captain had been kicked in front of a handful of cameras and still they let the tempers cool down and also managed to get Lillee punished despite a strong resistance from Australia's Player Association. It's like taking Inzamam for Miandad and Lillee for Hair. Hair in the last couple of years has been trying to harass and goad the Pakistan players, as one may believe.

 Lillee had first blocked Miandad into a quick run and then slurred him. But at this moment umpire Tony Crafter, who was admirable, stepped in front of the bowler and was joined by Greg Chappell who had come running up from slip shouting: 'Dennis, Dennis'. This time at The Oval there was none running towards Inzamam calling 'Inzi Inzi' or towards Hair shouting 'Darrell, Darrell'.

At The Oval at least one of the Pakistan officials (almost half of the PCB was in England) could have pacified Inzamam during the tea interval. Why did Inzamam show such inflexibility? The ball being changed and the incident reported by the umpire to the match-referee could have been subject to an inquiry and further proving of allegations. They could have had Hair drawn on the mat. Why did Inzamam behave insensitively and superciliously? One has to peek into the intricate details. 

In 1981, the Pakistan manager, Ijaz Butt, immediately made an official protest to the chairman of the Australian Cricket Board, Phil Ridings, who saw the whole incident. At first, the matter was passed over to the Australian players under the terms of the new disciplinary rules whereby the players judged their colleagues, which seemed a ludicrous idea for they could not hope to be objective and free from prejudice. Later that evening they announced that they had decided to fine Lillee. There at The Oval Zaheer Abbas Pakistan's manager was more into dialling numbers on his cell phone.

Greg Chappell even went so far as to suggest that it could have been part of a plot to involve Lillee into a controversial incident so that he would be banned for one Test or even for the rest of the series. He also said that Javed's behaviour was the worst he had ever seen on a cricket field and that it would be a crime if he was not punished. Greg's comments though astringent and incisive were never termed as slur on Javed or the country's integrity. Have we now become hypersensitive or too powerful?

On the final day of this first Test in 1981 Lillee went into the Pakistan dressing room and made a conditional apology to Javed, but he talked repeatedly of retaliation. Javed refused to shake Lillee by the hand or to accept the apology, a good indication of how strongly the Pakistanis felt about the incident. Dennis Lillee apologised to all concerned for his action. Twenty-five years later, we have seen the PCB Chairman taking a stand against an umpire, trying to mask their failings.

If Hair was wrong, Pakistan should have taken the field under protest and continued the match and left Mike Procter to decide about the fate. At best the board's chairman instead of appearing hastily on the television, mocking at the accepted  ICC laws, forcibly sending the team on the field much after Hair had rightfully awarded the match to England. Ignorance was no bliss, for sure. Shahrayar Khan and allies seemingly tended towards a self-perpetuating oligarchy; they werenít generous, friendly and worthy and didn't have the best interests of country's cricket at heart, so it seemed. They failed to protect the game and team's image they claim to be keen on. We unquestionably believe that Hair has something of a reputation as a niggler in particular of the subcontinent players but the sequence of events incidentally entirely supported the umpire.

What Hair did (whether justified or unwarranted) was within the confines of the law and in soccer terminology -- all too appropriate, alas Inzamam's decision and the subsequent case handling by the PCB Chairman and accomplices was like bringing cricket into disrepute. It was like playing snooker on a dining table.

They were playing on a wrong field. They needed to follow channels as permitted by the law. The consequent hiring of the lawyer and demanding of a probe were lawful and PCB's eternal right but their reaction to Hair's intractability and indecency did not remotely fit the crime. Inzamam took the law into his own hands, the protest or delay, whatever, leading to forfeiture of the Test. The current happenings demand Inzamam being castigated as well Hair taken to task.

Sparing Hair since his actions were within the jurisdiction of written law would mean flogging him with a feather. It was boorish behaviour. Both parties, Hair and the Pakistan team, should have bought peace than stand up and fight. Retrospectively, people will look back in disbelief at how one little abrasion was allowed to grow and fester into a gaping wound, spreading putrid tags of skin all over the game.

The Chairman of the PCB who by now may well be nostalgic residing in the imperialistic environs of London since the tour started couple of months ago must have forgotten to converse in Urdu. He has been insisting that Hair should not stand in matches involving Pakistan. And on a plethora of occasions he has been effectively rebutted with Malcolm Speed piercingly stating: "It was said he could never umpire Sri Lanka again after 1996 but he has. Time will tell water needs to flow under the bridge. I don't know what his future is but I hope we can find a way for him to continue". Intelligently, during a press conference Speed also reassured that ball-tampering charge had been made by both Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove.

Despite ICC's decision to release Darrell Hair's personal correspondence out in the open in which he had agreed to resign under the condition of receiving US$500,000, one need not to overlook the fact that the umpire had seemingly made an offer after he had personally met Doug Cowie, in charge of the ICC umpires.

Was he purposely forced into it? Or is there something else that is being masked by design by ICC. Or the ICC making an attempt to show its utility contradicting the claims that it is a toothless, useless body and should be readily eradicated? Speed quite intelligently whisked through a barrage of questions by telling Sky Sports that they held a number of meetings, and he obtained the best legal advice available. And that he was told that if there were potential issues between ICC and PCB, he was legally obliged to display them. He also vehemently negated the disparaging view that he was using the e-mails as a 'window of opportunity'. Was he?

The way Pakistan's tour management buckled amidst crises and made mess of things, the Chairman PCB needs to revaluate his future at the helm. What the chairman and his allies need to understand is that forfeiting a Test was a slip-up of much higher magnitude not as trivial as forfeiting their official history book because of disagreement on an acknowledgement list.

Forfeiting a Test was like playing with dignity of the game. What was done in his presence at The Oval was more detrimental to cricket's stature and decorum. What he needs now is to make an exit along with his cronies leaving no legacy behind before 'The Oval' like events compel public and officials to chant their requiem. Survival in this authoritative and powerful office needs intimacy with the ICC Rules and quicker reactions that at this age deceive you. Power in this game as asserted is unkind, it abandons the most powerful at tricky times; every dawn sees the dusk. It seems 'It's your time to leave, Sir!'

'It's really good to have five or six fast bowlers to choose for a match. Such competition would make these players work harder to get in the team and that would be good'

By Gul Nasreen

Mohammad Asif has been one of Pakistan's success stories since forging his way back into the side earlier this year against India. His improved form at The Oval has delighted his fans and authorities who have pinned high hopes on the lanky fast bowler in the ODI series against England after their disastrous 3-0 loss in the Test series against the home side. One would give him full credit for an effective display from Pakistan in the fourth Test of the just-concluded Test series.

Pakistan have definitely raised their game and the key difference at The Oval was the inclusion of Mohammad Asif after a two-month layoff with an elbow injury. He gave Inzamam-ul-Haq both an attacking edge and an element of control as well. At The Oval, the youngster bowled perfectly and really troubled the English batsmen.

Asif was in good flow and bowled effectively. The bowling reinforcement with the combination of Umar Gul folded the English innngs at 173. This was the first occasion in the recently-concluded four-Test series between Pakistan and England that the home team was dismissed for less than two hundred runs. Asif took four for 56. In this innings for the first time in the series no English batsman could reach a half century.

Afterwards, at Bristol too, Asif, was impressive and took two wickets in three balls at Bristol to get rid of Kevin Pietersen and England captain Andrew Strauss for nought apiece. Then he took three cheap wickets in the first One-day International in Cardiff which was later washed out. 

Asif's return to the Pakistani line-up has brought more competition for the bowlers looking for a place in it. "It's really good to have five or six fast bowlers to choose for a match. Such competition would make these players work harder to get in the team and that would be good," he remarked.

Asif's return together with the comeback of speedsters Shoaib Akhtar and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan in the ongoing ODIs series has made the task of regaining a place in the side difficult for Karachi seamer Mohammed Sami. But it is good to have a bigger pool of fast bowlers and Sami would be in even if he is not in the team.

The wider pool will create an atmosphere of healthy competition among the fast bowlers, who will work hard to make the final 11. Mohammad Sami, with a less than impressive showing in the Test series, made way for Asif as the Pakistan team think tank stayed firm on their decision to play the latter at The Oval. Sami did give an improved performance at Headingley but his overall figures in this contest were unflattering at best.

Earlier, Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer was of the belief that since Asif did not play much competitive cricket ahead of the England series he could be a risk if fielded at The Oval right away. But the youngster with his good form proved otherwise.

It may be mentioned here that the English batsmen were tormented for a decade by the relentless line and length of Glenn McGrath. And now the way they played against Asif was a replica of their response to McGrath. They were again subjected in The Oval Test to a Pakistani version of the great Australian strike bowler.

On a pitch freshened by two short rain showers, Asif took four for 56 from 19 controlled overs of late movement through the air and off the seam as England were bowled out for 173.

While short of express pace, he was quick enough to hurry all the batsmen and his pronounced wrist action was evocative not only of McGrath but also West Indians Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh and New Zealand's Richard Hadlee, who all flourished in English conditions.

At Bristol he continued with his bowling variation making it difficult for the batsmen to read him.

Pakistan's most successful bowler in 2006, Asif was dogged by an elbow injury and was forced to return home after arriving with the original touring party in England in June. He recently returned to England after being passed fit by experts back home.

His bowling variation, line and length and consistency all suggest that he is going to be great bowler. Everyone and everything about him though suggests a bright future. It's as simple as that. Younis Khan, vice captain, had rightly bestowed the ultimate accolade on him by comparing him with Glenn McGrath after Asif took 11 for 71 against Sri Lanka earlier this year.

Asif, who furthered his cricket education during a month and a half with English county Leicestershire earlier this year, said he concentrated on bowling line and length. Asif just tries to be consistent, bowling line and length. Every captain wants one bowler bowling maiden overs every time and Asif tries to come up to the expectation of the captain.

The striking feature about Mohammad Asif is that he has improved with every Test match, and in five matches before The Oval Test, he had claimed 25 wickets at an average of 20.00. His best bowling in an innings is 6-44 against Sri Lanka and in the same match he took 11-71. Asif has a bright future in international cricket provided he keeps himself away from injury problems.

Asif is regarded as the most dependable bowler with his lethal combination of movement and deviation. He moves the ball in the air and achieves deviation off the pitch.

Asif displayed his real ability against India when VVS Laxman stood mesmerised, and his stumps in a shambles, on a dramatic afternoon in Karachi earlier this year. The 23 year old paceman from Sheikhupura is a rarity indeed.

It's his strong wrist action that separates Asif from most pacemen. With his rhythmic run-up, high arm action complementing his height and strong use of his wrist, Asif probes the batsmen. He is not so quick, but he operates at a lively pace, taking the ball away, and getting it to jag back sharply. He uses the crease cleverly and brings about changes in pace.

His capability to retain the intensity in his bowling over long spells adds further strength to his bowling. He is aggressive, rightly so for a paceman, but needs to temper this quality. He has already been pulled up for excessive appealing which is not a good omen.

It is never been easy for batsmen to settle against him, particularly if there is a hint of assistance in the conditions or the surface. They often try to read him from his hand and come a cropper since he disguises his deliveries well. Asif can get the ball to reverse and bowls much fuller length with the old balls. Asif polished his art of magical bowling in MRF pace foundation in India. He went there in September 2005.

Even though the lanky pacer went wicket-less on his Test debut in Sydney last year where Australia completed 3-0 rout, his supporters looked beyond Asif's 18 fruitless overs. Now the pacer has overcome his shortcomings and emerged into a successful bowler. Asif's subsequent success, not least due to a rewarding stint under the canny former pace bowler Aaqib Javed, at Lahore's National Cricket Academy, has been stunning. He had 25 wickets in his next four Tests, 24 of them in his last three matches.

And two of his performances, in Karachi and Kandy, have impacted hugely on the verdict of a series. He was Man of the Series in Sri Lanka with 17 wickets in two Test matches including career best figures of 11 for 71 at Kandy.

Potentially, Asif and Shoaib Akhtar form a deadly pace bowling combination. Both have provided the evidence of this in the Karachi Test against India earlier this year. Akhtar can soften the opposition with his brute pace and hostility, while Asif cleans them up with his movement.

With the inconsistency that has crept into the bowling of Mohammad Sami, Asif with his accuracy and deviation is the critical element of the Pakistan's bowling attack against England in the ongoing ODIs as well as the future assignments. Hopefully he will keep Pakistan's rich pace legacy alive.

After a notable sequence of victories, both makeshift captains have emerged as strong candidates for the captaincy of their respective teams on a regular basis

  By Ghalib Mehmood Bajwa

These days England and Sri Lankan cricket teams are enjoying a pleasant time under stand-in skippers after undergoing a run of poor performances during the last one year. Both the vice-captains Mahela Jayawardene and Andrew Strauss, with their individual performances and captaincy skills, have transformed their sides into fighting outfits, that can pose a serious threat to their opponents in future assignments. Remember, the regular captains of both the teams still have different kinds of uncertainties.

After a notable sequence of victories, both the makeshift captains Jayawardene and Strauss, who both are in their 30th year, have emerged as strong candidates for the captaincy of their respective teams on a regular basis.

The Sri Lankan cricket board last week announced that prolific batsman Mahela Jayawardene would lead their team in the upcoming Champions Trophy in India. Although the opening batsman and regular captain Marvan Atapattu was also included in the side, Sri Lanka's selectors retained Jayawardene at the top as there were still worries about Atapattu's fitness. In the Champions Trophy event, Sri Lankan selectors would monitor Atapattu's match fitness closely.

Remember, Atapattu has not played top level cricket since February this year after undergoing back surgery and Jayawardene has been leading in his absence since. Atapattu was, however, picked for the recent one-day series against India which had to be called off due to bad weather.

Jayawardene has enjoyed an excellent run since taking over the captaincy, as he squared a Test series 1-1 in England after being 1-0 down before prevailing 5-0 in the one-dayers and then thrashed South Africa 2-0 at home in Tests. He has been in tremendous form as well, having shared in a world record 624-run partnership with vice-captain Kumar Sangakkara in the first Test against South Africa. In the huge partnership Mahela's share was 374. He also gathered 230 runs including a fighting century at Lord's against England in the three-Test rubber.

Under Jayawardene, the Sri Lankan cricket team regained their popular crushing touch of the mid-90s. With his charismatic leadership qualities, Jayawardene has converted Sri Lanka into a winning unit from a struggling team.

It may be recalled here that Sri Lanka lost to India 2-0 early this year then  crashed to Test and ODI series defeats against Pakistan in May last. It is pertinent to mention here that due to these poor performances last year, Sri Lanka could not qualify for the Champions Trophy automatically and will have to play qualifying round matches against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies from October 7 next.

In the recent months, Sri Lanka knocked out two cricketing giants -- England and South Africa with clear margins. In both series, Jayawardene played a key role with his elegant batting.

As World Cup showpiece event is looming rapidly, Sri Lankans are looked far ahead among the Asian teams as far as preparations and prospects for the mega event are concerned. Sri Lankans are likely to give reigning champions Australia a biggest challenge in the upcoming World Cup and that is definitely a good sign for the cause of cricket.

England opener Andrew Strauss also put in great effort in reviving their cricketing fortunes. It is interesting to note that Strauss, under whose leadership England cricket team broke a 24-year home series victory drought against Pakistan, was not the first choice vice-captain. The England selectors first tried opening batsman Marcus Trescothick and then all-rounder Andrew Flintoff as captain of national cricket team in the absence of regular skipper Michael Vaughan. However, after tasting captaincy for brief periods, both Trescothick and Flintoff made way for Strauss, who's enjoying better fitness and form than his above-mentioned seniors.

England's regular and first choice captain Michael Vaughan is still nursing his old knee injuries and is quite uncertain to make a comeback in the near future.

The Johannesburg-born Strauss was elevated to the captaincy after all-rounder Flintoff was ruled out with an ankle injury problem during series against Sri Lanka. Trescothick, a couple of months back, withdrew from the captaincy and preferred to concentrate on his batting.

Andrew Flintoff, who's targeting a comeback in the forthcoming Ashes in November, would definitely be available for captaincy, but the excellent form of Strauss both as batsman and captain, has made England selectors confuse -- whether to stick with him or replace him with influential all-rounder.

Andrew Strauss, who wrote his name into the record-books when he became only the fourth batsman to score a century at Lord's on his Test debut against New Zealand in May 2004, could be more suitable option for Ashes captaincy considering his cool and composed approach in the field and above all an injury-free character.

It's true that Flintoff can play more important role both as captain and all-rounder in Australia provided he remains hundred percent fit. At this juncture, an injury-plagued England cricket team needs a fit and long standing skipper if it wants to offer a strong bid for Ashes.

In view of his recent achievements -- a Test series win in 11 months against Pakistan and back-to-back centuries in the second innings at Lord's and Leeds against Pakistan, Strauss has brightened his future as England captain. Strauss scored 444 runs at 63.42 in four Tests against Pakistan.

Strauss himself hinted that he would like to keep captaincy even after Flintoff returns from injury. Remember, Flintoff has played just three Tests this summer, and is not expected to recover from ankle surgery until the eve of the first Test against Australia, at Brisbane on November 23. And Strauss is certain to remain England captain in the Champions Trophy in October and most probably in the Ashes too.

The writer is a staff member at 'The News' Lahore

ghalibmbajwa@yahoo.com