The ripple effect of the pride lost to the visiting Indians continues to be felt as Pakistan tries to lick its wounds and wonder: could it really have been that bad?
THERE were cries of anguish when Lahore burst at the seams not just with the welcome for the Indians, the passion for Indo-Pak cricket but also with the disturbing news that the series was being played to a script. Impossible, shouted PCB from the top of the floodlight towers but the spotlights on this monster tied to the gentleman’s game of cricket continues to haunt and taunt.
Even when Pakistan drew equal in the second Test people were now asking why India would want to bat first on a greenish pitch and why their rock strong batting neither rocked nor rolled except for vaudeville shows, first by Yovraj and then Sehwag? Now, the whisperings continued, this was back slapping and making room for even Stevens. The brotherhood-of-man concept was mitigating the volatility of what is one of the attractions of Indo-Pak cricket. This was kiss and make up stuff; certainly not the substance of an Ashes contest that the two Asian giants are trying to elbow down as the premier contest in test cricket.
But I suppose it was bound to happen and it did. To think that the Indian tour to Pakistan would go through in angelic fashion was always utopian thinking. The political big wigs came and hugged their Pakistani counterparts and left promising a brave new world of friendship and peace and the Bollywood stars came in with messages that we were never two people in the first place and apologizing for movies like Border.
But that still does not mean that the ghosts of match fixing have been exorcised or, like the religious parties, were instructed to keep their peace for the moment. Nevertheless, it is the English law that still prevails here and not the French law. Otherwise the PCB would be considered guilty until it proved itself innocent. Sadly, the onus of proving that a deal was made, has been successfully carried only once in the last ten years, and that was the Cronje wiretap.
But really, when the book keeping of Enron and Arthur Anderson can be ‘fixed’, when the independent world media can claim that the Iraq war was ‘fixed’ and two French authors throw up documentary evidence that even 9/11 was ‘fixed’, why on earth do we keep denying that the billion dollar game of cricket can’t be fixed?
I can empathise with Sheheryar Khan and Rameez when they protest the innocence of cricket. It is their duty to do so. The whole essence of management is for the outsiders to criticize and the insiders to defend until the roles are reversed. But it’s not as if it has never happened. The ICC has seen it happen in at least one case and has reason to believe it happened all over, otherwise cricketers from India, Pakistan, South Africa and Australia would not have been punished, three of them — Azhar, Cronje and Malik — with life bans, and Warne and Waugh with punitive fines and the future captaincy of Australia.
At the same time the PCB management cannot be expected to acknowledge every analysis as true. The benefit of doubt has to go to the national team and its captain. But I believe the management can balance things up by acknowledging that blunders were made on the field and will be investigated, not just the probability that injuries were a result of innuendoes.
The Chinese adage is to believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Therefore, let’s say we do away completely with the fact that before the fourth ODI, the whole city of Lahore and eventually the whole country, was abuzz with the tip that Pakistan was to lose. Let’s now believe half of what we saw. One would like the PCB executives to ask themselves that with all their knowledge of cricket, is it comprehensible to them that a captain would pull back his slip fielders with the last three specialist batsmen left and a run rate of less than five required? Only wickets could win them the match as Sami yelled in anguish when edges flew past Moin.
Would they agree that a captain should bowl his major strike bowler after he had collapsed on the field and was hardly able to walk? Wouldn’t they find it hard to comprehend that a team that is so close to lifting the trophy by taking an unbeatable 3-1 lead, drops its shoulders with over a hundred and fifty runs to get and singles come at will?
This observation has been shared by none other than the man considered the finest leader of men and the master of player psychology; Imran Khan. Pakistan fought harder defending 249 at the World Cup final than they did at the Gaddafi Stadium that evening. Is that not enough to prick the senses of the PCB and ACU?
It saddens me that the patriotic element is thrown at those who cry foul play. It is the job of media to break news and air independent observations. Nothing’s perfect and as such there are biases. Friendships save names from being tarnished. But the point is that cricket boards should acknowledge or aggressively pursue to take an unpopular decision to stamp out a wrong. That action does not have to come with documentary evidence. It comes with suspicion over facts that defy common sense.
Rashid Latif has now been sent a letter to verify his claims that there was an element of doubt about the fourth ODI. He has been picked out for voicing a concern that was sounded out earlier at the press conference which led to Inzamam asking a TV journalist to ‘shut up’. PCB also added something to that effect by asking ICC to come up with a ‘code of silence’ which ICC rejected next day. Perhaps Malcolm Speed is acknowledging that the cricketing fraternity cannot be made up of monks and that Lord’s isn’t a monastery.
For that matter a decision to bowl first on a Karachi track on a hot morning when the ball swings more in the evening breeze is also something to wonder about. In the excitement of the event and because no one could believe that strange decisions would begin before the first ball had been bowled, that matter never took importance as much as it would have had it been in subsequent ODIs.
What was amusing is that PCB and some experts did not appreciate suspicions voiced by Rashid saying they came just when the series was going so well. So is it then that a public limited company that is making profits and is close to getting a reputable franchise should be exempted from an audit that year?
For that matter it is disappointing that Malcolm Speed, the ICC Chief Executive, has also said that everyone should refrain from suggesting match fixing unless they have documentary evidence. In that case recall the leaked letters to PCB that ICC has not denied. Has not Lord Condon passed doubt on two cricketers in private letters to the PCB without providing evidence?
“None of the allegations of match-fixing or under-performance made in relation to Pakistan in recent weeks are capable of proof”, he is reported to have written after voicing his suspicions.
Is that not insinuation based on speculation? Has he not damaged the reputation of PCB and Pakistan cricket in general? Why have we not heard the PCB warn Lord Condon and threaten libel action for suggesting without proving?
Rameez feels that it is appropriate to inform the cricket board in confidence and they have always welcomed this from cricketers themselves and that going public is what damages the sport. But if there can never be a case without evidence, then let there not be an ACU. If they will take action only when the accuser provides evidence, then let the local SHO do the needful. When hundreds of professionals backed by all of UN’s resources and US data couldn’t locate WMDs in Iraq, how can ICC expect citizen’s arrests of bookies and players?
Also, no common law demands of an accuser to provide the evidence; that is the job of the police. If Lord Condon’s house was to be robbed, would Scotland Yard refuse to investigate because Mr Condon provided no proof of break in, fingerprints of the robbers and the fact that he actually had the money that he reports to have stolen?
A man of principle and honour does not wait for the appropriate moment to voice his concern if something is amiss in his eyes. That is the way of an opportunist and Rashid Latif is not one otherwise he would by now be leading a retired life on a yacht in the Bahamas with his silence and suspicions traded for a lifetime of luxury. He is the man who lives in a humble home and stands in line to buy tickets to the matches. He is the man who chose to leave cricket for the third time because he couldn’t take in the dressing room atmosphere during the ODIs against South Africa. What made him uncomfortable in the dressing room to give up the Test series against South Africa?
And if the PCB and the ICC command that all evidence be handed over to them, what have they done with the proof that they have? The ACU has an annual budget reported to be to the tune of 2 million pound sterling which their executives have seemingly spent travelling the world in business class, lounging by the pool sides and watching cricket for free. All they have to show are veiled threats against the players whom they do not have the courage to name. The only man who has admitted to match fixing, after the proof was provided, has been Hansie Cronje. He was caught because of a phonetap by the Indian police that cost a few hundred pounds.
The point here is that when people of Rashid’s integrity voice their suspicions they should at least not be branded as disloyal to Pakistan cricket. Rashid is the sort of person who sees cricket and then the players. That is the sign of a true cricketer.
What Rashid said was in the interest of the game in the long term. That people lost interest in the Test series was more due to the lacklustre quality of cricket from Pakistan, maddening logistical arrangements, the heat and the exams. I feel that PCB can make all the enquiries they want but it may just be that the spirit of friendship overpowered the intensity of a contest. As the Chinese dictum goes: “Beware of what you ask for.”
The ripple effect of the pride lost to the visiting Indians continues to be felt as Pakistan tries to lick its wounds and wonder: could it really have been that bad?
