Sharjah Conspiracy
Ankur Kohli
If I remember correctly ( And I DO), when asked for his comments on Aquib's hat trick, Azhar remarked that ball had nicked his pad when he had been judged out leg before. Now that,in itself, does not mean that the umpiring was biased.
However, it does indicate that the umpiring was PROBABLY substandard . Based on this, i
would like to argue that Aquib's "devastating" (my ass) performance was really not that devastating. Consider this: It takes guts to judge lbw's three times in a row. This would preclude any element of cheating in the dismissal. But, the umpire would also have to be one thousand percent sure knowing that given the hostile nature of Indo-Pak games, if his decision was subject to even the slightest of doubts, all hell could break loose. And, as it turns out, hell did break loose :-) I am not very sure( it's
been a long time, hasn't it?), but Azhar's was probably the 3rd dismissal in that hat trick. Azhar's reputation as a sportsman is well known. He would not lie about the ball snicking his bat. Ergo, the umpire made a stupid mistake, knowing well that, if ever, he would need to be ABSOLUTELY sure on this particular instance.
This also creates an element of doubt regarding the previous 2 dismissals. If the umpire thought he was absolutelY Sure in a postion where his life depended on it, and it turned out he was wrong, then could not he have been wrong just 1 and 2 balls earlier? Straight ball, my posterior. I'm no great judge (NO ONE IS, get that straight)-- but in my op,not one of those decisions were as plumb as some people make them out to be. IT is MY op, that Aquib was the beneficiary of some remarkably stupid umpiring. An
d his performance till date has not, caused me to re-think my earlier opinion of his spell being a FLUKE at worst, and not much to speak of, at best.
Of course, if it turns out that Azhar never said anything about the ball nicking wood, then I have wasted my time and yours. But don't ZU and co. do that every single day?
sincerely,
-A.
Nadeem
: Hi all,
: If I remember correctly ( And I DO), when asked for his comments on Aquib's hat trick, Azhar remarked that ball had nicked his pad when he had been judged out **************************************************** leg before. Now that,in itself, does not mean that the umpiring was biased.
************
here the hell you ought to get the ball in order to get your self Leg Before Wicket [LBW].
:
Venkatram Krishnamoorthi; Masters
HI People,
This is just to point out that there were two different India/Pak matches
that caused immense controversy in that particular tournament. The first was a
league match in which the light was so poor at the end of the day that the Indians
were playing Akram & co., by ***street lights***!! I distinctly remember Manjrekar
swinging his bat with no clue as to where the ball was and getting out caught at gully!
Now, some guys have suggested in their postings that Azhar had agreed before hand
to play in the darkness. This IMO is utter non-sense. Which captain in his right mind
would want to play Wasim Akram without proper lights! It was despicable that the
umpires let play continue even with the prospect of a batsman suffering serious bodily
harm.
The second match was the final. In this Aquib Javed took 7 wickets including
a hatrick. I watched the whole match live on TV and IMO, at least two of the LBW
decisions were "shady".I am not suggesting that the umpiring was biased, but it
certainly was not good by any standards. Azhar was the second to go. There was clearly
some doubt as to whether he hadn't nicked the ball onto his pads. Sachin was the
third LBW. The ball struck him well above the knee-roll. So, again this was a dubious
decision. Of course, there are one or two bad decisions in every match, but to have two
in succession was out-of-the-ordinary. It really killed the Indians off and we lost the
match by a good margin.
Aquib Javed is really a decent bowler who can swing the ball around a bit.
But, he is simply not the kind of bowler who can take 7 wickets without the assistance
of luck and the opposing batsmen! He bowled well that day, but not devastatingly. He
kept bowling straight from stump-to-stump and the Indians incredibly kept gifting
their wickets to him. Two or three wickets were off genuinely good balls, but the rest
could have gone to any bowler.
Even though Javed has the best bowling figures in a ODI, there have been
far better performances , including by himself!
Jawad Ali
Venkatram Krishnamoorthi; Masters <ven...@cs.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
>HI People,
>
>Now, some guys have suggested in their postings that Azhar had agreed before
>hand to play in the darkness. This IMO is utter non-sense. Which captain in
>his right mind would want to play Wasim Akram without proper lights!
The answer is Azharuddin. He took the gamble between possible poor light
and the advantage of chasing a target. It is perhaps for this reason that
the batsmen (Manjrakar and someone) did not appeal for the bad light. This
is according to the third country umpires. Majraker later denied this.
Its possible that there was confusion caused by poor management.
I agree with you that it is also possible that Aqib was helped by luck, poor
batting and possibly poor umpiring calls. None of this has anything
to do with the boycott that came under accusations of international
conspiracies. Samir Chopra calls them morons, but he did not clarify
if he includes the Indian team and management in this catagory, since
they are the ones who called for the boycott, not the fans on rsc.
Clearly name calling is not the best approach. All we can do is remind
people that making accusations of cheating after losing a match is not
cricket.
j n a
Venkatram Krishnamoorthi; Masters
In article <3993r0$o...@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU>, ja...@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali) writes:
|> In article <398qb2$b...@gaia.cc.gatech.edu>,
|> Sougata Mukherjea <sou...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >I don't have any complaints about the final - India were beaten fairly.
|> >However, playing in street lights and getting the excuse that the
|> >captains had decided before to play the full 50 overs - that's ridiculous.
|> >So Jawad, according to you there should be no stoppage for bad light
|> >since the captains agree to play 90 overs each day?
|>
|> Who knows, it probably was a management fiasco. The reports that I
|> read here (and also confirmed by Shamim) were that there indeed was
|> a specific agreement to play regardless of the light. I probably was
|> a lousy agreement, but certainly nothing designed to make India lose
|> one more time. This is the disagreement. Its like the rain rule,
|> it sucks sometimes, but to boycott a tournament because of some sloppy
|> rule and then complain about cheating is the part that is indecent.
|> How hard can it be to understand this point?
I agree with u when u say that if indeed there was such an agreement, it was a
lousy one. But I still don't think there was any agreement. We did not boycott the
tournament only because of this stupid "play without light" rule. There were a whole
bunch of other reasons that disgusted the players and management so much that they
decided not to go to Sharjah any more even though the financial gains were considerable.
The whole team was not treated well (according to reports), the President of BCCI ,
Madhavrao Scindia was invited for the tournament and treated shabbily. He wasn't even
received at the airport. All in all it was felt that the atmosphere was not conducive enough
for the Indian team to perform at its best. For all the above reasons, the board decided not to
play any more tourneys there and the players fully supported such a stand.
The Indian Board's stand was perhaps vindicated by the fact that the Sharjah committee
made all kinds of rule changes and gave many assurances before we agreed to play there again.
Of course, all this is not to distract from the fact that Pakistan has given us a royal
hiding every time we have played there in the past few years! We Indians just don't seem to be
able to handle the pressure as well as the Pakis can. We always crumble like the proverbial cookie!
|> There was disagreement between Manjrekar and the umpires about whether
|> an appeal was made (and the options available). This I got form t
|> he only newspaper article about the match in CI. It was someone else's
|> idea to call you guys morons, and I dont approve of that.
|>
Disagreement about whether the appeal was made!! I don't quite understand this!
|> j n a
regards,
venkat
Samir Chopra
>I agree with you that it is also possible that Aqib was helped by luck, poor
>batting and possibly poor umpiring calls. None of this has anything
>to do with the boycott that came under accusations of international
>conspiracies. Samir Chopra calls them morons, but he did not clarify
>if he includes the Indian team and management in this catagory, since
>they are the ones who called for the boycott, not the fans on rsc.
If there were genuine problems perceived by the Indian team and
its management in Sharjah, the sensible thing to do is to provide a
list of things that went wrong and to discuss ways and means
to fix them. Boycotting tournaments while talking about conspiracies
simply looks silly. No one takes you seriously. If no steps are
taken by the authorities concerned, then, heck, you have a problem
on your hands. How *that* would be solved, I don't know. Maybe an
inquiry commission? :)
Samir
--
"If the only thing wrong with a theory is that it offends pre-theoretic
intuitions, well, then, maybe the thing to do is to fix those intuitions"
- JF "Rabbit Redux"
Samir Chopra
>There was disagreement between Manjrekar and the umpires about whether
>an appeal was made (and the options available). This I got form t
>he only newspaper article about the match in CI. It was someone else's
>idea to call you guys morons, and I dont approve of that.
Since I'm the one being referred to, let me clarify: poor losers
and whiners are morons. I don't think I called anyone a moron
that was simply questioning the standard of management at
Sharjah. I believe that boycotting the tournament was also bad
*strategy*. The thing to do is to get your act together, win
the tournament and then complain :)
Zaki U. Khan
> If there were genuine problems perceived by the Indian team and
> its management in Sharjah, the sensible thing to do is to provide a
> list of things that went wrong and to discuss ways and means
> to fix them. Boycotting tournaments while talking about conspiracies
> simply looks silly. No one takes you seriously.
** I believe Sharjah management took care of all of India's grievances,
after which India decided to visit in '94.
This time around, there was no Dawood Ibrahim, lighting conditions were
good, and there weren't any Lankan umpires about; and... surprise surprise
the result was the same, ample testament to the fact that supposed
anti-India bias is nonexistent.
Perhaps if the match is played on Saturdays and Pooja Bhatt is shown in
place of Dawood bhai the outcome will be different? To quote Joshua
Saunders, "Possible. But highly unlikely." :-))
Zaki
Nadeem
: Hi all,
: If I remember correctly ( And I DO), when asked for his comments on Aquib's hat trick, Azhar remarked that ball had nicked his pad when he had been judged out leg before. Now that,in itself, does not mean that the umpiring was biased.
: However, it does indicate that the umpiring was PROBABLY substandard . Based on this, i
: would like to argue that Aquib's "devastating" (my ass) performance was really not that devastating. Consider this: It takes guts to judge lbw's three times in a row. This would preclude any element of cheating in the dismissal. But, the umpire would also have to be one thousand percent sure knowing that given the hostile nature of Indo-Pak games, if his decision was subject to even the slightest of doubts, all hell could break loose. And, as it turns out, hell did break loose :-) I am not very sure( it'
s
: been a long time, hasn't it?), but Azhar's was probably the 3rd dismissal in that hat trick. Azhar's reputation as a sportsman is well known. He would not lie about the ball snicking his bat. Ergo, the umpire made a stupid mistake, knowing well that, if ever, he would need to be ABSOLUTELY sure on this particular instance.
: This also creates an element of doubt regarding the previous 2 dismissals. If the umpire thought he was absolutelY Sure in a postion where his life depended on it, and it turned out he was wrong, then could not he have been wrong just 1 and 2 balls earlier? Straight ball, my posterior. I'm no great judge (NO ONE IS, get that straight)-
So Let the ones make the decision who are at the better position than you are and who are doing it professionally. Only doubt people have is some biased Umpiring but you take out that by playing with some neutral Umpires if you have the courage to do it. those Umpires were brought there and they were paid for making the best decision in few moments what ever they feel is right. Shut up and don't bother us.
Sougata Mukherjea
Jawad Ali <ja...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>
>The answer is Azharuddin. He took the gamble between possible poor light
>and the advantage of chasing a target. It is perhaps for this reason that
>the batsmen (Manjrakar and someone) did not appeal for the bad light. This
>is according to the third country umpires. Majraker later denied this.
>Its possible that there was confusion caused by poor management.
>
I don't have any complaints about the final - India were beaten fairly.
However, playing in street lights and getting the excuse that the
captains had decided before to play the full 50 overs - that's ridiculous.
So Jawad, according to you there should be no stoppage for bad light
since the captains agree to play 90 overs each day?
Also according to all reports I have read Manjrekar appealed may times.
Umpires consulted with the organizers and let the match continue.
Of course your PAD must know better and we are all morons to complain.
>
>j n a
>
Samir Chopra
>In article <1994Nov3.0...@njitgw.njit.edu>, sa...@hertz.njit.edu (Samir Chopra) writes:
>
>|> Sharjah. I believe that boycotting the tournament was also bad
>|> *strategy*. The thing to do is to get your act together, win
>|> the tournament and then complain :)
>Hmmm.. If you believe that the things you are complaining about are the
>things that are stopping you from winning, then it is certainly a bad
>strategy to continue playing in the tournament hoping to win the
>tournament inspite of the conditions- you might never win.
Well, I guess this is where we should agree to disagree. I don't think
a team that is good enough to win can be stopped by just bad
management of whichever tournament or match you happen to be playing in.
You need a good team at the other end too.
>Now assume that for some reason you do win the tournament playing in
>those conditions and then complain about them. How will you justify
>your complaint if the organizers say that you won in those conditions
>and hence they are not as important as you are making them to be.
Well, at least your complaints won't sound like just plain whining.
Look, I don't really have any solutions. In a proximate possible
world, these things wouldn't need to be discussed because tournaments
would be organized perfectly. Its a sad fact of life that they are not.
I just think the right thing to do is to try and fix them and give
suggestions to the organizers on what needs to be changed.
Samir
PS: Clive Lloyd did something in India in 1983 which I didn't like
at all (even though they went on to win the match) which was his
criticism of the umpires in the Ahmedabad test during the test.
Now, that is really wierd.
Samir Chopra
>In article <1994Nov3.0...@njitgw.njit.edu>, sa...@hertz.njit.edu (Samir Chopra) writes:
>
>|> *strategy*. The thing to do is to get your act together, win
>|> the tournament and then complain :)
>Hmmm.. If you believe that the things you are complaining about are the
>things that are stopping you from winning, then it is certainly a bad
>strategy to continue playing in the tournament hoping to win the
>tournament inspite of the conditions- you might never win.
Well, I guess this is where we should agree to disagree. I don't think
a team that is good enough to win can be stopped by just bad
management of whichever tournament or match you happen to be playing in.
You need a good team at the other end too.
>Now assume that for some reason you do win the tournament playing in
>those conditions and then complain about them. How will you justify
>your complaint if the organizers say that you won in those conditions
>and hence they are not as important as you are making them to be.
Well, at least your complaints won't sound like just plain whining.
Look, I don't really have any solutions. In a proximate possible
world, these things wouldn't need to be discussed because tournaments
would be organized perfectly. Its a sad fact of life that they are not.
I just think the right thing to do is to try and fix them and give
suggestions to the organizers on what needs to be changed.
Samir
PS: Clive Lloyd did something in India in 1983 which I didn't like
at all (even though they went on to win the match) which was his
criticism of the umpires in the Ahmedabad test during the test.
Now, that is really wierd.
--
Ravi N Arunkundram
>were playing Akram & co., by ***street lights***!! I distinctly
remember Manjrekar swinging his bat with no clue as to where the ball
was and getting out caught at gully!
Tch Tch Tch...my heart bleeds for Sanjay M. However he should feel
better knowing that most Indian Batsmen do this frequently even in
good light...in fact he was the sole exception in the tour of Pak.
Otherwise Indian batsmen played spot the ball contest when Akram
bowled.
>to play in the darkness. This IMO is utter non-sense. Which captain
>in his right mind would want to play Wasim Akram without proper
lights!
Ah! the strange behaviour of the dog ! The assumption is yours Watson
not mine. This captain has sorely tempted me to conclude that he is
frequently in that state of cranial emptiness wherein his decisions
baffle all on and off the field. Azhar the indomitable Hyderabadi who
fell into a magic potion while still an infant is man much feared by
his friends and loved by his foes...
>The second match was the final. In this Aquib Javed took 7 wickets
>including a hatrick. I watched the whole match live on TV and IMO, at
>least two of the LBW decisions were "shady".
Shady eh ? I couldn't agree with you more. How dare the umpire of a
neutral country (and that too a neutral country, how ever will save
face now ) declare an Indian out LBW ? This is preposterous.
>I am not suggesting that the umpiring was biased, but it certainly
>was not good by any standards.
For that matter I am not suggesting that the sun had some bias in
setting early in the last match, but clearly its behaviour was
unacceptable and below par by Solar Standards.
>Azhar was the second to go. There was clearly some doubt as to
>whether he hadn't nicked the ball onto his pads.
There was no doubt in my mind that he had indeed more than nicked the
ball. He had played a handsome cover (cower ...) drive and the ball
was well on its way, when he was declared LBW. I could see it all,
after it takes only less than 1/13 th of a second (at Aquib's speed)
for the ball to touch the bat and his pad. how could I not see it ? In
fact doctors have told me frequently that i have high speed infra red
cameras behind my eyes...
> decision. Of course, there are one or two bad decisions in every
>match, but to have two in succession was out-of-the-ordinary.
Very. In fact in the last tournament (which also we lost because of
Conspiracy, on the part of ...Mhhmm let me think ... never mind, for
now I'll settle for a conspiracy), Sachin hit a full toss in the air
from Akram and was caught. I tell you he didn't so much as touch it -
it came straight off the pads. And who was the guy in the first match
who was clean bowled ? Was he really bowled ?
I fear there has been foul play.
>It really killed the Indians off and we lost the match by a good margin.
I must disagree - we lost by a wafer thin margin of 40 runs or so -
the Jingoistic Pakistani press called it a Good margin !
>Aquib Javed is really a decent bowler who can swing the ball
>around a bit.
You Don't say Dennis Lillee.
>But, he is simply not the kind of bowler who can take 7 wickets
without the assistance of luck and the opposing batsmen!
Considering the "Opposing Batsmen" ...he needs no luck buddy.
>He kept bowling straight from stump-to-stump
No wonder poor indian batsmen were stumped. Say, I didn't think of
that before.
>and the Indians incredibly kept gifting their wickets to him. Two or
>three wickets were off genuinely good balls, but the rest could have
>gone to any bowler.
In fact I am told that there was a near riot in the pakistan team -
with all 11 players (keeper included) wanting to bowl. The captain
restrained them with great difficulty and reminded the batsmen, that
they had had their fun clobbering the Indian bowlers (who bowled nobly
and well but were denied success because of a conspiracy that
involved, Pak., CIA, ISI, Saudi Arabia and the LTTE) and it was time
that the bowlers had their turn.
>Even though Javed has the best bowling figures in a ODI,
Do you perhaps refer to Javed Miandad ? If so I am disappointed at
your lack of faith in Indian Batsmen. I am sure (solemnly, drawing
myself up to my full height, faint strains of national anthem in the
background) that javed Miandad cannot take more than 5 wickets against
India in an innings - we are too strong a team for him.
Down with the Conspirators. Down with Sharjah. The revolution has begun.
ravi (who salutes the flag and sings the national anthem and is even
planning a newsgroup called rec.sport.conspiracy)
Jawad Ali
>However, playing in street lights and getting the excuse that the
>captains had decided before to play the full 50 overs - that's ridiculous.
>So Jawad, according to you there should be no stoppage for bad light
>since the captains agree to play 90 overs each day?
Who knows, it probably was a management fiasco. The reports that I
read here (and also confirmed by Shamim) were that there indeed was
a specific agreement to play regardless of the light. I probably was
a lousy agreement, but certainly nothing designed to make India lose
one more time. This is the disagreement. Its like the rain rule,
it sucks sometimes, but to boycott a tournament because of some sloppy
rule and then complain about cheating is the part that is indecent.
How hard can it be to understand this point?
South Africa had even less of a chance to win the WC semi than India
had to win this match -- much less. All because of a poorly thought
out rule. This has nothing to do with India, and I would have the
same argument had RSA left the WC complaining about cheating and
boycotting Australia and the WC. The WI are right now coming across
all sorts of sloppy management and poor decisions in India, and I'll
stand by India if the WI team were to resort to the shameful tactics
empolyed by the Indian team after the Sharjah defeat.
>Also according to all reports I have read Manjrekar appealed may times.
>Umpires consulted with the organizers and let the match continue.
>Of course your PAD must know better and we are all morons to complain.
There was disagreement between Manjrekar and the umpires about whether
an appeal was made (and the options available). This I got form t
he only newspaper article about the match in CI. It was someone else's
idea to call you guys morons, and I dont approve of that.
j n a
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
>The answer is Azharuddin. He took the gamble between possible poor light
>and the advantage of chasing a target. It is perhaps for this reason that
>the batsmen (Manjrakar and someone) did not appeal for the bad light.
You must be kidding. I was at Sharjah at that time and Manjrekar appealed for
bad light several times, but was turned down, and the match was played in
darkness, even after the streetlights outside the stadium were on.
Arun.
Shamim Naqvi
> I don't have any complaints about the final - India were beaten fairly.
> However, playing in street lights and getting the excuse that the
> captains had decided before to play the full 50 overs - that's ridiculous.
Here is what happned in the "bad light" match between India and
Pakistan. The pitch had some water in the morning so the umpires
informed the two captains, Imran and Azhar, that the match would be
delayed. Because the final was scheduled to be played the very next
day, the captains were informed that the match had to end on that day.
Azhar was adamant about not playing an over-reduced game. So the
umpires settled on a full 50 over game. Then Azhar won the toss and
decided to put Pakistan in to bat first.
--
Shamim
Vishal Misra
Shamim> Here is what happned in the "bad light" match between
Shamim> India and Pakistan. The pitch had some water in the
Shamim> morning so the umpires informed the two captains, Imran
Shamim> and Azhar, that the match would be delayed. Because the
Shamim> final was scheduled to be played the very next day, the
Shamim> captains were informed that the match had to end on that
Shamim> day. Azhar was adamant about not playing an over-reduced
Shamim> game. So the umpires settled on a full 50 over game. Then
Shamim> Azhar won the toss and decided to put Pakistan in to bat
Shamim> first.
OK. So when was Azhar told that they had to *play* the 100 overs on the
same day? Can't the match end without playing the full 100 overs? An
attempt was made to play the full 100 overs - it did not (well it
"did" actually) succeed - so why can't you accept it at that? Why not
decide the match at overrate? Was there no provision in the playing
conditions about an incomplete game? I am genuinely curious because I
remember watching Manjarekar appeal against the light and getting
turned down. I couldn't figure out why. And no self-respecting
organizer schedules a final on the next day of a league game. I wonder
why that was done. Was this game a delayed one? I don't remember it
being one. The blame however lies with BCCI,BCCP and the West
Indies Cricket Board for accepting those conditions. Perhaps BCCI
realized its mistake and took "appropriate" action. Just a thought.
-Vishal
Samir Chopra
>whining about never coming back are hardly appropriate reactions
>to sloppy management. I am surprised how many people still stand
>by BCCI's and Azharuddin's utterly shameful actions. Almost all
>international cricket suffers from poor management. Were the
>West Indies to lose in India and then start talking about always
>getting cheated in India and about boycotting India, for any of the numerous
>things that have gone wrong so far, I would deplore them also. I
>dont think I expect this sort of behavior from WI though.
Of course not. Why would you? They're not Indian after all.
Samir
Ravi N Arunkundram
>Azhar was adamant about not playing an over-reduced game. So the
>umpires settled on a full 50 over game. Then Azhar won the toss and
>decided to put Pakistan in to bat first.
Stupid is as Stupid does. Forrest Gump's Azhar's Long Lost Cousin.
"Witness the strange behaviour of the Captain, Watson".
"But the captain did nothing, Holmes"
"Excellent. That is exactly the point, Watson"
ravi (who thinks there are more Conspiracy theories about Sharjah than
about JFK's assasination...)
Vishal Misra
Jawad> In article <VMISRA.94...@kira.ecs.umass.edu>, Vishal
Jawad> Misra <vmi...@kira.ecs.umass.edu> wrote:
Jawad> utterly shameful actions. Almost all international cricket
Jawad> suffers from poor management. Were the West Indies to lose
Jawad> in India and then start talking about always getting
Jawad> cheated in India and about boycotting India, for any of the
Jawad> numerous things that have gone wrong so far, I would
Jawad> deplore them also.
There is no way WI is going to complain. Not with India tanking
matches to get them into the finals.
-Vishal
Pavan Kumar Desikan
Path: duke.cs.duke.edu!news.duke.edu!hookup!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!jawad
From: ja...@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Date: 7 Nov 1994 05:53:08 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 84
References: <396hm0$s...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <398n32$g...@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> <398qb2$b...@gaia.cc.gatech.edu> <CytC5...@walter.bellcore.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: swift.ecst.csuchico.edu
In article <CytC5...@walter.bellcore.com>,
Here is what we have in CI on the subject from Imran Khan.
I do not know if you are serious when you have put forth the above
argument. I just wanted you to clarify, suppose that it had rained after
40 overs, would the match still have been continued because it was decided
that the match would be for 50 overs right at the start.
j n a
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date-stamped : 26 Jun94 - 14:25
SHARJAH TIES WERE NOT FIXED: IMRAN KHAN
Pakistan's cricket captain, Imran Khan has denied that cricket
matches in Sharjah were fixed in his team's favour.
Imran spoke to interviewer Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi in Lahore on a
wide range of subjects, including the recent World Cup, Indian
team's recent performance, cricket in Pakistan and his most im-
portant mission in life - setting up of cancer hospital in his
mother's memory.
Imran said, "I would have understood if India was winning every-
where else in the world. Look at the record, we won the Nehru Cup
in India, we won the one-day series in India in 1987, when India
had a stronger batting lineup 5-1".
"I don't know how they (Indians) have come to this impression
that Sharjah is the only place they lose", Imran said.
Expressing complete shock at India's decision not to go to Shar-
jah, he said, "I never knew such a situation was building up that
India was feeling the dice was stacked against them.
"I never realized that they felt like that until the Sharjah Cup
was over and we heard those reports coming out of India", he ad-
ded.
"As far as I was concerned, it was like a normal Sharjah event
where we outplayed India in the final. I suppose probably the
shock was that, for once, the Indian supporters and the team
thought they had a good chance of beating us and the shock that
they lost too easily and the hat-trick, they thought they were
done (in) by that.
"But as far as I was concerned, they were beaten --- fairly and
squarely and the people who came out with these unsporting re-
marks really shocked me", Imran further said.
Referring to the match which continued into darkness, the then
Pakistan captain said, "It was a very straightforward game. I
went in, the ground was wet and the umpire said look we want to
play 50 overs (each side) and, Azhar (Indian captain) stressed
that too. So, I said OK, you wanted to play 50 overs, fine".
According to him, it was decided before the match, before the
toss, that half an hour delay would take place. "For everyone
knew the implications that half an hour later we would play that
game".
Imran said Pakistan bowled the same number of overs in the same
time that India did. It was not as if his team deliberately de-
layed it so that it would get dark, he stressed.
"India won the toss and batted second. We did not ask them to do
anything. All this was known before hand. I don't know how they
came to the conclusion that it was a fix that India was made to
bat in the dark", he said.
(Thanks : "Cricket Herald" (Pak) Jul 92, n...@bongo.cc.utexas.edu)
<END> Contributed by The Management (cricinfo@*ogi.edu)
--
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Internet: p...@cs.duke.edu
Ashim Garg
|> In article <VMISRA.94...@kira.ecs.umass.edu>,
|> >Indies Cricket Board for accepting those conditions. Perhaps BCCI
|> >realized its mistake and took "appropriate" action. Just a thought.
|>
|> whining about never coming back are hardly appropriate reactions
|> to sloppy management. I am surprised how many people still stand
First of all there is no conclusive proof as to that the match
fixing took place, these were merely thoughts of the match referee.
Second, in all likelyhood BCCI accepted the conditions
to ensure noncontroversial and smooth organization of the tournament
especially since the 2 point deduction was anyway not going to hurt the
indian team. finally standing by your national team in the face of
the accusations of shameful behavior is nothing new as
exemplified by teams such as pakistan in the near past.
|> international cricket suffers from poor management. Were the
|> West Indies to lose in India and then start talking about always
|> getting cheated in India and about boycotting India, for any of the numerous
|> things that have gone wrong so far, I would deplore them also. I
|> dont think I expect this sort of behavior from WI though.
that is a very poor attempt on linking sharjah and this tournament. Try
to do a better job next time.
|>
|> j n a
-ashim
Jawad Ali
>realized its mistake and took "appropriate" action. Just a thought.
Leaving in a huff of accusations of international conspiracies and
whining about never coming back are hardly appropriate reactions
to sloppy management. I am surprised how many people still stand
by BCCI's and Azharuddin's utterly shameful actions. Almost all
international cricket suffers from poor management. Were the
West Indies to lose in India and then start talking about always
getting cheated in India and about boycotting India, for any of the numerous
things that have gone wrong so far, I would deplore them also. I
dont think I expect this sort of behavior from WI though.
j n a
Syed Hasan
<other stuff deleted>
: .... The blame however lies with BCCI,BCCP and the West
: Indies Cricket Board for accepting those conditions. Perhaps BCCI
: realized its mistake and took "appropriate" action. Just a thought.
: -Vishal
So the BCCI realized its mistake of accepting those conditions and took
"appropriate" actions by placing all blame on the management committee.
Interesting....
S. Y. Hasan