Pakistan in England/Scotland 2006

Who are your men of the series? (select one from each team)


  • Total voters
    75
andrew_nixon said:
Hair is incompetent when it comes to every team, not just Asian ones.

Exactly. It just so happens that some of the more noteworthy controversies have spawned from certain Asian players, but that's not to say he hasn't made poor calls whilst officiating in other matches, because, trust me, he has. It's purely co-incidental that some of the supposed culprits of major crises were of the sub-continent.....it's not like he targeted Murali and no-balled him, whilst ignoring the thousands of others who were suspected of the same offence; why? Because there were no other obvious suspects at the time. And please, please stop calling him a racist on the basis of these particular altercations...for all I know he may well be one, but you can't draw those sorts of conclusions from that "evidence". Technically, I guess it was correct, despite the situation escalating into a complete farce and shaming the sport of cricket and the quality test that was just reaching its climax.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,20206336-23212,00.html
Interesting opinion- I stand on the fence, by the way.
 
I hope we don't get into a fight between the ICC and the Asian nations. Sure doesn't look good as it stands.
Hopefully the ICC stands firm cause if they don't further ball tampering/chucking cases won't be spotted by the umpires because of fear of their career being ended.
 
s2sschan said:
According to Rameez Raja, it was Fletcher who went up to Hair a day earlier and asked him to watch the ball after it started reversing.
QUOTE]

That is indeed a bit rich. Fletcher accusing someone of ball tampering after there is a bit of reverse swing. Is he owning up to something here??

Anyway, I'll drop my post from the ashes debate thread here since it obviously isn't wanted over there:

Perhaps with all of this discussion on ball tampering we can get to the bottom of how england managed to get the ball to reverse after just 15 overs. Call me a sore loser, because I still feel mighty sore about the loss so you're right, but that was some incredible feat from the english bowlers - a feat that I can't accept can simply be attributed to clever bowling or new, legal ball scuffing techniques...if there is such a thing.

The only explanation is that england have developed a technique of roughing up one side of the ball faster than anyone else has ever accomplished....legal or illegal, perhaps chief ball "shiner" Trescothik is the only one who knows the answer.

Is it the Duke that deteriorates faster and absorbs moisture faster than say a Kooka? Is it the fact that Harmison peppered our opening batsmen with short balls with the seam purposely scrambled to scuff it up? Is it their technique of always throwing the ball in on the bounce? This is hardly ground breaking stuff...something you'd think after 100+ years of cricket would've made someone's mind light up if it did infact work. And the chances of consistently hitting the one side of the ball within 15 overs to get the ball scuffed up enough to make it swing so profoundly, so conistently and so early is quite incredible don't you think? Even if these techniques defy 100+ years of trying, why are these excuses deemed acceptable for england yet the pakis don't even get a chance to state their case?

Take this from cricinfo...

"What, too, to make of reverse swing? Righteously condemned as an illegal concoction of bottle-tops and fingernails in 1992 when Wasim and Waqar were rampant, it is now an art form to be marvelled at. In 13 years, like an ex-con it has undergone a complete and successful rehabilitation. On the back of reclaiming the Ashes, it has become legit."

So when a team manages to produce profound swing like they'd never been able to achieve before, or since, in half the time that "cheaters" were able to, suddenly it becomes legit? Pull the other one.

And now Fletcher accuses Asif of ball tampering because he managed to get it to reverse, to a far lesser degree than his own bowlers managed a year before. Yet there's no evidence from 26 cameras? Perhaps...just perhaps the players realise there are 26 cameras and new ball tampering techniques have been devised. I mean, how difficult is it to stick an abrasive surface underneath your pants? Not very. It's a simple way to ensure the roughness is spread evenly, without detection. Just a theory.

I realise i'm jumping to conclusions with little evidence, but if Asif making it reverse is enough to dock the pakis 5 runs and their reputation, I'll go out on a limb and call england hypocrits.
 
valvolux said:
Perhaps with all of this discussion on ball tampering we can get to the bottom of how england managed to get the ball to reverse after just 15 overs.
The only explanation is that england have developed a technique of roughing up one side of the ball faster than anyone else has ever accomplished....legal or illegal, perhaps chief ball "shiner" Trescothik is the only one who knows the answer.

Good point. England did win the Ashes with profound and early reverse swing.
Raises some questions.
 
Well if at all Fletcher did inform the umpires (Rameez Raza will be one of the last people I would trust on this), it would have been because the ball had started to reverse a bit too early.

Secondly the five runs were given not because of the reverse swing but because the ball was found to be doctored artificially.

Thirdly, all the decisions were taken by BOTH the umpires and NOT Hair alone.
 
m_vaughan said:
Well if at all Fletcher did inform the umpires (Rameez Raza will be one of the last people I would trust on this), it would have been because the ball had started to reverse a bit too early.
[ \QUOTE]

England's coach is hardly operating from the moral high ground, either, following last year's Ashes series when reverse swing helped them win the series. Back then the Aussies were convinced that England were using sugar solution to coat the ball and help them achieve this, though it was left to the injured fast bowler Nathan Bracken to level the accusation.

From the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/08/22/scfron22.xml
 
James219 said:
If so, I don't see mastermind Cooley doing too much good in the Australian camp this time round, eh? ;)

Do you really think all of the playing staff would be aware of this going on? And even if Cooley were to know....if they were infact up to something dodgy, which i'm simply accusing them of with little evidence bar the obvious of them mysteriously becoming swing kings over night...wouldn't Cooley's reputation and job be affected if he let the cat out of the bag? Perhaps CA wouldn't of thrown a bag of money at him to come back home?

Let's not forget the pakis got picked up after 50 overs...england managed it in under 20, yet I didn't see one english paper find this strange - they simply labelled them genius and gave all the credit to Troy Cooley for stumbling upon the magic swing potion....because, there is no logical explanation.
 
valvolux said:
Let's not forget the pakis got picked up after 50 overs...england managed it in under 20, yet I didn't see one english paper find this strange - they simply labelled them genius and gave all the credit to Troy Cooley for stumbling upon the magic swing potion....because, there is no logical explanation.

One word comes to mind: Self - Righteousness.
 
This is such a tragic event for cricket. Its just so sad, the way it has brought the game into disrepute. I wish someone would speak up, and admit something, its just agony watching it fall apart.
The Daily Mail this morning claimed that Asif had been warned by county umpires about ball-tampering, and that he was in trouble again.

And for anyone whos got a copy, whats the Metro saying?
 
m_vaughan said:
Well if at all Fletcher did inform the umpires (Rameez Raza will be one of the last people I would trust on this), it would have been because the ball had started to reverse a bit too early.

Secondly the five runs were given not because of the reverse swing but because the ball was found to be doctored artificially.

Thirdly, all the decisions were taken by BOTH the umpires and NOT Hair alone.

The doctored artificially thing should not be a matter of judgement....it needs to be based on hard evidence. Unfortunately for me my local nets are cheap and nasty - artificial green surface laid out on concrete. Miss the pitch (as I often do when tying to figure out how Murali bowls a doosra without chucking it) and it hits the concrete, leaving a mark very similar to what was found on the ball. Did Hair not notice that KP was taking Danish to the cleaners including some big sixes? If my bowling at about 20kph can take a chunk out of the ball, surely a creamed KP six into the stands can do the same. Did you see Hair scrutinising the english fielders in between deliveries like he was the Pakis? Is Fletcher allowed to make any suggestions to the umpire? Did any umpires take any notice when the Australians asked the umpires to question players why they were leaving the field for no apparent reason? Is there a bit of bias in the motherland?

Why would Fletcher, of all people, think it was strange if the ball started to reverse early...and we are talking much later than what england achieved in 2005. Do you not think, that in questioning why it was reversing early, he was not infact questioning whether the ball had been doctored? Or was he simply asking how the weather was?

I remember the one time the aussies asked the HOW question in a round about way, they were met with cries of SORE LOSER, as they expected so they quickly went back and copped it on the chin without further question (until Braken mentioned mints after the tour).....it seems fletcher might've opened up a can of worms he may wish he hadn't - expect the aussie media, like the asian media, to jump all over this one. It's going to have some impact on world cricket that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
Well i think its looking pretty bad currently for pakistan. I too noticed the england players watching the pakistan fielders with bonoculars, but at the time i thought little of it. The afridi interview doesnt exactly give them a strong case either, with comments like that, they should be ashamed.

I hope the odi series still go's ahead, but i can see more problems ahead....
 
Hair handled the situation. What could Doctrove do? Hes a junior and we have just seen how pushy Hair is. Hair takes the blame for me. He had to back his partner.
 
m_vaughan said:
Thirdly, all the decisions were taken by BOTH the umpires and NOT Hair alone.
During TV coverage of the fiasco, the commentators said "there were unconfirmed reports that Darrell Hair said if Pakistan took the field, he wouldn't". As the senior umpire in the match, and his history of being a stubborn mule, I think it is safe to assume that he was the driving force behind any decision the umpires took.

Also, this is fairly related to the chucking scandal. Like was found during the ICC Champions Trophy last time around (that all except the most dibbly dobbly of bowlers 'chucked' according to the ICC rules in place), perhaps one will find that all teams use methods within and outside the laws of the game that allow them to 'make' the ball. If it is indeed within the laws of the game, I think it should be permitted so that the game does not become dominated by batsmen.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top