March 10th, 2010
1999. Sharjah. Pakistan Vs. Srilanka.
Pakistan 196 all out.
Srilanka 173/2.
Result: Game tied, with Pakistan taking the last eight wickets for 23 runs.
What a game! What a team!
Wasim Akram - where art thou?
It sums up the world we live in today - this incident at Oval. Racism, White/Western supremists, autocratic officials, high-handed and unfair treatment of a third world party, a protest and ‘rebellion’ from the oppressed, the absolute incompetence and toothlessness of a peace-keeping international body, pathetic apologists for the oppressed masquerading as their representatives, the deliberately kept ignorant masses so they hold the protestors in villianous light, and a sense-less verdict/action essentially teaching the protestors a good lesson for having voiced their protest. The casualty could be as grave as a sovereign country like Lebanon, or as apparently simple as an almost-in-the-pocket Test Match in a lost Test series.
Take these ingredients and you could as easily concoct Israel’s invasion and destruction of Lebanon, as you could brew something along the lines of Darrel-pig-headed-white-supremist-asian-hating-Hair’s latest ICC/Malcom Speed-backed-and-encouraged ‘crusade’ against the invading Asian cricketing phenomenon.
There are some positives in the Oval incident, however, which I would list as below:
The incident might have cost us a test match and the no.2 spot in the ICC Test rankings, but at least it has not left hundreds of innocent children burried under the rubble of their houses, nor has it cost billions of dollars worth of destruction in a country.
Sharyar Khan’s grovelling was pathetic, to say the least, and exceedingly embarassing. It made for a strong case against letting these bureaucrats take up positions at the helm of sporting matters. We might have lost most of our pride in the comity of nations, thanks to Generals, Retired Generals, and Politicians, whose pathetic and embarassing bending backwards to please the erstwhile colonial masters and all their look-alikes is often our national integrity’s undoing, but we have our pride and our esteem in the sporting world, especially in the cricketing world, and we need to guard it fiercely. Perhaps one day, we will be able to translate that salvaged pride into other areas of our international dealings.
For once the PCB has stood behind the players, and they ought to be commended.
For once the President of the country has also spoken along lines that do not bruise our self respect. This may well have to do with the fact though that Bush does not follow Cricket.
Most of all, I am happy that the Pakistan team has learned to stand up and be counted. I am sick and tired of all these countries refusing to play in our country, of these sporting teams refusing to play in venues we decide when they come to our country, of our team silently taking whatever the umpires (read Darrel Hair) dish out, and of our people being pushed around.
Once again, I salute “Bade Bhai”. He is not yet the fire-brand force to reckon with that the great Khan was, but he has proven that after the illuminous Kardar era, and the world-cup-winning Imran Khan era, Pakistan cricket is living the “bade-bhai era” - the Inzamam era.
Here is what I had to say the last time around when Darrel Hair had unleashed his unabashed racism. He is not good for my sense of humor.
Whatever the implications of yesterday’s fiasco be, I am proud of the fact that the Pakistan team took a stand, and refused to let the Darrel Hairs walk over them. I hope the Shaharyar Khans of the ‘diplomatic contingent’ do not undo the good work done here, and I wish all the best to our boys - our Pakistani boys who made us proud yesterday.
“He’s scored a century everytime he has gone past 99″.
“This is the tenth time, in his tenth year of playing International cricket, when he has got out for a score of more or less than 10; and he has done it playing against the team ranked 10th in ICC ratings. The batsman to follow him comes at number 10. Its a new world record.”
“He is only the fourth no.5 batsman in the history of cricket, to be given out LBW at 11:57 a.m. in a match that started after a delay of one hour”
“No need to run for that one; he’s bowled out”.
“He has hit a six and a four on consecutive balls. This is the fastest way to score ten runs in two balls”.
Short on time. Can you think up of any?
There was a little bit of ambiguity surrounding the catch Sir Ian Bell had taken to dismiss bloody M. Yousuf, when bloody M. Yousuf had shown his impudent intent approaching his century. Thankfully, Sir Simon Tauffel was the umpire, and he took Sir Ian Bell’s declaration at face value, and ruled bloody M. Yousuf out. There was absolutely no need to refer the matter to the third umpire, since Sir Ian Bell, unlike bloody Rashid Latif is a gentleman, and would never have appealed for a catch, had he not taken it cleanly. Preposterous as it is, the bloody Pakis have been drawing parallels between the incident involving Sir Ian Bell and the infamous incident involving bloody Rashid Latif, and have had the audacity to even suggest an inquiry into the matter of Sir Ian Bell’s catch.
Bloody Rashid Latif was banned for five matches by the esteemed ICC for appealing for a caught out decision after what was shown by the TV replays to be a less than clean catch. Gentlemanly conduct does not come easy to the low-life brown people, and expecting them to display same under all circumstances is rather optimistic. Realistic approach demands that all appeals by the bloody brown people should be referred to a third umpire to ensure complete code of conduct of a gentleman is observed when the game of the gentlemen is played, especially by the bloody brown people with the gentlemen themselves. A gentleman’s word however should never be doubted, nor should a gentleman be slighted by referring a matter to a third umpire when a gentleman has already stated his position on the matter. It is because of this reason that any comparisons drawn between the incident involving Sir Bell and that made infamous by bloody Latif would in essence have to fall under fallacious comparisons. Apples may not be compared with dried dates.
There is then the matter of the decisions His Umpiring Excellency Darrel Hair has made. His credentials have been questioned by the insolent Pakis for having called bloody Shabbir Ahmed for chucking, or for warning bloody Kaneria for running onto the pitch, or sending Salman Butt back after he had visibly and intentionally run on the pitch while takng a run. His Umpiring Excellency is beyond reproach, even approach. That he should be requested to officiate in matches not played between gentlemen teams in itself is derogatory to him, and beyond the comprehension of yours truly. That he should undertake these assignments despite the low social stature of the ‘hosts’ in itself bears testimony to his dedication to upholding the cause of gentlemen.
His Umpiring Excellency does the bloody brownies an immense honour by often officiating in matches played by them, and at the same time ensures that the devious scehmes employed by the bloody brownies in their impertinent attempts at rising to the status of equals with gentlemen on the playing field are checked at all times under his scrutiny. If bloody Shabbir Ahmad thought he could jeopardize the English Gentlemen’s plans, he had another thing coming. In case, bloody Kaneria had forgotten his rightful brown place in the general scheme of cricketing things, His Umpiring Excellency was quick to remind him of the same; and for the impudent Salman Butt to think he could repeat his insolence of the past in the second test match was childish. His Umpiring Excellency knows a thing or two abour disciplining children.
What is beyond comprehension is the insistence of the bloody Pakis that His Umpiring Excellency did not have to refer the matter of bloody Inzamam’s dismissal by Sir Steve Harmisson to the third umpire. Some have gone so far so as to suggest that even Sir Steven Harmisson should have been reprimanded for shying at bloody Inzamam’s wicket in the first place, since, as they put it, bloody Inzamam was making no attempt at taking a run. A knighted gentleman to be penalized for exhibiting his exalted fury? What nerve, what impudence!
Why, I ask, should bloody Inzamam not be ruled out when he has the insolence to take evasive action when a gentleman throws a ball at him. And to suggest that His Umpiring Excellency should have favoured Inzamam for this insolence, and that too after his 109- run defiance in the face of the exalted English attack. Who, by the way, was to ascertain that bloody Inzamam’s foot lifted in the air, and the other outide the crease was not a precursor to his attempt to take a run. Are we now to assume the best on the part of brownies?. Such amateur optimism can only spell doom for us all. Bloody Pakis know this well, but continue to expect us to give them the benefit of the doubt, and some even have the audacity to suggest that we play the game with them as equals, while many have been demanding that His Umpiring Excellency should be relieved of his duties.
Alas! The world outside the Empire, as well as beyond the realms of pure, white skinned people seems to have forgotten its place.