Unbelievable. Inzamam-ul-Haq has lost a lot of respect in my book, and countless others I'm sure. Sure, I've always joked about him, but I held him in the highest regard as a batsman and perhaps more so as a leader, given the job he has done with the Pakistan side over the last year or two.
However, his whinging comments to the media regarding his comical dismissal in the 1st ODI have taken him down several pegs in my estimation. Quite simply, he has revealed himself to be at best a terribly ungracious loser, and at worst, a bare-faced liar.
The facts are plain to see - take a look for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Inzamam clearly plays a deliberate shot to hit the ball and prevent it from hitting the stumps and running him out. In fact, quite embarrassingly for an allegedly world-class cricketer, he makes no effort whatsoever to actually regain his ground - deciding instead that preventing the ball from hitting the stumps is the sportsmanlike way to go.
Inzamam accuses the Indians of "an appeal made in an unsportsmanlike manner" - a brilliant attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the single person guilty of bad sportsmanship in this incident was in fact Inzamam himself.
I laughed at him over the infamous 'Aloo' incident many years ago, and I have laughed at many comments attributed to him which I always suspected were 'lost in translation.' Now I realise that he is nothing more than a spoilt child - at least, that's what his behaviour in this incident suggests.
Will cricketers ever learn to keep their mouths shut and let their bats and balls do the talking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Cool it a bit here, will you?
Is this the same author in whose eyes Wasim Akram's reputation took a dive when Sachin Tendulkar was run out in Kolkata?
Your entire case is based on this sentence:
"Inzamam clearly plays a deliberate shot to hit the ball and prevent it from hitting the stumps and running him out."
Congratulations. You have managed to read Inzi's mind better than anyone. Maybe the BCCI should hire you as strategic advisor to the Indian team for the next 4 matches.
How do you know that Inzi was trying to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps? How do you know he thought the ball was going to hit the stumps? How do you know the ball was going to hit the stumps?
Now, on to my own opinion of Inzi's "column", I think it is in bad taste for a captain to write about a particular dismissal in any game. I don't think he should have publicized his opinion that the appeal was unsporting - an opinion to which he is entitled.
More generally, I think this distinction between the laws and the spirit of the game is detrimental to the game itself. The laws are the laws. If you're out, you're out. Whether you're Mankaded or you're Hilditch'ed (or should I say Sarfraz'ed). Making a big deal about getting out in a way that's within the laws but against the spirit is in my opinion ridiculous.
Wow. Seems like I've touched many a raw nerve or two here. And I even got accused of whining, when in fact I was trying to advocate against that behaviour, be it from Inzi or others.
I agree that Inzi's intent is (or should be) of no consequence to the dismissal. I was merely pointing out the author's rather outlandish implication that he in fact knew Inzi's intent and used this evidence to arrive at the conclusion that Inzi engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.... "deciding instead that preventing the ball from hitting the stumps is the sportsmanlike way to go."
Sesh, I agree entirely with your last post.
Post a Comment