"Inzamam-ul-Haq let me and Pakistan cricket down regarding Oval-Gate" : Shahryar Khan

Shayan

ODI Debutant
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Runs
12,742

A well renowned Pakistani diplomat, Shahryar Khan had been part of foreign services in various capacities for more than 40 years before being appointed as the Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) by the then President, Pervez Musharraf.

Shahryar Khan served as Chairman of the PCB from December 2003 to October 2006, bringing about much needed stability to an organisation that had long been mismanaged. It was under his leadership that the PCB emerged as a financially stable organisation. Khan focused on bringing continuity and consistency at a time when Pakistan cricket appeared to be adopting a revolving door policy with captains and coaches. A prime example of this was his continuous backing of the Pakistani captain at that time, Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was the only captain that served during his tenure.

It was also during his tenure that Pakistan appointed the late Bob Woolmer, a move that saw Pakistan climb the ODI and Test Rankings to 2nd position. Perhaps the lowest point during his time came during the 2006 Oval-Gate incident, an event that eventually led to his removal as PCB Chairman.

In the UK to promote his book "Cricket Cauldron: The Turbulent Politics of Sport in Pakistan", the Ex Chairman of the PCB spoke in detail to PakPassion.net spoke about his recollections of his tenure at the PCB, issues with player power and the "Oval-Gate" incident as well as his thoughts on restoration of international cricket in Pakistan cricket.



shahryar_1.jpg


PakPassion.net: What was the state of Pakistan Cricket when you took over the reigns of the PCB in 2003? What were your impressions?

Shahryar Khan: I actually took over in December 2003 and resigned in 2006 - so that's nearly three years in the board. One of the advantages of this book is that you get an insider’s view of what has gone wrong in Pakistan cricket; the organization of the board itself, the way we play our first-class and other cricket as well as the issue of player power. All these things, I’ve seen from the insider’s point of view. It lends a certain authenticity to it. The state of cricket, as I’ve described in the book, was very bad actually. There was no continuity or consistency. Before I came in, there were four or five captains going through a revolving door. We had Rashid Latif, Moin Khan, sometimes somebody else. It went on like that. I felt this was bad for cricket. When I came in, I decided on Inzamam-ul-Haq and I stayed with him right until the end. Of course, it had its problems and criticisms because Inzamam attracted a certain amount of criticism. But I remained consistent and constant with one captain and one set of selectors. The other problem was that there was no constitution in the Pakistan Cricket Board. The fact was that you had a chaotic situation where the appointment was done mainly by the President, whoever it happened to be - more or less on whims and fancies! Sometimes, these whims weren’t very successful. I had to try and put the constitution right, the PCB right, as well as other things had to be done.


PakPassion.net: What were your thoughts on the Justice Qayyum report which had been published by the time you took over? What actions did you take to implement its recommendations?

Shahryar Khan: I studied Justice Qayyum’s report very carefully. Of course, there were some very clear signs. There were eight or nine players who had been mentioned in varying degrees. Of course, Saleem Malik had been completely banned. There were one or two others on whom were strictures. These strictures were that they should not be captain again and so forth. There were other players who were obviously involved in some kind of maligned activity. We had to deal with that also. I made it very clear that I would not tolerate any kind of drug abuse or match-fixing. I was very clear on that but of course, we had to contend with the aftermath of that report.


PakPassion.net: Was there a backlash when you made it clear that you were not going to stand for any kind of indiscipline or corruption?

Shahryar Khan: There wasn’t a backlash. It was obviously the thing to do. It was the right thing to do and the right way to go ahead. No one actually condoned the match-fixing, spot-fixing, drug addictions, and etc.; but it would go on behind the backs of people. This is what the problem was. One had to make very clear that it would not be tolerated. However good the player, however important; whether it was Shoaib Akhtar, whether it was Inzamam-ul-Haq, whether it was any of the dropped players, it didn’t make any difference. You just could not stoop to that level.


PakPassion.net: In your time at the helm of PCB, Pakistan took a very unique step of appointing a foreign coach as a full-time coach; the late Bob Woolmer. How did that come about? You must have faced a lot of criticism and consternation amongst the PCB itself.

Shahryar Khan: It was not only that we were appointing an outside coach from abroad, but also that we were replacing a national icon in Javed Miandad! There was a lot of criticism after we had appointed Woolmer as coach. But then, there’s always criticism just like we have in hockey - on whether we should have a local coach or a foreign coach. This issue has been discussed pretty much in depth in the book.

We opted for a foreign coach, after I was advised by people who I had respected, particularly Rameez Raja. We had a choice of three coaches, Woolmer, Barry Richards of South Africa, and Greg Chappell of Australia. These three were the likely contenders and we selected Bob Woolmer. Looking back, it was a good choice because Bob did a wonderful job with the team.


PakPassion.net: How was your relationship with the late Bob Woolmer? He must have been pretty close to you because you did bring him in.

Shahryar Khan: Yes, he became a friend of mine actually. I greatly respected him. He was a very good man. He refused to stay in a hotel, which would have been costly, but it was his right. He stayed in the Academy, in very simple quarters that he had been assigned. He said he wanted to be close to the boys, wanted to be able to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner with them, and to be there for any one of them to come in and see him at any time.

He instituted a number of changes. For instance, he told me after the first few weeks, ‘Your team is very talented, but they’re not fit. They’re only 20% fit.' He ensured an 80% fitness level increase in the next six months! He also had medical tests done on members of the team. He said that these people have to be checked and we found that three of the players had serious ailments. For instance, one had astigmatism in his eye, which meant that he had to wear contact lenses to play. Before these tests, the player didn't even know he had that problem! There was another player with a blood infection, and we had to put that right. There were two or three players who were playing with these infections and various other problems which Bob Woolmer put right.


PakPassion.net: Obviously, his passing away must have been a great shock to you, as it was to the nation?

Shahryar Khan: Let me tell you, the reason for me thinking about writing this book, although it didn't end that way, was Bob Woolmer’s death. I knew him to be a very simple guy. I knew him, also, to be unfit. He had a little paunch and used an oxygen mask before he went to sleep. When he died suddenly during the World Cup, it was clear to me that there was no foul play. All the papers went to town. They said that he’s been strangled by one of the team or poisoned by someone who tried to knock him out because of the match-fixing business he had come up against - all that kind of rubbish.

I was very clear that this was not the case and that he had probably died of normal causes. I began this book that way. Later on, this could not have been the subject of an entire book and I was persuaded by my publishers to write about not seeing Pakistan through statistics, runs, and wickets; but to see Pakistan through the prism of cricket. It’s for people who are not even interested in cricket to read this book and to try and understand what Pakistan is about.

Going back to the subject of Bob Woomer, at the time of his death I had resigned from the PCB and I was in Lahore at the time. I had nothing to do with the PCB at the time but Bob Woolmer was my friend and he would see me frequently and take my advice. He also wanted to resign but I told him 'No'. He had put in three years with the team and I told him he had to see it through. So he went with a heavy heart and things were breaking down because our form had declined and the relationship between Bob and the team, especially Inzamam, was not right although earlier it was fine. The relationship really turned sour after what happened at The Oval. So things weren't too good and he wasn't expecting too much.


PakPassion.net: You mentioned something really interesting here - what is usually referred to as 'Oval Gate'. You just stated that the relationship between Inzamam and Woolmer hit a low, but what actually happened in your view?

Shahryar Khan: Things began to go wrong at the beginning of the tour of England at the time. I remember very clearly, because I was there. I saw that player power was taking over. For instance, Bob Woolmer had asked one or two people to come in and coach. So John Snow the veteran England fast bowler and the wicket keeper Allan Knott were asked to come in for a day and help the boys but Inzamam said no! He said he wouldn't have them. He also said there would be no practice on certain days and it was clearly an attempt - well clearly, the power had gone to his head. Inzamam had his team behind him and things began to deteriorate from that point onwards.

It all ended with Oval Gate where the team didn't obey or follow the directions that I gave, the directions that Bob Woolmer gave, and a player like Zaheer Abbas gave. They were adamant and said they would not play. It led to a tremendous blot on the cricketing reputation of Pakistan and indeed it was a serious issue and sadly, it was entirely avoidable but I think player power and Inzamam's petulence was instrumental in this matter.


PakPassion.net: Did you make it clear to him that you were not happy with what was happening at the Oval?

Shahryar Khan: I made it more than clear. I was angry at that point. The sad thing was that Inzamam had always said to me that I was the only one who was supporting him because he was criticized as a captain and a leader for being too laid back and people wanted him replaced with a younger guy. I had backed him and he acknowledged that. He had thanked me for my support on numerous occasions. Yet, when I needed his support, he let me down very badly and he let Pakistan cricket down as well.


PakPassion.net: From what I recall, things were happening at a very frenetic pace on that day. Were you actually in touch with Inzamam at that time?

Shahryar Khan: Yes, I was there at the ground as I have mentioned in some detail in the book. I was there in the dressing room telling them to go out and play. Of course it all went wrong when ICC appointed the umpires. We told the ICC before the England tour that you can appoint anyone you like, but we're not happy with this man [Darrell Hair]. We are not happy with his attitude and the players are not happy either. Appoint an Indian or another Australian but they wouldn't listen!

Hair was appointed to a Pakistan series four times in five years whereas when Sri Lanka objected to the same man because he had no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan in Australia, he was not appointed for eight years in a Sri Lankan series. Can you see the contrast? The ICC was very insensitive toward our doubts and of course, we were proved right.


PakPassion.net: Moving on to the current state of PCB, well, it's a bit of a laughing stock right now. This viewpoint is from an international website where we have people from all over the world talking to us and their view is that this has become a circus simply because of issues such as the court cases and Mr. Sethi's inability to put his plans into action. What are your views on this?

Shahryar Khan: I have a very clear view on this but I don't want to be critical of my successors. I think Najam Sethi is a good choice, but don't forget he is a temporary choice. He may last only a few weeks but even he knows that. I've spoken with him and he knows that he can only achieve a limited amount of things. He is a wise man and has a clear idea of what should be done but he can't do it because he's not the permanent chief. The permanent chief will come. The problem is that the revised constitution is not a satisfactory document. If a constitution allows a President to be elected by four or five people, then it's not right. The problem is the constitution.


PakPassion.net: But this constitution has always existed in the life of the PCB. It's always been stated that the President of Pakistan always appoints the head of PCB. That in itself must've sat very uneasy with most people including yourself?

Shahryar Khan: The thing is, you have to strike a balance in the constitution between the right of the chief executive to nominate someone, and on the other extreme, for there to be a genuinely elected man. These are two extremes and somewhere in the middle, you have to find a way out where several people are nominated. People can be nominated by the General Body which is about 80 districts who have a right and who are part of the PCB. Let them nominate one or two and then let the President nominate one or two. Then have a proper election and not like this current four member electorate! This is where things have been gone wrong and it's not right that the President should nominate a man known to people and then also nominate another man who could, for argument's sake, be a rickshaw driver! The election will obviously favour the well known man.


PakPassion.net: Hypothetically speaking, if you were asked to take over the reins of PCB today by the President, how would you approach this task?

Shahryar Khan: I would find a way forward in the nomination/election of the chief executive. That would be my cue. It should not be left to the whims of the chief executive and it should not be left completely in the hands of a democratic process, because it could lead to a lot of charlatans coming up! Remember, there is a lot of money, power, and influence at play here. I've seen it in Sri Lanka where they had a gangster become chairman. You don't want to have that. You can’t afford to have things like that. So you have to have a healthy balance between a person who is suggested or nominated, and someone who comes as a nominee.


PakPassion.net: What are your thoughts regarding the restoration of international cricket in Pakistan?

Shahryar Khan: Not being able to play international cricket in the country is a very serious setback for Pakistan. But one has to be fair, it’s not because the PCB is inefficient or has not done its bit. It’s because the security situation in Pakistan is such that foreign teams will not come for the time being. I’m sorry, this is a fact of life. You see it every day in Quetta, Peshawar, Karachi, teams won’t come here. Even a team as friendly as Sri Lanka was attacked by the terrorists so who is going to come and play here? So I think you have to wait until the security situation improves and then gradually get teams to come. Maybe teams that are favourable to you politically will come first followed later, by those teams that are very sensitive about the terrorist business like Australia, England and New Zealand etc. I know that everyone in cricket wants Pakistan to come back into the fold and hold matches at home, but at the present time the security situation will not allow it.


PakPassion.net: What are your views on Pakistani players being unable to participate in the IPL – is it a blessing in disguise?

Shahryar Khan: I think that is unfortunate. It’s not so much that there is hostility between the two countries, I think it’s more a security situation because if there is a Pakistani player such as Afridi for example, then the security around him has to be increased manifold. There will always be people who want to take their own back especially with the background of the Mumbai raids etc and do some harm to a Pakistani player and to Pakistan. I think this is the reason why the teams looking to sign players shy away from Pakistanis. It’s not that people are telling them not to pick Pakistanis although, to some extent that is true but I really think it’s largely a security issue.


PakPassion.net: What are your views on the recently postponed PSL? Is it a realistic possibility considering that international teams are not visiting Pakistan? Are you in favour of perhaps holding it somewhere like the UAE initially and then moving matches slowly back to Pakistan once the name is established?

Shahryar Khan: Firstly, when you go to Dubai or the Emirates to play your matches it becomes extremely expensive and almost not worth the finance, it’s only worth it in terms of maintaining your cricketing credentials. So playing in Dubai and playing there over a long period is going to be very expensive, that’s one side the issue.

The other is that top players who go to Sri Lanka, India, West Indies etc would not come here. You will get some retired players who you may be able to lure to come and play but I don’t think you’re going to get current top players. And I think the attraction will therefore be much reduced so I think that’s the reason why we are not doing it. Again it all boils down to the security situation.


PakPassion.net: So you would say that as things stand at the moment, the PSL is not a realistic possibility, but things could improve?

Shahryar Khan: Yes, if things improve in terms of security, I think international stars will start coming to Pakistan and we’ll be able to play some matches. Maybe not the top stars but with some good players, we could start the ball rolling. After that, hopefully we could continue on to better things.


PakPassion.net: Many people will suggest that when an ex-PCB chairman such as yourself is saying that the situation in Pakistan is not good, then cricket will never return to Pakistan. What would you say to them?

Shahryar Khan: On one hand I am trying to be realistic, on the other hand I am very hopeful that if the security situation improves, that we can get cricket back slowly and gradually. I think the MCC could send a team, I think a commonwealth team could come here to start with. I think we could get teams that are not so afraid of the security situation like Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh to come and play here. I think gradually we can open up the doors , we should try and have these teams coming over but you have to keep your eye on the security situation.


PakPassion.net: Give us an idea of what you are trying to achieve with your new book?

Shahryar Khan: It’s like if you take a ride in a safari or something and the book describes various views that you get as you go along from station to station. Sometime it’s religious, sometimes it’s diplomatic, sometimes it’s about problems with Pakistan cricket or why corruption happens. These are the things in the book, it’s not so much about who scored how many runs or what someone’s average is, that’s not it. Cricket becomes a vehicle in which I take my riders through a certain scenery or kaleidoscope, and they look at things as I have seen them from the inside. No-one has been able to give a picture of what really happened in the background, but I have, I was there.


PakPassion.net: Comparing your role in the government with your job at the PCB, which one was more challenging?

Shahryar Khan: I had my battles with the government, and I believe that that the government could do much more for cricket in Pakistan because cricket is really the only unifying force in Pakistan. Therefore the government should be interested in helping cricket and improving cricket and making it a morale booster. It hasn’t done that, I’m sorry but it just doesn’t seem to be doing these things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
very interesting interview, many thanks for this.
 
Very forthright views from Khan Sahib - real pleasure speaking to him.
 
"Inzamam-Ul-Haq let me and Pakistan cricket down regarding Oval-Gate" : Shahrya

Fantastic interview . Thanks to the guys that put the effort in to make this happen .
 
Very conspicuous and in depth interview, has some great points and great description about Bob Woolmer, looking forward to buying the book, superb promo.
 
Good interview. I will always have time for this guy, one of Pakistans better chairman over the years.
 
Interesting that the name of Ramiz Raja comes up when he speaks about appointment of a foreign coach!

Same story repeats itself with Dav's appointment as well.
 
I think Inzamam did the right thing by taking the team off the field if the accusations were baseless. In the subcontinent taking a stand against injustice is viewed as a crime for some strange reason.
 
I think Inzamam did the right thing by taking the team off the field if the accusations were baseless. In the subcontinent taking a stand against injustice is viewed as a crime for some strange reason.

Exactly....!
 
I think Inzamam did the right thing by taking the team off the field if the accusations were baseless. In the subcontinent taking a stand against injustice is viewed as a crime for some strange reason.

Technically he didn't take them off the field, he just didn't come back out after tea.

However, surely the sensible thing to do was make his point at the end of the day. There was zero benefit of doing what he did. Darrell Hair was wrong but Inzamam didn't handle it well. It was embarrassing really.
 
Technically he didn't take them off the field, he just didn't come back out after tea.

However, surely the sensible thing to do was make his point at the end of the day. There was zero benefit of doing what he did. Darrell Hair was wrong but Inzamam didn't handle it well. It was embarrassing really.

What's embarrasing is being accused of cheating infront of millions of viewers and continuing to bow your head and do nothing about it. What Inzamam did was absolutely the thing unless you have some sort of inferiority complex and believe that no matter what we are accused of we should always obey the white man.
 
Re: "Inzamam-Ul-Haq let me and Pakistan cricket down regarding Oval-Gate" : Shahryar

I think Inzamam did the right thing by taking the team off the field if the accusations were baseless. In the subcontinent taking a stand against injustice is viewed as a crime for some strange reason.

True

I think Mr Khan's comments about this slightly odd, he knows Hair was dodgy hence him asking the ICC to keep the fat mess of a man away BUT he is still having a go at Inzi here. Though I guess he has a book to sell

To be fair Shaharyar Khan was a very good chairman, relatively speaking
 
we are accused of we should always obey the white man.

Race is too easy and shallow a defense.
I think Pakistan had an obligation to play, the other team was also there and there are spectators who had paid money to be there.
You don't burn down the house to kill a rat.
 
Race is too easy and shallow a defense.
I think Pakistan had an obligation to play, the other team was also there and there are spectators who had paid money to be there.
You don't burn down the house to kill a rat.

Race is irrelevant, the only reason it was mentioned was to get the point across. Regardless, if you believe your team should have bow their heads and played on despite being accused of cheating that's your prerogative, I am sure with Misbah at the helm he would grant you that wish no matter what the situation.
 
Just finished this book two weeks ago; it is an interesting read no doubt. Explains a lot about how ICC's executive committee works and how both India and Pak were against idea of T20 WC initially but eventually changed their stance and voted in favor of SA board's proposal for a T20 WC to be held for the first time - that too is SA and in return SA ensured its vote to have WC11 to be held in subcontinent.
 
Interesting that the name of Ramiz Raja comes up when he speaks about appointment of a foreign coach!

Same story repeats itself with Dav's appointment as well.

In this boom he explains how Ramiz has played a lot bigger role in PCB (perhaps still does) than appointment of BW.
 
What a great in depth interview.

Poor Inzi was stuck between a rock and a hard place back then - on one hand you had the coach and all the team management ordering him to go back out and play yet the team that day were being accused of cheating without any evidence. Whether he went back out to play or not, either decision would have been controversial.


I've seen it in Sri Lanka where they had a gangster become chairman. You don't want to have that.

lol who is he referring to here?
 
Really liked that interview, agree with nearly all of what he said. Definitely one of our better administrators.

Great Woolmer stories - loved this bit -
‘Your team is very talented, but they’re not fit.

:)) Welcome to Pakistan Bob. 20% fitness is horrific ! Good to hear about him wanting to stay close with his team, the players were clearly distressed after his passing, there was a real rapport with Woolmer and the team like never before. Also interesting to hear he needed an oxygen mask, clearly he had underlying health problems before his tragic passing.

He's right about the security situation/hosting events in Pakistan too. Regarding Oval-gate, IIRC Nasser Hussain and a few other ex-players actually supported Pakistan's stance on the matter, and that if he was captain, he wouldn't have walked out either. Inzamam on that day was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
 
Last edited:
He was to the point,we have heard his side of ovalgate,like they say,taali ek haath say nahi bajti,what's inzi take on this is still uncleared.
 
What's embarrasing is being accused of cheating infront of millions of viewers and continuing to bow your head and do nothing about it. What Inzamam did was absolutely the thing unless you have some sort of inferiority complex and believe that no matter what we are accused of we should always obey the white man.


The umpire made a call, it was wrong. Yes, it's serious call, but handling it in the way Inzi did is frankly wrong too. In fact it's so wrong that it (at the time) resulted in the match being forfeited. There's no place for it on the cricket field, and the laws of the game agree with me.

Continuing to play is NOT demonstrating that you have an inferiority complex.
 
Last edited:
The umpire made a call, it was wrong. Yes, it's serious call, but handling it in the way Inzi did is frankly wrong too. In fact it's so wrong that it (at the time) resulted in the match being forfeited. There's no place for it on the cricket field, and the laws of the game agree with me.

Continuing to play is NOT demonstrating that you have an inferiority complex.

If they'd continued to play and won, and then demonstrated their displeasure it would have had a more positive impact.

I remember at Tea that day, there was quite a lot of sympathy and good will towards Pakistan, as none of the cameras had picked up anything. Most of the anger was directed at Hair till the forfeit.
 
Inzamam the brave

It was great what Inzamam did, because everyone could see the decisions for years but somehow the same umpire ended being umpire for Pakistan matches.
Nothing would have changed if Inzamam didn't do what he did.

Many Asian cricketers in that era felt the same.

Good on you Inzy!!!

Pity they let themselves down later in years as far as Pakistan cricket is concerned.
 
Technically he didn't take them off the field, he just didn't come back out after tea.

However, surely the sensible thing to do was make his point at the end of the day. There was zero benefit of doing what he did. Darrell Hair was wrong but Inzamam didn't handle it well. It was embarrassing really.

Completely disagree..

Hair was known to have an issue with Asian teams in the past, he made a baseless and completely false accusation over a matter that has plagued pakistan for years and years.

Inzy showed alot of guts that day and proved a real point. Better than anything this current lot of cowards can do.
 
Completely disagree..

Hair was known to have an issue with Asian teams in the past, he made a baseless and completely false accusation over a matter that has plagued pakistan for years and years.

Inzy showed alot of guts that day and proved a real point. Better than anything this current lot of cowards can do.

Bottom line is Pakistan (at the time) forfeited the match because of Inzi's actions. That's not acceptable in my view. The captain's job is to win cricket matches.

The issue could easily have been raised at the end of the day. In fact it became obvious that Inzi didn't actually realise the consequences of his actions as the team came out shortly afterwards.

It was pointless.
 
Well tbh these administrators have been the most inept persons in Pakistan Cricket for a long time i'm not surprised he put all this blame on :inzi
 
True

I think Mr Khan's comments about this slightly odd, he knows Hair was dodgy hence him asking the ICC to keep the fat mess of a man away BUT he is still having a go at Inzi here. Though I guess he has a book to sell

To be fair Shaharyar Khan was a very good chairman, relatively speaking

There is a way of dealing with things. Forfeiting a match is not the right way, it's akin to throwing a tantrum. At the time, my emotions clouded my judgement and I thought, 'Yes Inzi, take a stand'. But looking back now, I was young and naive and it was an utterly stupid way of responding to the situation.

Interesting interview by Khan saab. Pretty much sums up my personal views on Inzi. By the end of his reign, it had become clear that his agenda was not so much to win cricket matches but to spread religiosity in the team. He selected those that were more religious and kept out talented folks like Hasan Raza and Misbah for bearded buffoons. Great batsman but I find him a pretty despicable person.

The interview seemed to focus a lot on bringing international cricket back to Pakistan. I honestly and sincerely believe that anyone that thinks Pakistan is ready for international cricket is entirely deluded. The situation is significantly worse than 2009, extremist organizations are stronger and running wild creating havoc. The only team that would be safe in Pakistan is Afghanistan right now so let's pray they get their test status quickly.
 
There seems to be a lot of sympathy for Inzi for Oval-gate but the truth is Inzi didn't take a stand either way. He just wasted people's time by showing up 15 minutes to late. If he wanted to forfeit the game then he should have clearly stated that the team is forfeiting and not tried to waste people's time. Not taking the field initially and then coming down after everyone else was back in the pavilion was just stupid. It was neither here nor there and reeked of weak leadership and indecisiveness.

That being said, Hair was a disgusting racist. I wish the absolute worst for him and would love to see him be publicly shamed one day. The fault lied with ICC for not taking precautions and adhering to PCB's requests/warnings and eventually it all blew over. ICC, Hair, and Inzi were all to blame really and it was following this series that things really started to go downhill for Pakistan.
 
Fantastic interview. One of PP's best in many years.

Inzamam's reputation is under the microscope nowadays. Tales of religious favouritism, petulance and god complex are quite discrediting.

Ultimately, if Inzamam had come back out to play then Pakistan would have won the match.
 
From what I recall - Pakistan's actions that day did result in us getting rid of Hair for good !

Unintended consequence of a misguided action is the best way to describe it - maybe Inzi ended up as the "bad" guy but I do believe he did us all a favour !
 
It was embarrassing when Inzi finally brought the team back on field only to wait for the umpires and opposition to come out as well and eventually going back dejected. Mismanagement and confused leadership. Either completely boycott or just get on with the game. Things could have been handled much better by a more shrewd and sensible leader.
 
It was embarrassing when Inzi finally brought the team back on field only to wait for the umpires and opposition to come out as well and eventually going back dejected. Mismanagement and confused leadership. Either completely boycott or just get on with the game. Things could have been handled much better by a more shrewd and sensible leader.

From what we understand from the SK interview, Inzi did not listen to Woolmer, Zaheer or SK!
 
You are right. Inzamam's decision was the beginning of the end for Hair. But not because of Inzamam, rather because of what Hair did afterwards with his proposed pay-off, resignation and lawsuit. Hair umpired a couple more Tests after Ovalgate and if he hadn't thrown his teddies out of the crib he probably would have been invited to umpire many more. So I don't see how the net result argument works in Inzamam's favour either. It was just poor poor stuff from most parties involved.
 
But his resignation was triggered by events at The Oval, were they not?
 
Just read Hair's wikipedia page, and he sounds like a very awful umpire, one must wonder how he got into the elite panel and how Australia backed him in all the aftermath for the incidents.
 
But his resignation was triggered by events at The Oval, were they not?

By accident rather than design is what I'm saying.

Mr Khan has eloquently shown here that it was an incident of impulsive reactions from both sides so it was hardly part of any masterplan. So I wouldn't actually credit anybody with anything.
 
By accident rather than design is what I'm saying.

Mr Khan has eloquently shown here that it was an incident of impulsive reactions from both sides so it was hardly part of any masterplan. So I wouldn't actually credit anybody with anything.

Yes agreed.
 
What's embarrasing is being accused of cheating infront of millions of viewers and continuing to bow your head and do nothing about it. What Inzamam did was absolutely the thing unless you have some sort of inferiority complex and believe that no matter what we are accused of we should always obey the white man.

Yep especially when Anderson and co.get caught then its all covered up
 
Inzi did the right thing and the team took a courageous stand despite what the spineless board officials may have felt at the time.
 
Yeah I'm still curious as to how those guys got off without as much a dent on their careers

Its also surprising that hes suddenly found this ability to reverse the ball in the last 3-4 years coinciding with increased tampering allegations, howvever i rate him as a new ball bowler, he's very good at that
 
Happy Inzi stood up for himself and Pakistan. People say race is not relevant, they are kidding themselves. No other team would have stood for such an accusation. Nor would any of the four white nations be accused.

Inzi did the right thing. Had he jsut went ont o play and at the end of the day make a complaint, it would have fell on deaf ears. Something controversial had to be done to get the world's attention of Hair's racist ways.

Tell me, who gets accused on match fixing and yet is not shown the evidence? Red flag number 1. Then you want him to come back out, make a complaint at the end of the day, at which time the ball could be altered? You accuse someone of that, you show the ball then and now to the captain. And in today's age of 50 cameras, you should the TV station or at least get Sky Sports to pick up some ball tampering. Neither happened.

Inzi that day stood up for Pakistan. Some things more important than just winning (that too a meaningless test).
 
Excellent and really interesting interview particularly the bits about Ovalgate and Inzamam's relationship with Bob Woolmer.

Seems as if Inzi was undermining Woolmer !
 
I think unprofessional-ism is a very constant theme with Pakistan cricket. Since the early days of the team we have always been known as a very talented side but not disciplined or professional enough.

I think all foreign coaches try to bring the culture of professionalism into the mix and thats where they struggle because our culture is just not used to it, whether its the govt, board or players.
 
Excellent and really interesting interview particularly the bits about Ovalgate and Inzamam's relationship with Bob Woolmer.

Seems as if Inzi was undermining Woolmer !

Which is not the impression we got when Bob passed away.

Would be very interesting to see Inzi's reaction to this
 
From what I recall - Pakistan's actions that day did result in us getting rid of Hair for good !

Unintended consequence of a misguided action is the best way to describe it - maybe Inzi ended up as the "bad" guy but I do believe he did us all a favour !

True.
 
Interesting interview, I had met Mr Khan long time ago in a friendly cricket match. His son was also playing for the diplomats 11 team. Really a very decent man.

I disagreed with Inzi's actions. It was typical Pakistani over reaction to me. the correct thing would be to protest by delaying the game for a few mins and launch a proper written protest that evening with ICC. And if ICC does not do the job then take them to court. result would have been same Hair would have been found guilty of bias like he was.
 
The power had gone to Inzi's head in the last stages of Woolmer's tenure, it appears. The ego took over. At one stage, he and Woolmer were a great team. But the team slipped to an ignominious defeat by the end of their tenure.

People calling for Inzi's head by then (and earlier) appear to have been right - including myself.

Although I thought he should probably be selected for tests only, and be removed as captain, it's probably a good thing he was forced to retire.

Combining his religiosity and ego (which usually results in egotistical self-righteousness), not to mention his declining form, him continuing to captain or even hang around the team would have been bad news.

I feel the same way about Misbah now. His presence is more detrimental than beneficial to the team.
 
Last edited:
Interesting interview by Khan saab. Pretty much sums up my personal views on Inzi. By the end of his reign, it had become clear that his agenda was not so much to win cricket matches but to spread religiosity in the team. He selected those that were more religious and kept out talented folks like Hasan Raza and Misbah for bearded buffoons. Great batsman but I find him a pretty despicable person.

What bearded buffoons? There was only Yousuf and Inzi who sported beards at the time and they were our best batsmen. I think too much has been made of how religion influenced Inzimam's "captaincy". What many people fail to remember is that his tenure resulted in Pakistan's most successful period of cricket post-Imran (Yes, Khan himself also deserves credit). Whatever his policy was, it worked. The other thing is, Younus Khan was probably the M/O batter keeping Misbah out and neither are/were openly religious (as claimed by Mr. Khan himself).

Inzi's tenure also saw the rise of Danish replacing Mushy (a hindu replacing a bearded muslim, imagine that). Not to mention, despite his apparent lack of disicipline, Shoaib Akhtar was given more chances than anyone. It's absolutely ridiculous if people think that Inzimam's selection policy was based purely on perceived religious superiority or even largely, I'm sure it played some part, but imo, probably because Inzimam saw adherence to faith as a sign of discipline more than anything else.

Fantastic interview. One of PP's best in many years.

Inzamam's reputation is under the microscope nowadays. Tales of religious favouritism, petulance and god complex are quite discrediting.

Tbh, rumours of Inzi's religous favouritism have been around for a while, it's just that lately with the publication of Khan's book, certain people have decided to take advantage and malign the great man.

It's also important to note that the accusations have largely been one sided, while the man himself has remained quite of the whole affair (which I'm certain people will see as a sign of guilt on his behalf)

It's a shame that Pakistani cricketers don't do much in the way of autobiographies, especially when less esteemed players from other countries decide their tale is worth telling after 2 Tests. Until Inzi actually comes out with his own account, I think I'll take these claims with a pinch of salt.

Excellent interview nonetheless, looking forward to reading this book.
 
Another interesting point that Khan Sahib mentions a few times is that of "player power"

In normal circumstances, I would be all for that as it meant that players were standing up for their rights but in this context it means that players were undermining authority - tail wagging the dog situation.

In that sense, we cant completely blame Inzi - he was the union leader and the union was the culprit.

BB in his post draws comparisons between Misbah and Inzi - I dont agree.

Inzi's bad form towards the end of his tenure does not match with Misbah's current form and that does make a difference.
 
Tbh, rumours of Inzi's religous favouritism have been around for a while, it's just that lately with the publication of Khan's book, certain people have decided to take advantage and malign the great man.

It's also important to note that the accusations have largely been one sided, while the man himself has remained quite of the whole affair (which I'm certain people will see as a sign of guilt on his behalf)

It's a shame that Pakistani cricketers don't do much in the way of autobiographies, especially when less esteemed players from other countries decide their tale is worth telling after 2 Tests. Until Inzi actually comes out with his own account, I think I'll take these claims with a pinch of salt.

Excellent interview nonetheless, looking forward to reading this book.

Fair point, I would like to hear Inzamam's rebuttal.
 
What bearded buffoons? There was only Yousuf and Inzi who sported beards at the time and they were our best batsmen. I think too much has been made of how religion influenced Inzimam's "captaincy". What many people fail to remember is that his tenure resulted in Pakistan's most successful period of cricket post-Imran (Yes, Khan himself also deserves credit). Whatever his policy was, it worked. The other thing is, Younus Khan was probably the M/O batter keeping Misbah out and neither are/were openly religious (as claimed by Mr. Khan himself).

Inzi's tenure also saw the rise of Danish replacing Mushy (a hindu replacing a bearded muslim, imagine that). Not to mention, despite his apparent lack of disicipline, Shoaib Akhtar was given more chances than anyone. It's absolutely ridiculous if people think that Inzimam's selection policy was based purely on perceived religious superiority or even largely, I'm sure it played some part, but imo, probably because Inzimam saw adherence to faith as a sign of discipline more than anything else.

Did you not notice how under Inzi's reign, the likes of Afridi, Rana Naved and Malik were suddenly sporting visible beards. Asim Kamal and Afridi were preferred in the test team over players that had done much better domestically. Younis batted at 3 and the players that were tried at number 6 included Afridi, Kamal and Malik. You can talk about the success under Inzi but I don't attribute that to Inzi. That was because we had 3 of the best batsmen (3 out of 4 at least) in the entire history of our cricket all playing at once. I would not compare Inzamam to Imran Khan. You have to look at the legacy the two captains left and the players they discovered. Under Inzamam, there were no new world class players that were discovered or introduced bar Mohammad Asif. Imran Khan discovered the two best bowlers in our history and the arguably the best batsman. The team Imran left (a world cup winning one) should have ruled world cricket for the next decade with the abundance of world class talent. Inzamam left the time in dire straits with no captain and no new world class talent (again bar Asif). Inzi's legacy is a team that lost to Ireland in a world cup and was knocked it out because it was far from focused on cricket.

Mushtaq Ahmed is a convenient but a poor example, the two tests he played under Inzi he took a wicket each and Kaneria overshadowed him easily. In Mushy's last 6 tests he took only 5 wickets in total so him getting dropped was going to happen sooner or later. Kaneria did not make his debut under Inzi and he established himself before Inzi's religiosity became an issue. A better example may have been Saqlain but we all saw how the Indians treated him in his last test. Kaneria was the mainstay and go to bowler under Inzamam and as long as he could control Kaneria (and was not threatened by him) Inzi wouldn't have had a problem with him. Shoaib Akhtar was backed by Woolmer and Inzi was not particularly fond of Akhtar this has been made abundantly clear by many people. But Akhtar was also the best fast bowler in the country until Asif revolutionized himself. Inzi was continuously critical of Shoaib and doubted his commitment due to his serious injury problems. I never understood Inzi's fondness for the brainless Sami but someone told me that he recited the Azaan for their collective prayers.

Also, just to clarify your perception that Akhtar played a lot matches under Inzi is also wrong. Akhtar played only 12 of the 31 test matches that Inzamam was captain for. That is less than half and we are talking about the best bowler at the time.
 
Last edited:
An extremely fascinating interview Saj and MiG and Shayan and team (I'm not sure who actually conducted it but I'm sure you were all involved). Very well done. It's interesting to hear a bit of an insiders view of what happened at the Oval which in my opinion could have been entirely avoidable.

It's funny though - I've been a member of this website since the sportnetwork days which was a decade ago or more I think. I lived through all these administrators and whilst I am Australian I saw them through the lens of my fellow members who were from Pakistan. I think at the time Sharyar Khan was hated and most couldn't wait to be rid of him. I lived through Inzy's rule. Little did they know that the likes of Ijaz Butt et all would be waiting on the other side! Now we see that maybe SHK wasn't that bad after all eh.

As for this:

PakPassion.net: What are your thoughts regarding the restoration of international cricket in Pakistan?

Shahryar Khan: Not being able to play international cricket in the country is a very serious setback for Pakistan. But one has to be fair, it’s not because the PCB is inefficient or has not done its bit. It’s because the security situation in Pakistan is such that foreign teams will not come for the time being. I’m sorry, this is a fact of life. You see it every day in Quetta, Peshawar, Karachi, teams won’t come here. Even a team as friendly as Sri Lanka was attacked by the terrorists so who is going to come and play here? So I think you have to wait until the security situation improves and then gradually get teams to come. Maybe teams that are favourable to you politically will come first followed later, by those teams that are very sensitive about the terrorist business like Australia, England and New Zealand etc. I know that everyone in cricket wants Pakistan to come back into the fold and hold matches at home, but at the present time the security situation will not allow it.

This is a subject near and dear to my heart because nothing would please me more than to see the OZ cricket team playing in Pakistan, in their conditions. I think it would be as big a challenge as India. But this is outside the power of anyone in cricket to fix - this is a governance issue.
 
Last edited:
An extremely fascinating interview Saj. Very well done. It's interesting to hear a bit of an insiders view of what happened at the Oval which in my opinion could have been entirely avoidable.

It's funny though - I've been a member of this website since the sportnetwork days which was a decade ago or more I think. I lived through all these administrators and whilst I am Australian I saw them through the lens of my fellow members who were from Pakistan. I think at the time Sharyar Khan was hated and most couldn't wait to be rid of him. I lived through Inzy's rule. Little did they know that the likes of Ijaz Butt et all would be waiting on the other side! Now we see that maybe SHK wasn't that bad after all eh.

Excellent observation OG - sometimes it takes an "outsider" to see what we can't see here!
 
The umpire made a call, it was wrong. Yes, it's serious call, but handling it in the way Inzi did is frankly wrong too. In fact it's so wrong that it (at the time) resulted in the match being forfeited. There's no place for it on the cricket field, and the laws of the game agree with me.

Continuing to play is NOT demonstrating that you have an inferiority complex.

I would have played, won, and used the victory as a bully pulpit after that. They would've had the moral high ground and that would have been a bigger up-yours than anything else. Winning against the odds and against adversity.
 
Excellent observation OG - sometimes it takes an "outsider" to see what we can't see here!

That's the true value of this site - you have so many different perspectives from around the world. Obviously it's Pakistan centric and always will be and rightly so, but you have viewpoints from everywhere, such as India, Australia, England, NZ, South Africa, SL, Bangladesh, the WI and more. In fact I think every major Test playing country is represented here. There is always value in viewing an issue through different lenses - it's what broadens us all.
 
Did you not notice how under Inzi's reign, the likes of Afridi, Rana Naved and Malik were suddenly sporting visible beards. Asim Kamal and Afridi were preferred in the test team over players that had done much better domestically. Younis batted at 3 and the players that were tried at number 6 included Afridi, Kamal and Malik. You can talk about the success under Inzi but I don't attribute that to Inzi. That was because we had 3 of the best batsmen (3 out of 4 at least) in the entire history of our cricket all playing at once. I would not compare Inzamam to Imran Khan. You have to look at the legacy the two captains left and the players they discovered. Under Inzamam, there were no new world class players that were discovered or introduced bar Mohammad Asif. Imran Khan discovered the two best bowlers in our history and the arguably the best batsman. The team Imran left (a world cup winning one) should have ruled world cricket for the next decade with the abundance of world class talent. Inzamam left the time in dire straits with no captain and no new world class talent (again bar Asif). Inzi's legacy is a team that lost to Ireland in a world cup and was knocked it out because it was far from focused on cricket.

Mushtaq Ahmed is a convenient but a poor example, the two tests he played under Inzi he took a wicket each and Kaneria overshadowed him easily. In Mushy's last 6 tests he took only 5 wickets in total so him getting dropped was going to happen sooner or later. Kaneria did not make his debut under Inzi and he established himself before Inzi's religiosity became an issue. A better example may have been Saqlain but we all saw how the Indians treated him in his last test. Kaneria was the mainstay and go to bowler under Inzamam and as long as he could control Kaneria (and was not threatened by him) Inzi wouldn't have had a problem with him. Shoaib Akhtar was backed by Woolmer and Inzi was not particularly fond of Akhtar this has been made abundantly clear by many people. But Akhtar was also the best fast bowler in the country until Asif revolutionized himself. Inzi was continuously critical of Shoaib and doubted his commitment due to his serious injury problems. I never understood Inzi's fondness for the brainless Sami but someone told me that he recited the Azaan for their collective prayers.

Also, just to clarify your perception that Akhtar played a lot matches under Inzi is also wrong. Akhtar played only 12 of the 31 test matches that Inzamam was captain for. That is less than half and we are talking about the best bowler at the time.

Let me make one thing clear, not for one second did I compare Inzimam's captaincy to Imran's, I compared it to every other captain post-Imran.

Asim Kamal made a 99 on debut and I'm sure he had a beard before making his debut, he's kept one since as has Afridi so the inference that the beards were a successful attempt from players to influence Inzimam's selection has very little basis. I don't remember Rana having a beard. Although as someone involved in the Oathgate incident (along with Malik), it's definitely not beneath him to use it as a selection tool. How successful it was...I can't say.

Given the early success of both Afridi and Malik, I don't think it's fair to say they were picked on terms other than merit. And iirc, both were shifted around the order, from openers to middle order to late order. Both had backing from people other than Inzi. We all know how highly Woolmer thought of Afridi.

As for Akhtar, I wasn't referring to the number of Tests he played under Inzi when I said more chances, I was referring to how much he got away with, without actually ever being dropped e.g. Hitting Asif with the bat, pushing Woolmer, faking injury, even? and just a general lack of disobedience.

And what the heck is this nonsense about not being "threatened" by Kaneria and "controlling" him? Like every other leggie was some mafia boss, waiting to get a hit on Inzi, sounds ridiculous.

Saqlain did not deserve to be dropped after the India Test but a large reason for his abrupt end to international cricket was his knee injury. Mushy was an excellent leggie and yes he was out of form for a while during inzi's initial days but you would have thought that after his amazing run with Sussex, and his adherence to faith, he would have easily replaced Kaneria, had Inzi been such a sucker for "bearded buffoon's" as you like to call them...but that was not the case.

The people under Inzi's captaincy were actually a diverse bunch with a set of varying personalities, not just puppets. Afridi, Malik, Yousuf, Younus, Kaneria....the idea that somehow Inzimam controlled them and sought to mould a team of XI bearded Yes-men is hard to believe.
 
Inzi's legacy is a team that lost to Ireland in a world cup and was knocked it out because it was far from focused on cricket.

This is like blaming Ricky Ponting for Australia's lack of success after him. That is not a valid argument and you know it.

I never understood Inzi's fondness for the brainless Sami but someone told me that he recited the Azaan for their collective prayers.

That is another crap point, I am sure no one would have heard of this before, only you have discovered it from nowhere, please to refrain from conspiracy theories.

Akhtar played only 12 of the 31 test matches that Inzamam was captain for. That is less than half and we are talking about the best bowler at the time.

That's because he spent a year out because of knee surgery
 
I did hear that Inzy formed cliques based on who prayed and who didn't, not sure if that's rubbish or not.
 
I did hear that Inzy formed cliques based on who prayed and who didn't, not sure if that's rubbish or not.

Difficult to tell unless some player comes up and says this openly
 
Difficult to tell unless some player comes up and says this openly

They prayed together on tour.

Let me make one thing clear, not for one second did I compare Inzimam's captaincy to Imran's, I compared it to every other captain post-Imran.

Asim Kamal made a 99 on debut and I'm sure he had a beard before making his debut, he's kept one since as has Afridi so the inference that the beards were a successful attempt from players to influence Inzimam's selection has very little basis. I don't remember Rana having a beard. Although as someone involved in the Oathgate incident (along with Malik), it's definitely not beneath him to use it as a selection tool. How successful it was...I can't say.

Given the early success of both Afridi and Malik, I don't think it's fair to say they were picked on terms other than merit. And iirc, both were shifted around the order, from openers to middle order to late order. Both had backing from people other than Inzi. We all know how highly Woolmer thought of Afridi.

As for Akhtar, I wasn't referring to the number of Tests he played under Inzi when I said more chances, I was referring to how much he got away with, without actually ever being dropped e.g. Hitting Asif with the bat, pushing Woolmer, faking injury, even? and just a general lack of disobedience.

And what the heck is this nonsense about not being "threatened" by Kaneria and "controlling" him? Like every other leggie was some mafia boss, waiting to get a hit on Inzi, sounds ridiculous.

Saqlain did not deserve to be dropped after the India Test but a large reason for his abrupt end to international cricket was his knee injury. Mushy was an excellent leggie and yes he was out of form for a while during inzi's initial days but you would have thought that after his amazing run with Sussex, and his adherence to faith, he would have easily replaced Kaneria, had Inzi been such a sucker for "bearded buffoon's" as you like to call them...but that was not the case.

The people under Inzi's captaincy were actually a diverse bunch with a set of varying personalities, not just puppets. Afridi, Malik, Yousuf, Younus, Kaneria....the idea that somehow Inzimam controlled them and sought to mould a team of XI bearded Yes-men is hard to believe.

Mushtaq Mohmmad was a better captain than Inzi as was Wasim Akram.

Kamal had the beard before his selection and he was a decent bat but Misbah is far better and has outperformed him every year in domestic cricket. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that Kamal may have had a good domestic season but his beard may have played a part in his selection.

Afridi's beard came a little while after playing under Inzi's captaincy. Where are Rana and Malik's beards now? Akhtar was backed by Woolmer and Woolmer backed him after the pushing incident. Again. you're mistaken because the hitting Asif incident happened under Malik's captaincy. Akhtar never faked injury. If you are referring to Australia then he was genuinely injured and that is why he was out of the series. The guy had to get his knee aspirated after playing every game. I've had my knee aspirated once and it's the most uncomfortable feeling in the world. He had genuine injury problems. Him going clubbing rather than praying, you or Inzi may perceive as a general lack of obedience, I don't. I wouldn't care what a player did after practice as long his clubbing wasn't taking place before game nights which he has said they weren't. So again, Inzi was disturbed by what Akhtar did in his personal time because he wasn't taking part in the team's praying sessions.

I'll reiterate for you that both Saqlain and Mushtaq were done and done well before Inzamam became overly religious. I think Khan also mentions that Inzamam wasn't fond of Younis because he was a different character.
 
They prayed together on tour.



Mushtaq Mohmmad was a better captain than Inzi as was Wasim Akram.

Kamal had the beard before his selection and he was a decent bat but Misbah is far better and has outperformed him every year in domestic cricket. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that Kamal may have had a good domestic season but his beard may have played a part in his selection.

Afridi's beard came a little while after playing under Inzi's captaincy. Where are Rana and Malik's beards now? Akhtar was backed by Woolmer and Woolmer backed him after the pushing incident. Again. you're mistaken because the hitting Asif incident happened under Malik's captaincy. Akhtar never faked injury. If you are referring to Australia then he was genuinely injured and that is why he was out of the series. The guy had to get his knee aspirated after playing every game. I've had my knee aspirated once and it's the most uncomfortable feeling in the world. He had genuine injury problems. Him going clubbing rather than praying, you or Inzi may perceive as a general lack of obedience, I don't. I wouldn't care what a player did after practice as long his clubbing wasn't taking place before game nights which he has said they weren't. So again, Inzi was disturbed by what Akhtar did in his personal time because he wasn't taking part in the team's praying sessions.

I'll reiterate for you that both Saqlain and Mushtaq were done and done well before Inzamam became overly religious. I think Khan also mentions that Inzamam wasn't fond of Younis because he was a different character.

The thing is it she said he said stuff, hard to subtantiate but I am sure there is some favorism going on as it is impossible as a human.

Yes I do remember that there was a very heated argument between YK and Afridi and Inzi backed Afridi when it happened. It was a surprise as YK was VC of the team at that time. Rumor was that Afridi use to lead the prayers while YK was not a regular participant.
 
The thing is it she said he said stuff, hard to subtantiate but I am sure there is some favorism going on as it is impossible as a human.

Yes I do remember that there was a very heated argument between YK and Afridi and Inzi backed Afridi when it happened. It was a surprise as YK was VC of the team at that time. Rumor was that Afridi use to lead the prayers while YK was not a regular participant.

That's true about the "he said, she said". I rate Inzamam very highly as a batsman. My favorite Pakistani batsman and in my eyes the better than Miandad. I think he was talented enough to have been competing with Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara if he had the right attitude and work ethic.

That being said, I did not like Inzamam the captain and I don't think anything can change that. I felt he was more devoted to religion than to cricket and I feel he played in how badly our cricket team struggled from 2006 onwards.
 
It's funny how every bad habit Inzi had is directed to his adherence to religion while the likes of Shoaib Akhtar are pardoned for their bad work ethic and attitude only because they were non-religious.
 
If memory serves me correct, didn't PJ Mir say that on WC 2007 tour during one of their flights Inzi used the aisles on the airplane to get everyone to pray? I could be wrong but it was a popular word-of-mouth story then.
 
Another funny thing is rumors. Rumors everywhere in this thread.

I heard, he said, popular word-of-mouth story. Sources please! everybody praises Inzimam except the butthurt ones

I completely agree with you that hearsay is a cancer and should be treated as such. Hence why I was very careful in my verbiage and said it could be false. The only reason I stated this was whether any one could corroborate it by source.
 
if inzamam gives a response to SHK's claims, then he is damned that why cant he stay quiet/why does he have to respond and put allegations etc etc etc

and if he chooses to remain quiet and ignore then he is damned.

Problem isnt inzi, yusuf, afridi, shoaib malik, imran farhat, ahmed shehzad, misbah ul haq.

Problem is us fans that we never are content with what we have. We seem to have a problem with everything, we never let anyone do their job. We keep on pressurizing with changes in team. We will call everyone corrupt, yet never try to sort ourselves out. We will take a nobody's word to malign a national star! and when a national star will speak of the same subject, we will change the scope of our discussion to discredit him

90% of the fans dont know how to hold a bat, but will not shy away in giving advices front foot back foot, leave, drive and all.

Pick him/dont pick him. Make him captain, dont make him captain. jis din fan badal gaye, us din team bhi behter hojaayegi
 
Last edited:
I can't believe this thread has turned into a ridiculous debate on the all powerful inzi. His legacy is his results, no captain is responsible for the whole cricketing infrastructure of his country, the ineptitude of selectors, who are called selectors because they are selectors, administration and the abundance or dearth of talent in a country.

One could very well make the argument that had inzi not managed to gel the team under this alleged policy of religiosity, the team would have done much worse- by the end the team was desperately short of talent.

Anyway, with regards to the interview, it was excellently presented but I wouldn't trust shariyars comments at all. He talks about the failings of the constitution and the structure of the board - well why didn't he do anything about them then when he was chairman for three years?

He blames inzi for oval gate, whereas Akhtar, in his book, an open critic of inzi defended him in the oval fiasco, labelling shariyar as weak and ineffective and clueless at the time. If shariyar was telling the truth, why would someone like Akhtar who has openly criticized inzi have such a different recollection of events?

Shariyar was weak, ineffective, unprofessional and like all the others, persisted with and was one of the manybreasons for the continuing horrendous mess that is the pcb, when he had the chance to change things.

I definitely won't be buying the book.
 
It's funny how every bad habit Inzi had is directed to his adherence to religion while the likes of Shoaib Akhtar are pardoned for their bad work ethic and attitude only because they were non-religious.




Post of the week for me...nothing more to add!
 
I can't believe this thread has turned into a ridiculous debate on the all powerful inzi. His legacy is his results, no captain is responsible for the whole cricketing infrastructure of his country, the ineptitude of selectors, who are called selectors because they are selectors, administration and the abundance or dearth of talent in a country.

One could very well make the argument that had inzi not managed to gel the team under this alleged policy of religiosity, the team would have done much worse- by the end the team was desperately short of talent.

Anyway, with regards to the interview, it was excellently presented but I wouldn't trust shariyars comments at all. He talks about the failings of the constitution and the structure of the board - well why didn't he do anything about them then when he was chairman for three years?

He blames inzi for oval gate, whereas Akhtar, in his book, an open critic of inzi defended him in the oval fiasco, labelling shariyar as weak and ineffective and clueless at the time. If shariyar was telling the truth, why would someone like Akhtar who has openly criticized inzi have such a different recollection of events?
Shariyar was weak, ineffective, unprofessional and like all the others, persisted with and was one of the manybreasons for the continuing horrendous mess that is the pcb, when he had the chance to change things.

I definitely won't be buying the book.




If an open and oft repeat critic of Inzy i.e. Akhtar has said that, I will tend to believe his words more than any other person's!

Shoaib never minces his words when criticizing Inzi but for him to take Inzi's side on the Ovalgate really means something
 
if inzamam gives a response to SHK's claims, then he is damned that why cant he stay quiet/why does he have to respond and put allegations etc etc etc

and if he chooses to remain quiet and ignore then he is damned.

Problem isnt inzi, yusuf, afridi, shoaib malik, imran farhat, ahmed shehzad, misbah ul haq.

Problem is us fans that we never are content with what we have. We seem to have a problem with everything, we never let anyone do their job. We keep on pressurizing with changes in team. We will call everyone corrupt, yet never try to sort ourselves out. We will take a nobody's word to malign a national star! and when a national star will speak of the same subject, we will change the scope of our discussion to discredit him

90% of the fans dont know how to hold a bat, but will not shy away in giving advices front foot back foot, leave, drive and all.

Pick him/dont pick him. Make him captain, dont make him captain. jis din fan badal gaye, us din team bhi behter hojaayegi

Dont think anyone will begrudge a rebuttal by Inzi - its his right and he should do it. These are serious issues.

We are talking about making Inzi our batting coach in the future so its important he should step up and put this right
 
I can see this whole thread is heading towards Inzi and Islam!

Much more to be discussed here folks!
 
A non-muslim became a muslim through Inzi and here posters are being unhappy for that.

Coool!

Mashallah, we have an extra Muslim in Pakistan, who cares about winning cricket matches? Moyo's conversion has greatly helped the ummah.
 
Technically he didn't take them off the field, he just didn't come back out after tea.

However, surely the sensible thing to do was make his point at the end of the day. There was zero benefit of doing what he did. Darrell Hair was wrong but Inzamam didn't handle it well. It was embarrassing really.

What inzy did was the right thing else the issue would have been suppressed. Such strong protest was required to kick that racist umpire out and see how it turned out to be. :)
 
Back
Top