-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Inzamam Ul Haq - Should he be sacked ?
- Thread starter Sanz
- Start date
Eyes_Only
International Debutant
He will go down in history as the first (and so far only) captain to lose a test match due to a forfiet when he didn't get his own way and had, as my father said, a major temper tantrum when they were caught doing something wrong. No matter what you think of the umpires, to forfiet a match in this way goes against everything that is good and pure about our great game.
I guess we have to wait to see what is going to happen but IMHO, he doesn't set a good example for young people who want to play the game and I only hope the ICC comes down hard on him due to his petulant behaviour.
I guess we have to wait to see what is going to happen but IMHO, he doesn't set a good example for young people who want to play the game and I only hope the ICC comes down hard on him due to his petulant behaviour.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/08/24/scbose24.xml
It is thought that Inzamam did not realise quite what his team had been accused of until he reached the dressing room. His comprehension of the English language is limited and he may not have understood what Darrell Hair was saying to him when he changed the ball. It was only when he returned to the dressing room, and the penny dropped, that thoughts of refusing to take the field again began to form.
Woolmer listed two or three options to the team, none of which involved refusing to take the field when play restarted.
One source, who was in the dressing room, told me: "I am not sure how much of what Woolmer said was understood by Inzamam. Inzi decided the team would not go out."
It is thought that Inzamam did not realise quite what his team had been accused of until he reached the dressing room. His comprehension of the English language is limited and he may not have understood what Darrell Hair was saying to him when he changed the ball. It was only when he returned to the dressing room, and the penny dropped, that thoughts of refusing to take the field again began to form.
Woolmer listed two or three options to the team, none of which involved refusing to take the field when play restarted.
One source, who was in the dressing room, told me: "I am not sure how much of what Woolmer said was understood by Inzamam. Inzi decided the team would not go out."
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
It is clear that Woolmer was extremely upset at the way pakistan handled the 'protest' this much is clear from his interviews. His resignation 'idea' is a direct response to this.
All this about Inzy not being able to understand him because of the 'lanaguage barrier' appears to be a damage control excercise.
There is no way Woolmer would not have got his point across in such a long time and remember there were people there who spoke and understood English perfectly including Shaharyar and Zaheer Abbas.
Pakistan establishment would be best advised to stick to the facts and say what actually happened even if it shows that different individuals differed strongly on the course of action.
And why not? Its not surprising, is it? In such a contentious issue it would be a miracle if everyone had agreed and there was unanimity.
Right from the time Shaharyar gave his 'small-few-minutes-protest' interview to Holding, they have been tripping over their own words which is always the case in a cover up which is worse managed than the original handling.
Just forget it.
Inzy and his team thought they were insulted (and their nation if you please) by the umpire, they felt they were right in protesting, their manner of protesting may not appear right to some but they were not the one's who were aggrieved and we stand by everything what our team and captain did PERIOD.
And tell everyone else to shut up.
This wont make everyone (including yours truly) agree with everything Inzy did but thats not important anymore. What it will do is, Pakistani authorities will stop looking silly.
All this about Inzy not being able to understand him because of the 'lanaguage barrier' appears to be a damage control excercise.
There is no way Woolmer would not have got his point across in such a long time and remember there were people there who spoke and understood English perfectly including Shaharyar and Zaheer Abbas.
Pakistan establishment would be best advised to stick to the facts and say what actually happened even if it shows that different individuals differed strongly on the course of action.
And why not? Its not surprising, is it? In such a contentious issue it would be a miracle if everyone had agreed and there was unanimity.
Right from the time Shaharyar gave his 'small-few-minutes-protest' interview to Holding, they have been tripping over their own words which is always the case in a cover up which is worse managed than the original handling.
Just forget it.
Inzy and his team thought they were insulted (and their nation if you please) by the umpire, they felt they were right in protesting, their manner of protesting may not appear right to some but they were not the one's who were aggrieved and we stand by everything what our team and captain did PERIOD.
And tell everyone else to shut up.
This wont make everyone (including yours truly) agree with everything Inzy did but thats not important anymore. What it will do is, Pakistani authorities will stop looking silly.