11-20-2007, 11:07 PM
Dear Kamran,
You can't pull out from this debate like this. And I think we have a point to prove that although difference of opinion will remain but some consensus can be acheived if things proceed in some logical way. Especially when the discussion is between people who value logic. In this case at least one person has such repute.
I was serendipitously taken by your first post, as I think you made some huge statements without giving any logic, as expected improvement was seen in the next one. I will like to clarify it was not you who was taken with severity. (debate will go somewhere else so I leave it here).
Gen Tauqeer Zia is history, he has left the team for more than five years now. The paragraph where you mentioned this issue for me failed to make any sense. I think you may now that currently over cricket is not under direct influence of army men. This is, however, not the main issue here. Anyways thanks for not passing irritating remarks about the eye sight of the person who mistook your ambiguous statement. However, I wonder if something could be more irritating.
Its nice to know that you understand the difference between fixed and planned matches. But I will blame you overemphasing this planning issue. I will like to ask you that what are the reasons which you think make the highest official to plan the results of the matches.
If we have to prove this on the basis of facts the results of Pak India series (the second one) do not by any means conform with it. Seven consecutive defeats to India!!! Howcome you think Indian officials at highest level can afford that! I said in my first post I do have doubts regarding the pre planning for first Pak India tour. Afterthat results were completely different of general perception.
I am a proud part of masses, by using this word I just mean majority. I hate using this word for the purpose of discrimination as is considered a part of fashion by some columnists. Majority whom I met were of the view that this Pak India series was a planned one. Most of them had no idea how, neither any logic behind. No one knows what was the reality but if planned series are to make a close contest as you said, then the deeds deny your point.
Coming further to the issue of pre-planning. Among the people I discuss cricket you are the only one who think that planning of results by officials is done on such a large scale. I mean mostly people restirict this to Pak India tours. May be it has happened once, just may be, but it doesn't mean that every fixture between these two teams is a pre planned one. I can put as proof the winning streak of 7 matches over India, and even the result of this current series.
I never mentioned that in my opinion matches are not fixed. Do you think match fixing surronds only international cricket. Sir, I have witnessed that even players of street cricket a bought and in this case its very easy to judge. I remember the confessions by Cronie, even before that I beleived that some part of some games is plagued by this. However, for me it never means that every player is sold and every game is a fixed one. Match fixing doesn't only surrond cricket a whole lot of sports are affected the world over. Corrupt people are found every where. Soccer is considered amongst the largest industries in Europe. Fixing is there too. You must know Juventus (Italy) among top football clubs of Europe was banned for one year as it was considered that some corruption has taken place. So fixing of matches doesn't only include Pakistani cricket.
Your statment in your first post that no body wants to play with us so we have to beg them for playing and resultantly agreeing to loose made me somewhat emotional. It is never the case, at least no results support this. Why do we forget that we were the finalist of T20 World Cup which took place just a couple of months ago. Why are memories are such short lived ones.
Vs B desh, in 1999 may be a planned or fixed one. As the results had nothing to do with Pakistan's position. But why would anyone fix the match with Ireland. That was a do or die match, why would any player take the risk of loosing such match. It could easily have been the last match for many players. At least Inzi's career ended to that defeat. Those who understand cricket may know that it was not a fixed games. Doubts may be there regarding first match with WI. I tell you one think the matches which are lost against minos or comparatively weaker teams are often considered as fixed by majority. Reason being simply the results were unexpected. Why do we forget that we are not the only team who loose to minos, our propotion is not hitgher than others. Instead letting the actions speak we let our emotions decide. You have to agree it is a fact. I have given a number of examples of upsets in my last post, and not only in cricket. We defeated Australlia in T20, nobody called that a fixed match. So whats the logic behind this thinking that only those are the fixed matches which are lost by us.
Just look at this example. India like us suffered a huge upset and were unable to qualify for next round after getting defeated by B' Desh. At least, I think that Indians can't take that risk. Getting your homes burnt and being threatened to be killed. And if they loose fame their major source of income media will also perish. Beleive you may there were many in India who blamed it to be a fixed match similar to what we did after loosing to Ireland. India defeated W. Indies in 1983 final and able to win their only ODI WC. Why didn't any of Indians call that a fixed match.
You discussed Inzi. He was not made the scape goat by the board, infact its our people who will forget every thing. He was made captain in winter of 2003. Check the stats Pakistan performance remained quite good in 2004, 5 and six. We lost badly to SA before world cup and then a consecutive first round exit in WC. This attitude of masses made Younis Khan the first man in Pakistan to deny offer for captaincy. We cant digest defeat.
Pakistan lost 4 times to India in finals. There are some suspicions that some of the players were bought before the game. If you remeber that game emotions of Amir Sohail were among the main reasons that made us to loose the game. We lost twice to India in T20 championship if you think these were fixed then ........
Negative attitudes are sometimes shown by some of the players, but only highlighted in a lost game. There are many incidences when some o the players showed totally negative attitude but still won. And similar examples for loosing a match with positive attitudes are very much there. So fixing may not be the only reason for negative or positive attitude, the day also counts.
I will not comment on the last part of your post. Just one thing ye sirf hamara masla nahin he. Hum ne bohat si files dbain same was done by USA. The case of 9/11 and the matter of weapons of mass destructions, their masses can also have and do have same regrets. The propotion is larger in our country. (this I guess has nothing to do with cricket)
Coming to those who say Pakistani team loose the matches we play and therefore we don't see cricket.
And for those who consider every game is a fixed one, they should be really thank ful to those who fix the matches as Pakistani have lost 40 percent of the matches we have played. And performance after 2000 is even better.
Matches are definitely fixed but not every match, rarely, and results and performance speak volume of the conspiracy. Not only cricket but other sports too, not only Pakistan but other countries. But it is not very difficult for those who understand game in true sense to assess. So I find the argument that "I don't watch cricket as every match Pakistan looses or every game is fixed" equvalent to closing your eyes and denying facts.
You can't pull out from this debate like this. And I think we have a point to prove that although difference of opinion will remain but some consensus can be acheived if things proceed in some logical way. Especially when the discussion is between people who value logic. In this case at least one person has such repute.
I was serendipitously taken by your first post, as I think you made some huge statements without giving any logic, as expected improvement was seen in the next one. I will like to clarify it was not you who was taken with severity. (debate will go somewhere else so I leave it here).
Gen Tauqeer Zia is history, he has left the team for more than five years now. The paragraph where you mentioned this issue for me failed to make any sense. I think you may now that currently over cricket is not under direct influence of army men. This is, however, not the main issue here. Anyways thanks for not passing irritating remarks about the eye sight of the person who mistook your ambiguous statement. However, I wonder if something could be more irritating.
Its nice to know that you understand the difference between fixed and planned matches. But I will blame you overemphasing this planning issue. I will like to ask you that what are the reasons which you think make the highest official to plan the results of the matches.
If we have to prove this on the basis of facts the results of Pak India series (the second one) do not by any means conform with it. Seven consecutive defeats to India!!! Howcome you think Indian officials at highest level can afford that! I said in my first post I do have doubts regarding the pre planning for first Pak India tour. Afterthat results were completely different of general perception.
I am a proud part of masses, by using this word I just mean majority. I hate using this word for the purpose of discrimination as is considered a part of fashion by some columnists. Majority whom I met were of the view that this Pak India series was a planned one. Most of them had no idea how, neither any logic behind. No one knows what was the reality but if planned series are to make a close contest as you said, then the deeds deny your point.
Coming further to the issue of pre-planning. Among the people I discuss cricket you are the only one who think that planning of results by officials is done on such a large scale. I mean mostly people restirict this to Pak India tours. May be it has happened once, just may be, but it doesn't mean that every fixture between these two teams is a pre planned one. I can put as proof the winning streak of 7 matches over India, and even the result of this current series.
I never mentioned that in my opinion matches are not fixed. Do you think match fixing surronds only international cricket. Sir, I have witnessed that even players of street cricket a bought and in this case its very easy to judge. I remember the confessions by Cronie, even before that I beleived that some part of some games is plagued by this. However, for me it never means that every player is sold and every game is a fixed one. Match fixing doesn't only surrond cricket a whole lot of sports are affected the world over. Corrupt people are found every where. Soccer is considered amongst the largest industries in Europe. Fixing is there too. You must know Juventus (Italy) among top football clubs of Europe was banned for one year as it was considered that some corruption has taken place. So fixing of matches doesn't only include Pakistani cricket.
Your statment in your first post that no body wants to play with us so we have to beg them for playing and resultantly agreeing to loose made me somewhat emotional. It is never the case, at least no results support this. Why do we forget that we were the finalist of T20 World Cup which took place just a couple of months ago. Why are memories are such short lived ones.
Vs B desh, in 1999 may be a planned or fixed one. As the results had nothing to do with Pakistan's position. But why would anyone fix the match with Ireland. That was a do or die match, why would any player take the risk of loosing such match. It could easily have been the last match for many players. At least Inzi's career ended to that defeat. Those who understand cricket may know that it was not a fixed games. Doubts may be there regarding first match with WI. I tell you one think the matches which are lost against minos or comparatively weaker teams are often considered as fixed by majority. Reason being simply the results were unexpected. Why do we forget that we are not the only team who loose to minos, our propotion is not hitgher than others. Instead letting the actions speak we let our emotions decide. You have to agree it is a fact. I have given a number of examples of upsets in my last post, and not only in cricket. We defeated Australlia in T20, nobody called that a fixed match. So whats the logic behind this thinking that only those are the fixed matches which are lost by us.
Just look at this example. India like us suffered a huge upset and were unable to qualify for next round after getting defeated by B' Desh. At least, I think that Indians can't take that risk. Getting your homes burnt and being threatened to be killed. And if they loose fame their major source of income media will also perish. Beleive you may there were many in India who blamed it to be a fixed match similar to what we did after loosing to Ireland. India defeated W. Indies in 1983 final and able to win their only ODI WC. Why didn't any of Indians call that a fixed match.
You discussed Inzi. He was not made the scape goat by the board, infact its our people who will forget every thing. He was made captain in winter of 2003. Check the stats Pakistan performance remained quite good in 2004, 5 and six. We lost badly to SA before world cup and then a consecutive first round exit in WC. This attitude of masses made Younis Khan the first man in Pakistan to deny offer for captaincy. We cant digest defeat.
Pakistan lost 4 times to India in finals. There are some suspicions that some of the players were bought before the game. If you remeber that game emotions of Amir Sohail were among the main reasons that made us to loose the game. We lost twice to India in T20 championship if you think these were fixed then ........
Negative attitudes are sometimes shown by some of the players, but only highlighted in a lost game. There are many incidences when some o the players showed totally negative attitude but still won. And similar examples for loosing a match with positive attitudes are very much there. So fixing may not be the only reason for negative or positive attitude, the day also counts.
I will not comment on the last part of your post. Just one thing ye sirf hamara masla nahin he. Hum ne bohat si files dbain same was done by USA. The case of 9/11 and the matter of weapons of mass destructions, their masses can also have and do have same regrets. The propotion is larger in our country. (this I guess has nothing to do with cricket)
Coming to those who say Pakistani team loose the matches we play and therefore we don't see cricket.
And for those who consider every game is a fixed one, they should be really thank ful to those who fix the matches as Pakistani have lost 40 percent of the matches we have played. And performance after 2000 is even better.
Matches are definitely fixed but not every match, rarely, and results and performance speak volume of the conspiracy. Not only cricket but other sports too, not only Pakistan but other countries. But it is not very difficult for those who understand game in true sense to assess. So I find the argument that "I don't watch cricket as every match Pakistan looses or every game is fixed" equvalent to closing your eyes and denying facts.
