Okay. I admit that most (well all) of my criticism has so far been aimed at Darrell Hair, but I am coming around to the view that the Pakistanis too should take some blame for the Oval fiasco. Peter Roebuck has roused himself from his winter slumber to call for a plague on the houses of Hair and al-Haq, but I suspect it is coach Bob Woolmer and not Inzamam who should be coping blame on the Pakistani side of the fence. When Hair signalled that the Pakistanis had cheated, Inzamam protested but play continued. It was only once the teams went in for lunch that a decision to strike was made. And at that point coach Woolmer was likely to have had more influence than captain Inzy. And even if the strike was Inzamam's call, then Woolmer should have had the power and influence to over-rule it.
And, as another previously hibernating cricket writer, Richard Boock, points out Woolmer has a rather unsavoury history - which spans an apartheid era tour of South Africa and a stint as coach of South Africa during the most sordid part of Hansie Cronje's reign. Boock also alleges that Woolmer is arrogant and pompous.
So perhaps this is a story of two egos clashing? Two arrogant and pompous figures both convinced that not only were they right in their decisions, but convinced that nobody else has the right to judge them.
Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Here's a reaction on Cricinfo. Notice which Test country is omitted from the list of countries Hair can and cannot umpire in:
But the former Australian umpire Dick French told The Australian it won't be that simple. "It's a tricky one," he said. "If the Asian bloc gangs up on him and says 'We don't want him appointed in our games' there might be trouble. He can't umpire Australia as a neutral, so he can't then just umpire South Africa, the West Indies and England for the rest of his career."
It must be the whole trousers thing. New Zealand are still holding it against him.
Post a Comment