19 October, 2000

Hi, all....

I don't know about you, but over the past couple of days, I've found a certain Lord McLaurin very much on my mind. Vis a vis his comments about the Pakistan players, and his suggestion, for want of a stronger word, that they should be sacked forthwith.

It is the timing that amazes you -- if McLaurin wants us to believe in his father-figure image, and buy into his argument that he is the apostle of a clean game, why then did he wait until the Test series between England and Pakistan to voice this demand? Why not all these months, when Pakistan was playing Sri Lanka, and more recently, when participating in the ICC Knockout tournament?

There is no reason to believe that McLaurin's activism stems from any motive other than the desire to upset the home side in the upcoming series, and give his own team an edge. And worse, his recent statements are of a piece with the brown versus white divide in international cricket.

This affair was meant to be the theme of today's email diary. But then, Amir Husain, a friend of long standing, sent me this copy of an article written by Simon Barnes. Which, I find, spells out the problem, in brilliant fashion.

So, instead of my own thoughts, today's mail contains the text of that article. And as always, I'd love to know what you think. ------------------------------- Cricketing aristocracy still trying to lord it over Pakistan

By Simon Barnes

NOW hear a plain fact. Foreign johnnies do not see themselves as failed Englishmen. Now hear another. Foreign johnnies do not believe that Englishmen are, like the Pope, infallible. They might even feel that an Englishman who believed himself to be infallible was a tiny bit out of touch with modern life. And if the Englishman in question was also a peer of the realm, they might just feel seriously angry. Will someone tell me just exactly what it was that Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth, the ECB chairman, thought he was doing? I mean, you don't walk in on a married couple who have been going through a sticky patch and say: Hi! Isn't it time you stopped bonking the milkman? MacLaurin has shown the same epic scale of tact.

England landed in Pakistan for the first Test-match tour since the on-pitch row between Mike Gatting, then the England captain, and the umpire, Shakoor Rana, provoked a diplomatic incident in 1987. So MacLaurin's brilliant intervention, carefully timed to coincide with the team's arrival, was to say that Pakistan's top player, Wasim Akram, should be suspended from international cricket because he is suspected of being -- suspected, please note, not proved to be -- involved in match-fixing.

Proof? As if one needs proof with a Pakistani! That is the implication of MacLaurin's statement, and it has landed on the sub-continent like the aristocratic and colonial arrogance of another age.

So much for new starts and new brooms and a new caring, sharing cricketing community. In one leap of ineptitude, an ineptitude so crass it was almost innocent, MacLaurin has brought relations between the cricketing powers back to the Dark Ages.

Gatting's famous loss of temper with Shakoor told one story and one story only: that of an Englishman's total inability to accept a Pakistani as a figure of authority. MacLaurin's intervention comes straight from the same source.

Just in case anybody had missed the point -- that it was the fault of the Pakistanis -- the England players, on their return home from that 1987 tour, were given £1,000 a man hardship bonus. Your country is so bloody awful that we have to pay compensation for those unfortunate enough to go. So there!

Then there was ball-tampering. These days, England is proud to have bowlers who can make the ball reverse-swing. A few years ago only the Pakistanis could do this, and so they were obviously cheating. The Sunday Telegraph called them The Pariahs of Cricket. This regardless of the fact that ball-tampering is as old a tradition in county cricket as the tea interval. Ah, but it's all right if our chaps do it -- they're characters. When Pakistanis do it, they're cheats.

It all comes down to the perfectly extraordinary nature of Pakistani cricket. The Pakistan side marches to a different music. An outsider can only dimly begin to understand what is going on. I wish that some Pakistani C. L. R. James would write his country's version of Beyond A Boundary. I would love to have a closer understanding of what cricket means on an individual, a national, a racial basis in Pakistan, all the issues that James threw light on for West Indies. But alas, cricket's most enthralling book is yet to be written.

The Pakistan side always has that element of danger. It doesn't matter who is in the team, it always seems that the normal mechanism for control does not exist. No Pakistan side ever acts as you expect.

This makes them the most thrillingly watchable side in cricket. You do not know whether they will come together in an explosion of sumptuous talent, or whether they will collapse like a soufflé. Cornered tigers, or cornered chickens. They might be majestic; they might tear an opponent in half; they might tear each other in half. You just don't know.

That tremendously un-English volatility seems to gnaw at the English soul. The English find it almost impossible to deal with. An excitable kind of mob, that wise and perceptive traveller, Phil Tufnell, said. They've always had talent, but they're like 11 women. You know, they're all scratching each other's eyes out. This from Ian Botham, clearly using the worst insult he could think up.

The fact is that Pakistanis are not only different to the English, but they really don't mind. They don't see their culture clash with the English as a personal and national failing, they suspect that there might be problems on the English side as well. Like arrogance and xenophobia and Islamophobia, just for starters.

Meanwhile, the England captain has been dealing with the situation in a boot-faced, professional sportsman kind of way -- he's just taking each match as it comes and politics aren't really his concern. I am not bothered about what happened in past series, he said.

It's a familiar riff, but perhaps it's the best way to play it. It's a tough task ahead of him, but he might just be up to it. Oh, I seem to have forgotten to mention the England captain's name. It is Nasser Hussain -- an ancient English name. He's one of the Essex Hussains, I believe. Perhaps we have made some progress since 1987. -------------------------------------------------

In passing, one further thought. Even as McLaurin prepares to go before the ICC executive and continue his harangue against Pakistan cricket, maybe he needs to be reminded of a few things that appear to have escaped his notice.

One: The ICC has appointed a former police commissioner, Paul Congdon (McLaurin's own recommendation, in fact), to play watchdog. And that obviates the need for McLaurin, and others of his ilk, to play moral policeman.

Two: A certain Chris Lewis had not so long ago accused three British players of being on the take. An 'inquiry' was conducted, behind closed doors. The report was buried, and a clean chit was issued, to the effect that there is no match-fixing, betting, bribery, et cetera in English cricket, amen! The whole process was orchestrated by, surprise, surprise, Lord McLaurin himself. And said peer of the British realm has, thus far, steadfastly refused to release the minutes of the inquiry. Seems a reach, then, for him to teach others how to run their affairs -- what if Pakistan were to turn around and say, fine, we won't play with you until you make public the names Chris Lewis mentioned to you, and your own inquiry findings.

Three: Lord McLaurin, incidentally, was the chappie who went hammer and tongs at David Richards, when it was proved that the ICC secretary was lying when he said Jagmohan Dalmiya was not involved in certain contractual negotiations. 'Deceiving the press and public is a crime, I will ask for the full details and the relevant paperwork, and if necessary, see that action is taken against Richards,' said this gent. The paperwork involved, containing proof positive that Richards WAS in fact lying, that Dalmiya WAS in fact involved in the negotiations, were received by him a little over three months ago. But the worthy peer of the realm hasn't said a word since. Maybe this is cynical -- but could it be that McLaurin breathed fire and brimstone at the time only because he saw in it a way to target Dalmiya, but now that the Indian is no longer head of the ICC, he is content to let sleeping dogs, and liars, lie?

Four: McLaurin was the man who, at the height of the match-fixing scandal, bitterly lashed out at the various masala ODIs played around the world. It was he who said that there should be no ODI tournaments without their quota of Tests attached, that the only exceptions should be the World Cup and the ICC knockout tournament. And it was the same McLaurin who, almost immediately thereafter, suggested to the boards of India and Pakistan that they play a head to head series of one dayers on England soil? Why? Because the ECB's treasury was empty, because not enough people are prepared to see England play, and therefore McLaurin hoped to cash in on the large numbers of Indians and Pakistanis in England, as a means to bring some money into English cricket.

I donno about Wasim Akram -- but if there was any justice in this world, then Lord McLaurin would be the one under the gun, for his arrogance, and his intemperate comments.

Have a good day all, be back with you tomorrow....

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor