In Part One of this article, we looked at Australia’s batting and Akmal’s fumbles in the third innings of the Sydney Test, and dug up a few previously overlooked details that shed new light on the matter.
Now we come to the fourth innings and Pakistan’s collapse, through what the SMH called “a series of suicidal shots”. And there are some questionable ones.
Every player was out caught, for one.
Imran Farhat checked a tame drive to mid-off, Misbah patted a cut straight to gully. The tail went down scything. Umar Akmal’s was the dodgiest top-order effort, a wild heave at a good ball from Doug Bollinger that skewed straight up in the air.
“Pakistan began the chase well, but lost wickets in clusters, a pattern similar to their failed, low-total chases in Sri Lanka and New Zealand last year,” wrote Pakistan expert Osman Samiuddin.
On this basis, the case for the fix looks strong.
But Yousuf’s shot, at least, gives the opposite impression. Yes, he was caught, but he hammered such a ferocious drive at Nathan Haurtiz that it split the bowler’s hand open, and it was only by utter fluke that Hauritz managed to cling onto it. Samiuddin’s report called it a “special return catch.”
To the observer, it looked like the captain wanted to take charge of the innings, deny the opposition’s key bowler a chance to settle, and knock off a few quick runs in the process, only too aware of the ‘mental frailty’ of his team being exposed in the chase. It looked anything but the action of a man giving his wicket away.
And gone unnoticed in all the alleging is this. Salman Butt is the only top-order batsman who we know for certain to be involved in corruption.
And yet when he was given out LBW by umpire Rod Tucker with his score on 21, the batsman actually referred the decision. True story. The video umpire overturned his dismissal, and Butt continued batting. If he wanted to throw the match, why on earth would he protest being given out?
The umpire would have done him a favour.
Then, when he was genuinely dismissed, it was to the catch of the summer by Brad Haddin. Butt glanced well down the leg side, destined for the boundary, only to see Haddin pull out a full-stretch Superman dive and catch the ball after it had already passed him. Try setting that up on purpose.
Later in the match, Sami was given not out after nicking behind, this time forcing the Australians to a referral. Again, if they were throwing the match, why didn’t he walk?
In all, four batsmen were out caught behind. If batsmen in general find it hard to hit a clean cover drive deliberately, what makes us think they could nick to the keeper at will either?
And if the lower order aren’t able to find the boundary at will, can they plan to pick out a man in the deep?
As for Umar, why get out for his first-innings score of 49? Is it stupid to suggest that having got that far, he might have at least been inclined to notch a half-century before falling on his sword?
And were they fixers, the slogging that he and the bowlers employed could backfire. With the final margin only 36 runs, it would just take a bit of ‘bad luck’ to have a few heaves find the boundary. Wouldn’t they be more inclined to spoon one to the infield, or play round a yorker?
It’s a shame that Mohammad Asif didn’t face a ball at No. 11, because his batting may have been illuminating.
Lastly is the matter of team make-up.
Majeed claimed he had seven players in his pocket. Even if true, it’s not clear if this is in the current Test team, the wider squad, the Sydney team, or just international cricket in general.
Amir did not play in Sydney. So even if six players in the team were crooked (unlikely given Pakistan’s frequent selection changes) that still leaves five players who weren’t. If we follow the media assumption that the crooks included Asif, Akmal, and Kaneria, that means at least three of the straight men were top-order batsmen.
And don’t forget that final margin of 36 runs. A bit dicey to put thousands of dollars on the line when one half-decent cameo from one legitimate batsman could blow the fix away. This could even explain some of the run-out ‘mix-ups’ we’ve seen over the years.
So was it rigged, or is Majeed just trying to fool the reporter?
There were certainly dodgy moments, and revelations of spot-fixes would be no surprise, but an overall fix just doesn’t fly.
Akmal’s drops came well outside the time-frame nominated by the match-fixer himself. The various referrals don’t add up. And for the reasons given here and in part one, Yousuf looks the least likely to have been involved. While fixing the overall result without the captain’s help would be possible, it’d be a much tougher ask.
But still, “Australia, any Australia side, still know how to win, and more importantly they know how not to throw matches away,” wrote Samiuddin at the time, in his sad obituary for an opportunity lost. Whether a few of his team’s players more literally threw one away is something that we’ll probably never know for certain.
The only way we can be sure is if the fix is proved. But it’s impossible to prove that it wasn’t fixed. So if it really wasn’t, then public skepticism will continue.
This is the sad part, that the performances in that match won’t ever be entirely free of mutterings. The efforts of Hussey, Siddle and Hauritz will always have asterisks.
Even if they didn’t fix it, the fixers have done their damage all the same.
==
Read part 1 of this compelling analysis by Geoff Lemon.
While a premature retirement isn’t the solution, he or England want, he may be forced into it if he can’t maintain a long run of matches.
Check out some of the short-arm pull shots from Rocky Flintoff!
Harshal Patel was not a happy man!
David Lord has been remembered as an icon of Australian sports journalism following his death, aged 84. The renowned writer and broadcaster was an…
Sign the man up for a contract next season!
A brutal century by Travis Head has blasted Sunrisers Hyderabad back into the Indian Premier League play-off places in another match for bowlers to…
