A number of people have complained about the lack of an opinion from me about the farce that was the result of the Oval test and its aftermath. The biggest reason I've refrained from airing my views is that there's two sides to this argument and there's enough worthy proponents of both. My opinion will only add to the clutter (something this particular Corporate Slave has learnt is the bane of an advertiser’s existence) and will ultimately be worthless because of my own personal irrelevance as a sportswriter.

That said, Inzi was right, Sheheryar Khan's attempt at hard-line diplomacy wasn't enough, Zaheer Abbass is inept as Team Manager and we should be glad Wasim, Javed or Imran weren't captain of the side.

Let's tackle each opinion individually.

Had Pakistan been captained by anyone other than Inzimam, especially if it was Javed Miandad as pointed by an English sportswriter, this situation would have been handled in a much more violent and volatile manner. Accusations of cheating plagued Pakistan for years and were largely ignored by the players on-field. Yet, when they did manifest themselves on the playing pitch, they were sheepishly acknowledged or silently refuted. Yet, under the leadership of the Serene and Calm One, instances such as Afridi in Faisalabad became issues of integrity. Shahid Afridi's performances, stellar as they were during the year before the pitch-dance, came crashing down. Where he had insisted himself in every interview that Inzi's confidence in him had helped bring along the proficiency, it was obvious that Inzi's displeasure had the opposite effect.

So, when Inzi reacts to these charges of cheating the way he did, it's obvious that he had faith in his players and trusted them enough to accept that they had not committed the Cardinal Cricketing Sin. Otherwise, he would have been the first to punish, albeit privately. His father-figure attitude holds this team together and that has been the formula for success of late. No other captain in recent history has had quite that paternal a relationship with the rest of the team. Dissenters were present even in Imran Khan's '92 camp.

Which leads me on to the next issue: Inzimam was right in doing what he did. Whether Pakistan refused to play or whether this was a misunderstanding and umpire Hair’s resultant decision to be an ass (or continue to be one), the captain and team management taking a stand on behalf of the entire team is only the next step up in the progressive development of the Pakistan outfit as a unified, all-for-one bunch of cricketers. If you look at all the high-achieving teams in history the one common feature is this support from management and a well-respected captain. Cowdry, Border, Ranatunga, Waugh and even Vaughn and the much-maligned Douglas Jardine have all shown the same ability to stand behind their players and support and guide them through every crisis. That is what Inzimam is doing now. It’s an attitude that says, “Let no man fall alone.”

Sheheryar Khan’s interview at the end of the fourth day was also proof of the support that management is giving to the players and their chosen leader. He clearly stated that Hair was an ass, that Pakistan was willing to play and that PCB and Pakistan have serious issue with being officiated by an ass. Although, despite these words, the actions of the PCB boss left a bad taste. He shouldn’t have intervened when he did at the Oval. He should have maintained that this was not a management issue yet and, therefore, he could not step in as mediator.

The management of this situation should have been done by the man assigned the job for the tour, a certain well-respected, formerly swashbuckling batsman who’s made many an English bowler suffer the flashing blade he wielded. Zaheer Abbass, no klutz with words himself and never one to not hold an opinion, should have gone to the match referee and informed him of the Pakistan protest, or of the refusal to play. As team manager on tour, I would assume that was part of his job. I might of course be wrong.

The stance taken by Pakistan, whether anyone agrees with it or not, is a matter of principle. If Pakistan are to bend, they are implicitly accepting that Hair’s decision – to change the ball, allow the batsmen to choose the new one and penalizing Pakistan – to accuse Pakistan of cheating was correct.

In the past, with Pakistan’s colourful history, such a capitulation might have happened. I’d be most surprised if it happens today.

I know I haven’t directly addressed the issue of what happened and who is to blame. That is a matter of personal bias and is more about who you’re willing to believe. 26 Sky Sports cameras and all, we don’t know exactly what happened in the middle or in the dressing room after. What we do know is laced with bias depending on which way we lean. By sanctioning Inzi’s actions and vilifying The Walking Chin, I’ve shown which direction I’m leaning.


ps. -- is this a long enough opinion for you cribbers?