Did England trigger the ball row?
Derek Pringle, the former England medium-pacer who's currently the chief cricket correspondent of the Daily Telegraph , says England could well have triggered the ball-tampering row
Sriram Veera
25-Feb-2013
Daily Telegraph
Derek Pringle, the former England medium-pacer who's currently the chief cricket correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, says England could well have triggered the ball-tampering row. He writes that Duncan Fletcher, England's coach, had visited match referee Mike Procter before the start of Sunday's climactic play at The Oval.
A spokesman for the England and Wales Cricket Board, James Avery, admitted Fletcher spoke with Procter before play but denied he had made a 'specific complaint about the state of the ball'. Yet sources close to the team have revealed that Fletcher did play agent provocateur, a role that probably influenced Darrell Hair's decision to pull Pakistan up for ball-tampering in the 56th over of England's second innings.
The Guardian's Mike Selvey fears the Anglo-Pakistan relations could be hit if it turns out that Fletcher had indeed alerted the officials.
If it was established that England had indeed prompted the umpires' investigation, it would throw back Anglo-Pakistan relations by a decade. It might further draw comment on whether they themselves were speaking from the high moral ground when it was their mastery of reverse swing, often as early as the 30th over of an innings, which helped win the Ashes and drew admiration. Suggestions that this was aided by the use of sugar-infused saliva from sweets has not been proved, but it is a wonder that a number of England players still have their own teeth.
Mark Nicholas fears The Oval farce could result in reverse swing being clouded forever in suspicion. He has a nice little anecdote on how David Shepherd handled Aquib Javed when the umpire suspected the ball's condition was altered in a county match.
Mike Marqusee feels that Pakistan's stand at the Oval is a salutary reminder that cricket is a game stamped by empire - and resistance to it.
Simon Barnes, of the Times, has ripped into Darrell Hair, saying a series that had exemplified all that is good about cricket was ended by one man’s vanity.
He will also argue that he was standing up for the laws of cricket when he stopped the match and refused to restart it. If you read the laws, you will find that he is right. If you park on a double yellow line for two minutes outside the chemist to get some urgent medication for your dying wife, the policeman who fines you is also acting according to the law. He is also acting without humanity and common sense.
Ted Corbett, writing in The Hindu, desribes how Bob Woolmer made his players swear on Koran that they had not indulged in ball-tampering.
John Woodcock says Hair lost the plot at the Brit Oval on Sunday.
Roy Hattersley's editorial in the Daily Times comes down heavily on the commentators:
... they take refuge in talk about sensitivity and obligations to the paying public. Their response to Monday’s events at the Oval was demeaning because it lacked courage as well as logic.
Sriram Veera is a former staff writer at ESPNcricinfo