Pakistan match-fixing claims:
ECB has no option but to carry on in this new Salem
That doesn’t mean they are there and until there has been a thorough investigation into last Friday’s one-day international at the Oval, and hard evidence of misdeeds produced, those calling for the tour to be cancelled are doing cricket almost as much a disservice as the illegal bookmakers.
Without compelling proof, the England and Wales Cricket Board had little choice but to carry on despite criticism that it was putting profit before cricket’s increasingly battered reputation. If the game’s reputation is at risk, then the International Cricket Council must take the lead and cancel the tour, though it or the Pakistan Cricket Board must compensate the ECB.
If Giles Clarke had pulled the plug before the final two NatWest Series matches, it would have cost English cricket £4 million for having done nothing more than keeping extended their helping hand to Pakistan in the latter’s time of need. Whether that hand remains proffered now that Ijaz Butt, the chairman of PCB, has implicated England players after presumably having his puppet strings pulled from above, may become more apparent at Lord’s on Monday when the fourth ODI between the teams is played.
When you are in an information vacuum, which most of us are when it comes to the murky world of illegal gambling on the subcontinent, the unthinkable suddenly becomes plausible as banalities grow heads.
So with every dismissal and dot ball taking on new meaning in the new Salem, what about the suggestion doing the rounds on Sunday that gamblers in India had taken a huge bet on the series being called off?
As one who played against international cricketers the thing I struggle to get my head around is how easy manipulating a scoreboard is being painted. If, as has been suggested, an illegal bookie offers a bet that 52 runs will be made in a 10-over period, with prospective punters waging whether it will be more or less, then it is obviously a huge advantage to know whether or not that target will be reached. But how can batsmen be certain of controlling that when a bowler like James Anderson is nibbling the new ball around in English conditions?
A deliberate no-ball is the conscious act of one man, but tailoring a score would be subject to many variables.
There simply cannot be a guarantee. Quick wickets could result, forcing consolidation, which is what happened at the Oval on Friday, while on another day unintended edges could result in boundaries. If the fix is more subtle and complex than that, then how do batsmen cope with the various outcomes cluttering their mind while facing a top notch bowler? It is certainly not a given, which means there must be a high failure rate.
Whether the cricket-loving public will continue to remain patient is another matter and these last two matches will be a good litmus test of their robustness, as well as that of the game. It is still something for them and England’s players to get their heads around the fact that Pakistan’s batsmen were allegedly underperforming, yet still managed to win the game.
To act decisively, bodies like the police or ICC need incontrovertible proof, preferably with joined-up paper trails from the bookie to the player, a forlorn hope in the betting underworld of Asia.
Essex police have charged Mervyn Westfield with conspiracy to defraud after he bowled poorly in a televised match between Essex and Durham last year, and most in cricket will be watching closely to see if guilt can be established. And yet there is the feeling, even if he is successfully prosecuted, that the big fish in all of this will always swim free.
