Too bad they choose to come out this early (1.5 years later)... /sarcasm
Ofcourse a few would be happy that their thoughts have been proven & I agree they have more reason to justify their stand. And yes, it does seem there is some "involvement here". But, just to point a few things, some of which makes me wonder at that "update". And why was not the email not forwarded to concerned authorities as soon as the match was almost over
😕
I agree that some news may not have passed on accurately and some of it maybe in that guys words & not what was told to him. But here I am just trying to interpret the same info & try to present an anti-review of it.
The India innings not being accurate has already been mentioned by the article. Lets take the two points there first
a) Everyone sees how close it was to 260(It was 259) - I say that by saying above 260 - he had covered himself atleast by 20-30 more runs (In other words, had India made say 285, the "fixed" claim would have STILL justified itself.
b) 3 wkts down in 15 overs - well, they clearly missed that one....
Now, lets take the Pak innings
a) Pak cruise to 100 - Ok, so what is meaning of cruise, and what does it cover....
Pak were 70/1 in 15 overs.. which is a fair word for a cruise, but they had lost 2nd wkt & had started to slow down a lot.... and needing 190 in 210 balls, scored only 30 in the next 9... a cruise? And actually going back a bit, they had scored 52/1 in 10 overs.. so scoring 48 in 14 overs(around 3.5/over) ... needing 5+ an over... A cruise? I guess I really need to revisit my definition of a cruise in a chase...
b) Loose 2 wkts & be 5 down at 150 & crumble.. - So my definition of the cruise has been altered temporarily to be synced with what they say it means. This part is really good. But 150 & then crumble, would indicate loose 2-3 wkts after 150, right? or does it mean crumble before 150? But, what happened? I mean there were steady 15-30 runs being added for each wicket till the end. That doesnt sound like a crumble to me. Again, I need to change my defintion of a crumble
c) Loose by a margin of over 20 runs.. Well if they had been bowled out for even 220, that claim would have still been valid
Now I will focus on some of the statistics these guys in the article have smoked up
a) Had Pakistan scored 115/1 in 23 overs, then lost 6-7 wkts for another 50 runs in 12 overs. and then had added 40-50 added for last 2-3 wkts which is in relatively vast difference to what actually happened. This CLAIM would have STILL held true & valid... So, in other words.. A huge base is "covered" with that vague wordings..
b) Just check the scorecard of the previous ODI between two Test nations at this same ground (skipping minnow games for bias factor) & you might be surprised at the similarities of the scorecards and how the match seemed to have progressed..
4th ODI: India v Australia at Mohali, Nov 2, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
And ofcourse, now the scorecard infamous one under fire
2nd Semi-Final: India v Pakistan at Mohali, Mar 30, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Once again, my personal view is that a few odd people could have been influenced, but will not agree that the 22 who walked out (or even more than 4-5) knew beforehand what is going to happen or what they have to do as a fix.
