Osman Samiuddin

[khanjib]

I am starting to believe that this guy has got some personal grudges against the Pakistani team. This article does'nt make sense especially after a day that turned out to be good for us.

Osman Samiuddin

August 6, 2006


There's a couple of ways of looking at Inzamam-ul-Haq's dismissal just before tea. Either he was on a personal mission to balance out the less than effusive praise Monty Panesar received from Duncan Fletcher (his previous dismissal at Old Trafford strengthens this). Or it can be argued that as long as it is hurled out of a left-arm and has some tweak on it, Pakistani batsmen will succumb to a watermelon (again see Inzamam's previous dismissal).

You can also, of course, put it down to his uncanny, and unwanted, ability to find ways to get out, as Younis Khan laughingly pointed out afterwards (though he smartly denied the laughing). And that is forgetting the run-outs earlier in his career that have, a little unfairly, hounded him: he has only been run out six times in 185 innings. The last Test , where the ball looped off his foot to the fielder was one, but India will remember his obstructing the field at Peshawar earlier this year. English fans will remember the more controversial run out at Faisalabad late last year. There is also another hit-wicket dismissal, in Morocco, to South Africa's Justin Ontong, when he clobbered a six over midwicket only to trod on his stumps - much to Mark Boucher's amusement.

It's unfortunate but you take it as part of the Inzamam experience - mostly a lot of class and occasionally a little comedy. His dismissal was, though, part of a collapse which highlights the extent of their reliance on the big three of Inzamam, Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan. On either side of them, on this tour especially, a different game altogether has been played. Where five of England's top six have made a hundred in the series, only one Pakistani fifty - Kamran Akmal at Lord's - has come from outside the middle three. As much as the lack of bite in their bowling, that failing has haunted them in this series.

Sadly, for Pakistani supporters, the collapse ultimately dimmed any of the more audacious hopes they may have harboured from Pakistan in this match. With Younis and Inzamam at the crease, Pakistan 68 behind and seven wickets in hand, a substantial lead and the prospect of putting pressure on England for the first time in the series was tangible. Disappointment though is a relative emotion. Yesterday, if you offered Pakistan any type of lead - even the slim one they eventually got - they would gladly have accepted it. In that context, Pakistan's resistance efforts today deserve considerable praise.

But it's surprising how quickly the progress of two years is forgotten in the wake of one poor result. There is no hiding from how awful Pakistan were at Old Trafford. But similarly there should be no escaping from their ability in that time to come back from such disasters. From some of the sentiments expressed though, you'd think Pakistan were a side worried about their Test status. Locally, reactions were typically emotional; the foreign coach and his equally foreign laptop have been targeted, as has Inzamam's captaincy and the lack of depth of Pakistan's pace attack (if anyone can name a side in recent memory that has plugged the absence of three first-choice strike bowlers with success, do send in an email - Pakistanis should know given the struggles they faced without Wasim and Waqar on occasion).

It didn't get too much better in England; their batsmen were accused of lacking courage and after day two here, one broadsheet writer concluded "Barring a minor disaster, England ought to wrap this Test up some time late tomorrow and go to The Oval in considerably better spirits than at the start of the summer." It's as if Bangalore, Jamaica, Multan, Karachi have all been whitewashed from collective memory.

The more rational assessment is this; if Pakistan can draw this Test - all possibilities remain open still - it isn't the end of the world. With Mohammad Asif set to return, accompanied possibly by Shoaib Akhtar, for the final Test, their chances of taking 20 wickets and a possible spoil of the series increase manifold. And ultimately, as England discovered themselves on their recent injury-ravaged tour to India, that won't be such a poor result.

[Schiller]

Almost appears as if he wasn't in the mood to write but had to because it was part of the day's work. What is he on about here?

[cavin420]

he is clearly disapointed like the rest of us, hence that shows in his article way too much for my liking.

[Schiller]

Not disappointed at all. Why should we be disappointed?

[shan]

Originally Posted by Schiller Not disappointed at all. Why should we be disappointed?

We should be disappointed because from 399/2 to 538 all out which could have been even worst if not for Kaneria batting.

[Schiller]

As I said in anothe rthread, historically, teams almost always bundle out quickly once a mammoth partnership is broken. Shouldn't be surprising at all.

[TaZ]

It can be disappointing if you see the "68 runs behind and 7 wickets in hand" sentance. We should have made 650+ but we should save this test but we have possibly thrown away a golden chance to win it?

[khanjib]

Our total could have been worst

[Mercenary]

Has anybody actually read the article?

He begins by talking about Inzamam's often comical and unusual dismissals. Then he correctly berates the fact that apart from the big 3 our batting is nothing short of hit and miss. Then he laments on the missed opportunity of putting England under pressure for the first time in the series, which is something we should all be thinking after we were only 70-ish behind with only 3 wickets down.

Finally he voices his surprise on how quickly fans and commentators have forgotten the way Pakistan have come back from near impossible situations under Woolmer. He feels everyone is over reacting to the Old Trafford loss.

In fact overall it was quite a balanced and sensible article which ended on a positive note!!

[Schiller]

Without bothering to read the article(really?), as I said before, what is he on about.

[kablooee87]

I have no problem with the article at all. Atleast he backs up his claims with some facts. I don't understand why you would think he has a grudge against the Pakistani team, especially after reading the last 3 paragraphs. He talks about how everyone else is fogetting about all the prgress this team has made and that he believe Pakistan have it in them to fight back.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 I don't understand why you would think he has a grudge against the Pakistani team, especially after reading the last 3 paragraphs. He talks about how everyone else is fogetting about all the prgress this team has made and that he believe Pakistan have it in them to fight back.

I dont think anyone actually read the article before making their comments!!

[atti]

The article was ery balanced and criticises the attitude of Pakisani fans who are quick to blame the team for one collapse in a long time. In fact, he says that one must make allowances for a team that is missing three strike bowlers and that we can still draw the series.

Read the articles you quote thoroughly.

[infamous9383]

OS is pakistani writer and fan so he probably wasnt in the best of moods when writing this about big man inzi

[Officer Barbrady]

Not a fan of his writing.

Prefer to just read the match report if I miss the day's play.

[Schiller]

That's because you didn't read the article Marooned.

[octavian]

Originally Posted by Mercenary Has anybody actually read the article? He begins by talking about Inzamam's often comical and unusual dismissals. Then he correctly berates the fact that apart from the big 3 our batting is nothing short of hit and miss. Then he laments on the missed opportunity of putting England under pressure for the first time in the series, which is something we should all be thinking after we were only 70-ish behind with only 3 wickets down. Finally he voices his surprise on how quickly fans and commentators have forgotten the way Pakistan have come back from near impossible situations under Woolmer. He feels everyone is over reacting to the Old Trafford loss. In fact overall it was quite a balanced and sensible article which ended on a positive note!!

my sentimenst exactly

[bakarashi]

Although there was nothing wrong with the current column, in general the writer has a record of changing his perspective with respect to a character as immediately as changes her colour a chemelion. I would recommend to read his meditation on Inzimam, to be replaced with Toufeeq umar as captain, following the 2004 series loss to India, and then another one on the same man in the wake of Historic victoric over England, where he seemed to be idolizing.

[akpower]

Good article once again. Osman is my fav cricinfo writer. Dunno what the fuss is abt. Its as if since that article about religion and Pak team, some people have made a habit of criticizing his articles.

[bakarashi]

You are wrong suggesting the change in some people's view on Your favourite writer came into vision after his any particular writing. I am critic of his erratic course of moods, usually adpated just in accordance with the changing perfomance of the players. Three years back he regards Inzimam as worthless as to be immolated for Toufeeq Umar, a guy whom it might take a century to match only one of the uncountable innings the former has played, ironically he deified the same man as salvaging Hero of nation; because this time Our captain helped snatch huge victory. Question is does the writer have his own any opinon, or he write on others' mood????

[Socrates]

This criticism of Osman is unfair. Writing is all about mood, and moods change. Writers can change their mood and their view. Let him be.

[offcutter]

I thought the article was positive, especialy the second half; he reminds us of all our great comebacks and that we should be grateful that our 2nd string bowlers are performing as they are.

[KA$H]

personally i look fwd to his summations of the days play - even if i've been watching the game

[Pakola]

Originally Posted by KA$H personally i look fwd to his summations of the days play - even if i've been watching the game

Yeah i make it a point of reading his verdict of the day's play as well. He definetely better than adequate and seems to say everything relevant. And after the way he lashed out at Darrel Hair nobody can excuse him of being anti-Pak.
NOTHING wrong with this article. He mentiions the good with the bad. And EVEN if Pakistan regularly collapses after a big partnership that does not mean we should stop being dissapointed about it as someone suggested.

[umairk7]

i think the article is pretty good

[Big Mac]

Osman is basically the best Pakistani crikeet writer out there. Anyone who even thinks of saying Kamran Abbassi comes close to him needs a slap.

[Socrates]

The slap is on you Mr Big Mac. Osman is good but he is a learner, not a master.

[Serendipity]

Osman is a good journo. However at atimes, he can get carried awa, LIKE ALL OF US.

He is right in what he is saying that except the middle three, we are a crappy batting side? is this not true, also going on that .....fight back is left in Team Pak etc.

I think he was disaapointed like me yetsreday that we missed THE OPPORTUNITY TO BAT THEM OUT OF THE GAME YESTERDAY!

[bakarashi]

I am sorry, he most of the time seems to be riding on whim. He is man who hardly has grip on his views, in the morning he stands in the east, by evening you will find him in the west.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by bakarashi I am sorry, he most of the time seems to be riding on whim. He is man who hardly has grip on his views, in the morning he stands in the east, by evening you will find him in the west.

I don't know if you realised this but....

He is Pakistani.