Log In | Register
— Be brutally honest: When they dropped India's Sachin Tendulkar four times in the World Cup semifinal, who didn't wonder — however fleetingly, however unfairly — whether Pakistan's players might have been bribed?
And what about when Mohammad Hafeez gifted his wicket on a platter to Munaf Patel, with a clumsy and inept scoop so out of place in his otherwise impressive knock that included seven boundaries?
All of this is absolutely awful to think or say because there hasn't been any hint that Pakistan's players have been anything but totally honest during their World Cup run to this week's semifinal that, for 99.5 overs, allowed the subcontinent to rejoice in its shared passion and not obsess about its political and religious divides.
Nor was there the slightest indication that Hafeez give anything but his all against Pakistan's archrival in what will always be one of the biggest matches of his career.
Still, that doesn't mean that the Pakistan team is above suspicion. Not yet. Not even close. Corruption isn't like a speck of dirt. It can't just be forgotten about after a quick wipe.
Cricket can light incense sticks of gratitude that India and Sri Lanka — and not Pakistan — are playing in Saturday's World Cup final. Because it would have left a sickly feeling if Pakistan had reached the trophy match or, even worse, won the World Cup so soon after three of its players were found by the International Cricket Council to have dishonored themselves and the game.
Sometime in the future, but not now, the names Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir will hopefully have been completely erased from our memories. Sometime, but not now, we will again be able to relish a Pakistani innings for what it is, without any second-thoughts. Sometime, but not now, Pakistan will have earned total rehabilitation.
But the ink is barely dry on the five-year bans handed to Butt, Asif and Amir for allegedly conspiring with bookmakers to fix a test against England. The Court of Arbitration for Sport hasn't yet ruled on their appeals. The London court that will try them in May has not yet examined the accusations that their agent accepted 150,000 pounds ($242,000) in a tabloid sting for the deliberate no-balls the ICC says that Asif and Amir bowled, and that Butt was party to, against England last August. With those legal procedures still pending, the scandal cannot begin to be forgotten.
It is remarkable, even admirable, that Pakistan regrouped so successfully and quickly for the World Cup. The semifinal against India was amazing drama, although the political importance of the match and the ability of cricket to bridge the divisions between the nuclear-armed neighbors shouldn't be overstated. That is asking too much of any sport. A permanent peace won't break out between India and Pakistan just because their prime ministers watched the match together. Did they really have much choice? It would, after all, have been alarming and depressing had the two leaders spurned this sporting chance for a step toward detente.
So congratulations, Pakistan. That its players got so far without former captain and senior batsman Butt and without pace bowlers Asif and Amir shows the depth of talent and resilience in Pakistan cricket. It makes one wonder if Pakistan could have reached Saturday's final had the disgraced trio put their team, not themselves, first.
But I, for one, am thankful Pakistan's journey stopped where it did. When the Pakistan interior minister told Indian television before the semifinal that "the team has very clean members" — but was nevertheless being closely watched — he was acknowledging that the wounds opened by the fixing scandal are still raw.
Corruption, of course, is not a problem involving Pakistan or cricket alone. After doping, match-fixing is shaping up as the next big threat to our ability to believe what we see on the field. Which is why the five-year bans, if upheld, are not too harsh.
Now we have Sachin Tendulkar vs. Muttiah Muralitharan (crossing fingers that his aches and pains don't prevent him from playing) to get excited about on Saturday. Cricket's best batsman playing his last World Cup against its most successful wicket-taker, playing his last match for Sri Lanka.
It is a much more acceptable ending than a final with Pakistan under a cloud would have been, a romantic climax to a World Cup that has restored some faith not just in the continued relevance of 50-overs cricket but in the whole game.
___
John Leicester is an international sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jleicester(at)ap.org
