When is match-fixing not rigging?

[Maranello]

Recently, Shoaib Malik and his Sialkot team deliberately lost a match to Karachi in the Pakistani 20-20 Cup. If Malik's side had won that match, Lahore would have progressed to the semis. If Malik's side lost, Lahore would have been eliminated and Karachi would have gone through. With me so far?

Okay, so in a previous match between Sialkot and Lahore, the game was 'awarded' to Lahore, even though Sialkot won on the day. According to Malik, this was due to some pressure being exerted on the match referee by the tournament sponsors, who wanted to see Lahore, the biggest team, in the semis. Sialkot is after all a small town, not much in it for the sponsors!

Hence, to make a point against what he perceived as deliberate and illegal intervention to stop his Sialkot side, Malik decided to take a public stand; not only did they throw the next game from a winning position, he admitted as much in the after-match awards ceremony. A visibly shaken and contrite Malik later apologised for his actions and admitted his errors. He has subsequently been banned for one Test by the PCB.

For me, any match-fixing is wrong, whether done for cash rewards a la Hansie Cronje and Azharudding, or to make a moral/political point, as in this case. There must have been other more sensible ways to bring this issue to the world's attention, without resorting to match-fixing. Hence, I can see no justification for his actions, and am happy to see his apology. Also, it is refreshing to see PCB being stern in this matter.

However, questions for all of us:

1. Should misdemeanours in the domestic game lead to penalties at the Test level?

2. Can match-fixing ever be justified? What if there are strong moral arguments for it, and many political benefits to be gained from it?

3. Can Shoaib Malik still be considered as a FPC (Future Pakistan Captain), to take over once Younis Khan has retired?

[Maranello]

From cricinfo:

Shoaib Malik has been given a one-Test ban after he admitted deliberately losing the domestic Twenty20 match between Sialkot Stallions and Karachi Zebras. He engineered the result so that Sialkot lost the match, thinking it would knock the Lahore Eagles out of the tournament. Malik will miss the first Test against West Indies in Barbados, starting on May 26.

However the committee did recognise that his actions were not part of any match-fixing with no financial implications, but were an immature attempt to express his disappointment at earlier decisions in the competition that he felt went against his side.

[Occasional Fan]

My feeling is that there can never be justification for fixing a match. It's difficult to prove that it happened sometimes, but in this case the culprit was daft enough to talk to the press about how clever he was after the event. He deserved to have the book thrown at him, and I think a one test ban probably doesn't quite constitute book-throwing. I have no objection at all to sanctions for offences in one form of the game being applied in such a way that other forms are affected. For example, when Sourav Ganguly was given a two-test ban for his repeated offences regarding over rates in ODIs, I had no objection to that (the ban was overturned on appeal, of course). It works perfectly well in rugby union, where suspensions are generally handed out for periods of time rather than by reference to matches, and if the period of time means that you miss your club's last league games of the season and a domestic cup final and an international or two, well - so be it: just gives more time for the sinner to reflect on his sins. I suppose the counter-argument is that Pakistan is being punished here for Shoaib Malik's actions, but I don't really buy that. The sanction is against the player, and no player should be allowed to think himself indispensible at any level.

As to the question of future captaincy, I don't think this incident should affect Shoaib Malik's chances. He slipped up; got caught; has been penalised; and will serve the penalty. That should close the issue and in due course he should be rehabilitated.

[Zainub]

1. Should misdemeanours in the domestic game lead to penalties at the Test level?

If they (misdemeanours i.e.) are serious enough, then yes. By the way, I actually think this is quite a calculated move by the PCB, Shoaib Malik was hardly ever going to be selected for the first test against WI anyway - he's much mroe an intergral part of the one-day side then the test side. In banning him for 1 test rather then 1 ODI, they PCB have tried to kill two birds with one stone - get the impression through that that they are not soft on any such issues and at the same time not affect the Pakistan team either. Smart thinking I have to admit.

2. Can match-fixing ever be justified? What if there are strong moral arguments for it, and many political benefits to be gained from it?

I have a zero tollerence level for any match fixing regardless of circumstances. And I strongly believe that should also be the case at all levels of the administered game.

3. Can Shoaib Malik still be considered as a FPC (Future Pakistan Captain), to take over once Younis Khan has retired?

When the time comes we can think about that. But I tend to agree with OF, I'm now starting to realise Malik's action where more done in the heat of the moment then with the genuine evil intent of bring the game into disripute or anything like that. I think he regrets his actions and that probably gives him a clean bill for the future.

[Maranello]

Yes I agree Zainub, the fact that he has apologised and shown genuine(?) remorse is a positive development. I do think that this move will hurt Pakistan, albeit to a limited extent only, since Inzamam is suspended for the first Test against WI, and Malik would have been the obvious replacement; a solid middle-order bat who can bowl a bit too. Now as both Malik and Inzi are out of contention, Yasir Hameed is certain to get a recall for the first Test, and I am not too unhappy about that either.

[King Aragorn]

I too am of the opinion that this incident should in no way harm Malik's future. And I don't think it will either. Inzamam was also thinking on similar lines that the lad has made one mistake and has apologised for it and will surely learn. That's cricket and that's...life. Making mistakes and learning from them is an all important process. This incident might in many ways make Malik a better sportsman, if he will willing to deeply reflect on his actions and understand his mistake. And I'm sure that he will do so.

Can match fixing ever be justified? I don't have any particular situation in mind right now, but surely, such a situation could arise when it might be well worth losing a match (For moral reasons). Such circumstances might be extreme and very much rare, but there's always a possibility.

Imagine this situation though. Team A is to play Team B. Team A has won all of their previous matches and even if they loose this match, they'll qualify for the next round. Team C and Team D have already qualified, Team C being the stronger opposition. If Team A wins, they will have to play Team C, the touger oppositiion. If they lose, they still qualify but will lock horns with the relatively weaker Team D. This will of course greatly increase their chances of reaching the final.

If Team A delibrately loses, will that be termed match fixing? They are losing one match delibrately to achieve something 'greater' (From their point of view) in the, to put it crudely, long run.

[Zainub]

If Team A delibrately loses, will that be termed match fixing?

As I see it, yes. As I said, I have a no tolerence for any delibrate loses. Team A is affectively losing a match on purpose to try and make its path to the final easier - it's actually using un-fair means as I comprehend it.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Okay, so in a previous match between Sialkot and Lahore, the game was 'awarded' to Lahore, even though Sialkot won on the day. According to Malik, this was due to some pressure being exerted on the match referee by the tournament sponsors, who wanted to see Lahore, the biggest team, in the semis. Sialkot is after all a small town, not much in it for the sponsors!

Hence, to make a point against what he perceived as deliberate and illegal intervention to stop his Sialkot side, Malik decided to take a public stand; not only did they throw the next game from a winning position, he admitted as much in the after-match awards ceremony. A visibly shaken and contrite Malik later apologised for his actions and admitted his errors. He has subsequently been banned for one Test by the PCB.

I am not going to condone Malik's behaviour but if that is true I can totally understand his anger. If a player can be singled out for retaliating to this sort of pressure it can't be right for the tournament sponsors to interfere on behalf of their favoured side in the first place. I have to say I was quite shocked to hear that Shoaib Malik was involved in this sort incident as he has always struck me as a very straight and honest person - obviously too honest for his own good on this occasion.

I agree with Maranello...I think he will be a big miss in the first test with Inzimam already out. He would get my vote as a future captain every time.

[Orchid]

If Malik's actions were on moral grounds, I would have liked to support him. However, his subsequent apology made me too feel like it was more of a 'heat of the moment' kind of reaction than a moral stand. If he has the courage to take a moral stand, he should also have the stomach to bear the consequences, whatever they may be. However, by apologising, to me he was trying to minimise the punishment (if there were any) by showing remorse. However, his action (if on moral grounds) could be morally justified, but in sporting grounds, I find to be wrong.

I also feel that PCB's action of handing only a 1 Test ban on somebody, who most likely wasn't even in the Test Match plans, quite inadequate. If they wanted to send out a message, they should have handed out a longer and more meaningful ban (eg in ODIs where he is a certainty). However, by just banning him in 1 test, PCB appears to have taken an action just for the sake of doing something.