Mohammed Amir interviewed by Michael Atherton

The interview is being broadcast on Sky Sports as I type, and was shown earlier aswell. Has anyone been watching it, or seen it? If so, what is your reaction to it?

My first reaction is that Amir has been incredibly naive here, believing the spiel that Salman and Majeed fed him about being under investigation by the ICC and asking him to bowl no balls to so they would help "get him off". He seems genuinely upset by what he has done but there is something that just makes me feel uncomfortable about this interview. Like he's holding back and portraying himself in the best possible light. I still feel he knew more about what was happening than he is letting on.

Any reaction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVEiEJhQuqs - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBs-xUqJmI - Part 2

Honestly? I'm not that interested in his side of the story. Someone offers you a large amount of money in exchange for bowling some no-balls; even at 17 you know that's wrong, not matter what reasons they come up with. Sometimes things are that simple.

As a coach I back my players to the hilt, I've stood in meetings and defended players swearing, (allegedly) sledging, showing dissent, under-performing and many other things. The one thing I won't accept from any player is not giving their all at all times.

Going on Amir's account, there was no mention of money until he was given it after bowling the first no ball. He claims that Majeed told him he was under investigation from the ICC for several texts and e-mails to an unknown businessman called "Ali" a friend of Butt's. Majeed told him he could make this go away if he did him the favour of bowling the first no ball, and then the first money was exchanged that night after the first no ball when Majeed gave Amir £1500 in his room.

Of course, I highly doubt this. Why do you do something like that to get yourself off another charge? It makes no sense. There was a phrase Amir used several times and it was "no-one is that naive". That is what I think here, no-one is that naive to think that bowling those no-balls will help. He knew exactly what he was doing and any ban the ICC have given him is fine by me.

Perhaps I should watch it when I have the time, but seriously? "you're in trouble mate for something you didn't do, but if you agree to do something you know you shouldn't then I'll make it go away"?

TBH from a moral point of view, it makes no difference whether he did it for money or to make a potential investigation go away: both are personal gains, so he put his personal well-being above giving his best for his country. The ONLY extenuating circumstance I am willing to give him is if he genuinely believes he was doing it to help other people (e.g. we'll go after your best mate or your family if you don't sort of thing). Seems like that's not the case.

I have no particular issue with him returning to the game once his ban's over, but I hope Pakistan don't pick him.

Fascinating interview. He seemed sincere although I was slightly baffled as to why he couldn't remember when he was told the exact details of the plan.

The ICC ban is justified and must be kept to - otherwise it gives other young cricketers the impression that after a couple of years all will be well again.

Atherton was brilliant. Asked all the right questions and demonstrated why he was voted Sports Journalist of the Year last week.

I would advise you to watch it Mike. I don't think it will change your viewpoint, as it has brought mine more in line with yours, but it is a fascinating interview and there is nothing better than judging things first hand.

And Shelsey, that puzzled me aswell. If something that major happened to me, I'd remember every detail precisely. That was part of what made me thing that he knows more than he is letting on, and perhaps is not releasing every detail in a bid to make himself come off better.

JDizzle wrote:I would advise you to watch it Mike. I don't think it will change your viewpoint, as it has brought mine more in line with yours, but it is a fascinating interview and there is nothing better than judging things first hand.

And Shelsey, that puzzled me aswell. If something that major happened to me, I'd remember every detail precisely. That was part of what made me thing that he knows more than he is letting on, and perhaps is not releasing every detail in a bid to make himself come off better.

Well, his image is obviously his motive for doing the interview - he was not paid and will soon be hoping that his ICC sentence is amended so that he can start playing again sooner than 2015. Thus, he could not have incriminated himself further and tended to emphasise that it was a mistake - the only mistake he has made - and that he has now pleaded guilty, served his time, apologised and learned. Nevertheless, I don't think he was downright lyeing - much of what he said was conceivable and I genuinely don't believe that spot-fixing/match-fixing was happening on a massive scale as the Pakistan team are scrutinised closely and so somebody would surely have found out/blown the whistle at some stage.

As I said before I have to agree with the ICC ban for various reasons.

Having looked at the clip I believe him. No way would he do such a stupid thing otherwise (surely) and jeopardise his career which lay before him. It seemed he was done up like a kipper - a naive kid taken advantage of by a hero of his. Apparently no money ever went into his account and this was the reason why he received the lightest sentence. He also seems to have the fear of "Allah" within him.

i have seen it twice, and i must admit there is parts of him that i believe, a lot of it i believe, however the underlying issue IMO, is the cheating.....he did cheat, he brought the game into disrepute.....

Really enjoyed this last night, Atherton was superb. I'm with CF some of the things I believe, I do think he was naive and looking back he knows this, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The saddest thing in all this is that cricket has lost a very very good young prospect.

A very good effort from Amir but it was of course very well rehearsed, he wasn't met with any aggressive questions, and it was all a bit too compassionate for my liking.

The bank account part shoots his argument down in flames. Wasn't for money? Yeah sure it wasn't, Mohammad...

Excellent from Athers, by the way.

Brilliant interview to watch.

You could tell by his body language and his behaviour during the interview that it was the desperate pleas of a guilty man. Thought Athers was the personification of cool during the whole thing.

Sad thing is it still leaves a dark cloud over the game of cricket, especially with how easy it is to corrupt and manipulate young cricketers, especially from the less developed areas of the world.

If you're earning £1000 a month playing cricket and someone offers you £50,000 to go over the line a couple of times your eyes are gonna light up.

I'm in the same camp as many others on here, I believe some of it, most of it in fact, but there was obviously some things he held back. As has been said he wanted to come off as well as possible and who can blame him? I know that I, for one, did some very stupid naive things when I was 17/18 that I look back on now and think "what on earth were you thinking, how can you be that stupid?" so I sympathise from that point of view. At the end of the day he should've spoken to someone when he thought he was in trouble rather than do another wrong to get himself out of trouble. I believe he was massively pressured into doing it because he must've known it would look bloody obvious for someone who doesn't bowl no-balls to step over by that much. He was 18, world at his feet and playing brilliantly, why would he risk that? What a stupid, stupid boy.

Once he has served his ban I would be happy to see him back, no way he'll do anything like that again and he'll be watched like an absolute hawk. I guess I'm biased towards him because he was/is such a massive talent that I just want to see play cricket again!

haven't watched the interview yet, but I have read the full transcript on cricinfo, and one of the bits which surprises me is this question:
"Then on the eve of the Oval Test there are a number of text messages that you[Amir] sent to Ali which in turn read yes; yes what; for how much; but what needs to be done; it would be too much friend; so in the first 3 bowl whatever you like and in the last 2 do 8 runs. How do you explain those text messages?"

these texts are in fact never really explained properly (his explanations is along the lines of trying to find out what was going on), and suggest that there's plenty he's holding back IMO. In particular, why would you give your bank details to someone just because he asks for them and is a friend of your friend? Seems very odd to me, and not something I'd have done even when I was a teenager...

To me the naïvety and stupidity he'd have had to have displayed for everything in this interview to be true is simply beyond belief, sorry. Not to say that he isn't speaking the truth at times, and I do believe he was under huge pressure to bowl those no-balls, but ultimately I believe this whole interview rather smacks of a bit of a PR exercise: "I've been manipulated, people took advantage of me. Yes I did wrong but not for money, and I'm very sorry." is the basic message, and I admit I'm a bit unconvinced by the whole thing personally.

King Beer wrote:
If you're earning £1000 a month playing cricket and someone offers you £50,000 to go over the line a couple of times your eyes are gonna light up.

Doesn't make it any better.

mfc, watch the interview, do not just go by cricinfo..

amir says that he thought he was in trouble for the texts to ali, and was told that if he bowled 2 no-balls then it would get him out of trouble as majeed said he knew someone that would sort it out for him...he didnt know about the money apparently.......

go by the interview and not just cricinfo

Maybe in a years time they could half his ban to two and a half years and get him playing cricket again (but on probation). I don't think the world of cricket would suddenly descend into anarchy if his ban was halved later on.

cricinfo did a full transcript of the interview, so assume I'm not missing anything by reading that (except tone of voice, etc.). I get he says he didn't know about the money (I'm not sure how much I believe him on that), but for me he doesn't explain satisfactorily the whole "Ali" business in the first place. What where those texts about? Why would you give your bank details to someone like that? etc.

Also, how can you be stupid enough to believe that you can make something like this go away by bowling a couple of no-balls? Surely he knew that was wrong? If indeed his dealings with "Ali" were completely innocent how could he believe it would be better to do something that clearly wasn't? That's what I find incredibly hard to understand...

mate im not saying he's right, im just saying..

i have watched the interview in full 3 times now, to really make clear sense of it, and i do believe him on most of it, there's just little bits which i dont get at all.

Bit of a random question, but can anyone tell me why he over-stepped by so much? Was that just the only way he'd be sure to bowl a no ball?

Yep, he had to make sure the umpire noticed, otherwise big trouble with the bookmakers!

Mat wrote:Bit of a random question, but can anyone tell me why he over-stepped by so much? Was that just the only way he'd be sure to bowl a no ball?

I'd guess so. He has a decent length run-up and never bowls no-balls normally (I do remember thinking at the time "that's odd, this guys doesn't usually overstep and he's done so by a huge margin there" and I'm sure I'm not the only one, though I didn't suspect anything untoward). I imagine he started his run up quite a bit closer to the crease to make sure...

I don't really care whether he did it for the money or as he alleges to save his own skin. Both are putting personal benefit above that of your team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/17450413

Rahul Dravid says it will be "great" if Amir makes a comeback after his ban finishes.

Full interview with Phil Tufnell, groan, on Thursday at 19.30 on BBC 5 Live. Would have been interesting to here as Dravid always speaks well, but Tufnell?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Mat wrote:Bit of a random question, but can anyone tell me why he over-stepped by so much? Was that just the only way he'd be sure to bowl a no ball?

I'd guess so. He has a decent length run-up and never bowls no-balls normally (I do remember thinking at the time "that's odd, this guys doesn't usually overstep and he's done so by a huge margin there" and I'm sure I'm not the only one, though I didn't suspect anything untoward). I imagine he started his run up quite a bit closer to the crease to make sure...

I personally believe he would have been nervous and so ended up stretching further than he needed to. Of course, the margin between a big no ball and a small no ball isn't actually that much and it would also have been a problem if the ump had missed it.