Talk:Sarfraz Nawaz

Sarfaraz v Sarfraz

There have been some edits here changing Sarfraz to Sarfaraz and vice versa. It does appear that Sarfraz is far more common. In google "Sarfraz Nawaz" cricket gets 21K hits while Sarfaraz gets 1290. In the Pakistani media, Dawn has 6 Sarfaraz and 75 Sarfraz while Jang has 14 Sarfaraz and 128 Sarfraz. I don't see why we should use Sarfaraz in this article, except provide a redirect from a page of that name. Tintin (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I as a Pakistani, personally know that Sarfraz is extremely common. In Pakistan, minor variations in English transliterations of Urdu names are often ignored. Most prominent cricket web sites use Sarfraz instead of Sarfaraz. Szhaider 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

More information about Sarfraz Nawaz

I Have added more information and have posted the links too,some indian is changing the page again and again,if you have a geniune reason,disciss it here before you change it..

This information is biased, as most of the cricket media condemned his guessing that Woolmer was murdered, now it has been proven that fact is otherwise. He has old habit of guessing game and giving statements without even any source. he is notorious for his irresponsible statements. Please also add that aspect of his personality too. He is also notorious for giving very unethical personal statements about Imran, for example he said Imran Khan can never become a father that was proven to be wrong. he is disliked in Pakistan but this article is not showing real facts.

Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8zmdcQWijE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRr9-2mGWQc to see how irrational this person is.

Handled the ball

The start of the article says Javed Miandad appealed, and the end says Sarfraz appealed. It's gotta be one or the other, but I can't remember which.

Oh, and there was also the Hogg-runout-while-"gardening" incident in the same test (igniting a debate on when the ball should be regarded as "dead"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Arnold says that the handling the ball incident occured after two runs outs - one by each side - that were against the spirit of the game. Ironically, Hilditch was probalby trying to lighten the bad feeling between the teams when he picked up the ball and gave it to Sarfraz. My sources say Sarfraz appealed, but i would accept that Miandad supported him, the umpire would have probably asked the captain if he really wanted to appeal for such a dismissal. I have recently bought a John Ireland cartoon of Sarfraz and I was looking up his history, so I thought I might as well put it here. I have no comment on his activities post 1984 and I have not amended those. (Philipjelley (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)).

Incorrect facts about handled the ball

I saw the ugly match live. First of all Miandad was not the captain. Second, he did not second the ugly appeal of Sarfaraz. I understand the Indians absolutely hate him and would lie anything to demonise him. Second the Imran Khan lobby hates him and would not mind doing so itself.

Miandad did run out Hogg though, not out of malice, but out of childish mischievousness of a young boy. No-ball does not mean a ball is dead, and batsmen could be run out. To be dead, a fielder needs to collect it clean. Captain Mushtaq did call Hogg back but like all fast bowlers, Hogg showed temper by knocking the wickets off by his bat. Hurst later ran out Sikander Bakht to settle the score out of anger. Deplorable, but out of the anger of a fast bowler.

What Sarfaraz did was ugliest of the three incidents. However he was also a fast bowler like Hurst and Hogg, and showed his temper.

If anyone was responsible for these incidents, it were the captains of Pakistan and Australia. Kids would be kids and fast bowlers would be fast bowlers. It is the job of the captain to control.

It is a shame anti-Miandad lobby would blatantly lie on Wikipedia. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)