It’s almost an injustice that I have to use the word ‘hit’ for the sixes Afridi hit in this over, because he doesn’t ever hit a cricket ball in my opinion, he bludgeons it. Even his front foot defensive stroke is a bludgeon, a massive bash, straight down the bowler’s face, making him look all helpless and feeble.

After the day’s play Afridi told Ramiz Raza what had really happened in that over. It was the most fascinating mini interview I’ve heard in recent times. ‘Before that over’, Afridi started, beaming in confidence, ‘I went up to Kamran and told him I was going to try and hit six sixes off Harbajjan’. I thought I’d misheard, but he really did say 'try and hit six sixes'.

There are a few big hitters in the international circuit right now, there’s Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Symonds and Ricardo Powell to mention a few, but how many of these would try and premeditate to hit six sixes off an over in a test match? Kamran Akmal, who made a faster then a run a ball century him self, perhaps awestruck, perhaps just following the saying that it doesn’t matter what you tell a maverick, he managed simply, ‘Good luck, Shahid Bhai’ in reply.

That luck, it was proved later, wasn’t really needed. The first four balls were all deposited handsomely over the leg side boundary, which was being patrolled, please note, by no less then four fielders at that time. The Gadaffi Stadium let me tell you has the biggest outfield in any cricket stadium in the world. The boundary is routinely brought well inside for all the matches, but the actual field it self is easily in excess of a 100 yards long. Afridi cleared this entire space each time, and he did so easily, ridiculously easily. It was almost as if each successive one was bigger then the next. These weren’t sixes, really, more like 10s and 8s if not 12s, big monstrous kind of things.

The fourth, Afridi said, after crossing the boundary landed some where in a small water deposit, thus rendering the ball partially damp. ‘I tried to hit the next ball over mid wicket but because the ball was wet it went to mid-on instead,’ he elaborated. Ramiz by now was smiling, Afridi continued, ‘If it wasn’t wet, I would have hit six sixes’, he asserted with such assurance it might have been to remind Ramiz that he wasn’t kidding. There was so much nonchalance in the way he spoke; you couldn’t tell he was talking about an over like this.

The miscued shot it self went high up in the air before it was converged by two fielders running in from either side, it landed in no man’s land and Afridi got away with scoring two runs. One of the television commentators at that time, Arun Lal, stipulated Afridi needn’t take these risks as he was approaching a significant milestone, but does Afridi really have the word risk in his vocabulary? I don’t think so Arun.

Afridi later brought up his century, with a straight slog that went one bounce for four. It had come only from 78 balls, with the last 47 balls fetching him 82 of those runs. Before he acknowledged the applauds from his team mates and that from the sizable Lahore crowd, he rehearsed the stroke again, probably in view of the fact that he hadn’t timed it perfectly, that it had gone for just a four and not another six. But the body language was suggestive more of a slaughterer not quite happy with the how much blood that had been spilled by the result of an assault.

Back in the Ten Sports studio, Nasser Hussain reacted to the interview, literally in shock. ‘When I was playing,’ he recalled, ‘I use to tell my partner that I’d be lucky to get a single in the next over, and this lad tells his partner he is going to try and hit six sixes’, ‘Try and hit six sixes’ he repeated, in mixture of both disbelief and awe he then shook his head.

‘Amazing’ he said at last. And amazing it was indeed. Ramiz was then approached again by the men in the studio, this time he was catching up with Kamran. He too though seemingly was still recovering from the shock. For a man who had scored an unbeaten hundred him self, the better half of his interview was spent admiring ‘Shahid Bhai’.

A six is the most psychologically damning thing for a bowler. Shane Warne once said that he used to have nightmares about Sachin Tendulkar hitting him back over his head for six after six after six. The most famous six off all time, by Miandad off Sharma on the last ball of a final in Sharjah, was believed to have such a gladiatorial psychological affect that a whole decade of Indian bowlers might have been affected.

The influence, it is rumored, was finally neutralized by Sachin Tendulkar, during his magical innings of 98 against Pakistan in the 2003 World Cup. Wonder how many sleepless nights Harbajjan will have over the coming weeks, and how many years it will take for Harbajjan for these moments to blur in his memory. One gets the feeling that it might not be any time soon.

Three words:

The mind boggles.

Wonder how 3 and half days on the field compares as a 'scar' to 4 sixes in an over...

I'm wondering how scarred the *entire* Pakistani bowling attack is now. 403 runs in 75 overs. Ouch. Wonder how many years it will take before Lahoris forget this day.

"The most famous six off all time, by Miandad off Sharma on the last ball of a final in Sharjah, was believed to have such a gladiatorial psychological affect that a whole decade of Indian bowlers might have been affected."

This belief exists largely in the minds of Pakistani supporters much like unicorns, centaurs, and flying horses exist in the minds of those that believe in their existence. For those more grounded in terra firma, what happened over the next decade had to do with things like cricketing abilities. Of course, for a nation founded on mythology, it needs a continual supply of myths to validate itself.

Incidentally, nobody has scored a six off the last ball with six required to win. No one.

People have taken what I said in the wrong context, I never said I agree with the line of thought that a six of the last ball to win a game could result in such and such things, I just pointed out that some people do. Mind you Samir, it might not be all myth as you assume. Dr. Kamran Abbasi who is the deputy editor of the British Medical Journal did a proper research on this subject and his article on it[ http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/134081.html ] was what I gave reference to in my initial post, and it wasn't based on unicorns, centaurs, and flying horses as your presumed.

I would strongly recommend that you read the article, considering it might clarify some of your own possible myths (mainly those concerning the minds of Pakistani followers). I would have linked it to the post it self, but I couldn't find it then, and only have done so now. I want to clarify again that I might not neccesirily agree with all the conclusions of Dr. Abbasi's research, but at least, he didn't jump up to a conclusion, unlike some people. And then on top of it, accuse others of living in other worlds.

The psychological affects of that six, over the years might or might not have been over stated by some, but few will disagree that it was as a low point in India's cricketing history, something that one could argue stayed with the followers for a long while like a bad memory that just wouldn't go away. I just wanted to point out that some things if nothing tend to stick in your memory, they are harder to forget. What such memories do, or might not do, is something I am not sure about, but I like to keep it open to discussion, unlike some other people, who just come out and accuse others of living in parallel worlds if they do so, perhaps more research by some one some time could help us all.

And yes, Samit, you can disagree if you want, you can even call Pakistani fans unicorn believers, but could you please refrain from taking a shot at an entire nation and it's history, especially when you don't seem to be aware of the fact that Pakistan was founded not on mythology (as your mythological world has forced used to believe) but it rather came into existence because of an ideology (namely the two nation theory), and there's a big difference between mythology and ideology. If anything, India has a much stronger tradition and history of mythology then Pakistan.

That article by Abbasi is astonishingly poor on scientific analysis - it ignores the most important variable of all: team strengths. Perhaps Abbasi should stick to medicine (I mean, all he did was find out that India lost more matches than Pakistan without delving into the reasons - was any empirical work done on ascertaining the states of mind of Indian players in that period?) But thanks for the link, it provides me the opportunity to carry out a systematic debunking of his 'arguments'. I'll do it at my blog, don't worry. If you like, I'll send you the link when I'm done.

Just because fans remember the result of a match does not mean that players absorbed in the heat of battle do. They are too busy facing Younis' yorkers for instance. I wonder if Pakistani fans ever realize how they diminish their team's abilities by carrying on about how their opponent was weakened before he even stepped on the field?

Ask your friends how many of them believe that six were needed to win off the last ball (talk about myth propagation). In fact, three were needed to tie, four to win. Had six been required, the pressure on Miandad would have been much, much greater. No one has done that yet. For good reason.

The "mythology" I refer to is the "ideology" you refer to i.e., Pakistan is built on a creation myth. Your reading is too literal.

Lastly, the tone of your original post is some distance from the tone you adopt in the second para of your response. Its that tone I commented on.

Maybe we should all take the Abbasi article with a pinch of salt, coming as it did close on the heels of All Fools' Day.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Samir. Sharjah is a long , long, long way from Lords. In the Bible of Cricket, nobody cares about Sharjah(Or any Good Book, for that matter).
It is better to bring up what 92 meant to Pakistan, than what Javed meant to India. Show some respect, and perhaps we might get some in return. By the way, the Pitch in Sharjah(like the umpiring) was a joke and I hope Arabs stick to Football from now on.

I've actually read the article by Kamran Abbasi, and frankly, while the article is interesting, it's conclusion is far from convincing. No doubt the event was a low point in India's cricketing history, but the sheer number of variables that might exist separately to affect the statistical analysis made (the relative ability of newer players, the difference in bowling attacks, etc.) is mind-boggling. It's an interesting statistical observation but one based on theory that isn't proven. It's a little like saying that because we have an egg, a chicken must have laid it. Now the egg (note colour,weight, size,condition and age are not specified, somewhat like the variables not taken into account in the analysis by Dr. Abbasi) could have been laid by an ostrich, a goose, a dinosaur, or even simply have been the result of cloning.

This is not a statement in response to the author's personal opinion, but rather something I felt had to be kept in mind before talking about the statistical validity of the study referred to, despite it's originator whose qualifications I respect as both a writer and as a practitioner of medicine. The most that can be said of the conclusion is that it's interesting, but it's an oversimplification of a complex blend of factors that lead to such a trend.

I agree completely with the oriinal post. The power of a six cannot be under-estimated and worse when there's four of them on consecutive balls.

I disagree big time with Feroz's commentc on Sharjah. I have not seen more interesting and entertaining cricket than the ODI's played at Sharjah. There are few wickets in the world so sporty and lively enough to have something for everyone. Whether it be pacers like the W's or batsmen like Sachin and Anwar or even spinners like Kumble and Saqlain, players of all kinds have come up with some great performances and fascinating pieces of cricket. And add the fact that it is probably the only real neutral cricket venue, makes it a genius on the part of the one who came up with the whole idea. And did I mention the beautiful stadium and the lovely city apart from the fact that the coverage quality has always been of the highest grade.

By the way, Arabs neither play nor watch cricket and don't give a man about it anyways. For the big majority atleast.

And yeah, what's up with all the ill-comments towards nations here?

CricFan, you are right about the "sporty" wickets that gave something to Bowlers and Batsmen, Ok, I'll give you that, but you blithely ignore and quietly sidestep the issues of Match-fixing and poor umpiring that plagued the "contests" held in Sharjah. I'm a Pakistan Fanatic and I agree that the atmosphere in the Stadium when Indo-Pak was on was electric and second to none; but what I remember was India refused to play in Sharjah for a number of years due to biased umpiring, other teams,i.e, Australia, NZ, England, WI, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to play and appear in Sharjah. Nobody liked playing there it seems, but the Pakistanis, I might be exaggerating but that was the impression that I've had all these years. I was in Jakarta once, watching a match in Sharjah live on TV in a sports bar with Indians, Australians and Kiwis, and when NZ batted, 5 of their top 7 Batsmen were given out LBW-5!!! At least 3 or 4 had huge inside edges, I was embarrased for Pakistan and headed for the exit. The Arabs in the VIP seats sure made a little extra pocket money that night, and the bookies in Karachi and Mumbai had nothing to do with it I'm sure...

No matter how you put it, the fact remains that Pakistan has dominated India in cricket for the last two decades. Worse still, both sides were more or less equal even before that monumental six. So it makes Pakistan a much better circketing nation.

Also, Pakistan has a winning record (more than 50% wins) in BOTH tests and ODI's. India hasn't managed the "500 mark" (50%) in either form of the game. When a country five times as small and seven times less populous dominates in arch rival so convincingly, it tells me that Pakistan KNOWS how to win in cricket while India just know how to PLAY good cricket. BIG difference.

Well Feroz, match-fixing appeared everywhere during those days. It just happened that Pak played a whole lot of ODIs in Sharjah in those years. And that had more to do with certain players of certain teams rather than certain series played at certain venues. In fact the worse and most shocking cases of Match-fixing were seen during the world Cups. Now, I'm sure your you do not hold the same views about World Cups or playing in England/South Asia.

As for the umpiring, I seriously don't recall any streak of bad decisions. Unlike most other venues Sharjah used to have 3-4 ODI championships every year there and as such had a higher number of games and by default a hgher number of "bad decisions" by the umpires. And not to forget how sporty the pitches were and how close most of the games came to.

And finally where the Ausies and the English are concerned, they hate to play anywhere outside their countries anyways. English have complained about the subcontinent pitches for decades and decades. The Aussies hate the WIndies weather and perhaps its people too. The Kiwis find the Aussie pitches horrible and un-cricketesque. And nobody ever liked the South African pitches.

Though I am pretty sure the current likes of Pietersons, the Brett Lees, the Symonds and Irfan Pathans cann't wait to show their skills on the Sharjah pitches.