Former Pakistan all-rounder Mohammad Hafeez has addressed the criticism surrounding his recent comments about the legacy of cricketers from the 1990s.
Hafeez, who faced backlash for stating that his predecessors did not leave a lasting legacy in Pakistan cricket, has now clarified that his remarks were misrepresented by certain media outlets and were not intended as a personal attack on any former cricketer.
His statement came in the wake of Pakistan's disappointing performance in the 2025 Champions Trophy, where they were eliminated after losing their first two group matches against New Zealand and arch-rivals India. A washed-out fixture against Bangladesh further confirmed their exit from the tournament.
"I am a big admirer of the cricketers from the 1990s, but when we talk about their legacy, it's clear they didn't bring home an ICC trophy.
They were part of the World Cups in 1996, 1999, and 2003, and despite our strong performances, we lost each time. In fact, we only made it to the 1999 final, and that loss was quite heavy," Hafeez said. "They were megastars as players, but they couldn't inspire us by winning an ICC event.
After that, we endured a tough phase, losing the 2007 T20 World Cup final. However, in 2009, under Younis Khan's leadership, we finally secured a title, providing inspiration for the next generation," he added.
Amid growing criticism, the former all-rounder took to social media on Monday to issue a clarification, emphasizing that his remarks were solely about Pakistan's inability to win ICC tournaments during that era, not an attack on any individual player.
"Some media houses are fabricating the actual content. The context of the discussion was all about teams winning ICC events to inspire future generations," Hafeez tweeted.
"Therefore, I explained how the greats of the game from Pakistan, despite all their cricketing talent, couldn't win ICC events (post-'92 WC) in 1996, 1999, and 2003.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ