DUBAI: The International Cricket Council (ICC) chief executive David Richardson said Sunday he was "not too suspicious" over the one-day match between Pakistan and England in Sharjah, despite press reports it could have been fixed.
British tabloid Daily Mail alleged the match on Tuesday was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the International Cricket Council (ICC) over unusual patterns of betting.
Vaughan's anti-Pakistan tweets an attempt to gain cheap publicity: Ramiz Raja
The newspaper claimed the investigators were tipped off before the match that Pakistan would underperform in the game and that three run-outs, casual dismissals of batsmen and sloppy fielding were suspicious.
Pakistan were bowled out for 208 on a flat pitch, with skipper Azhar Ali, Mohammad Rizwan and Shoaib Malik run out and lost the match by six wickets.
'ICC investigating England's third ODI win over Pakistan for alleged corruption'
Richardson said odd run outs happen in cricket.
"Yes, there could be odd occasions, there would be some strange run outs, in fact I have been run out on more occasions than I care to remember," Richardson, who played 42 Tests and 122 one-day international for South Africa, told BBC radio's Test Match Special on Sunday.
Richardson praised Pakistan players for reporting any suspicious offer.
Imad Wasim ruled out of England Twenty20 series
"Even Pakistan players themselves these days are reporting every approach that seems to come their way and I wouldn't be too suspicious," said Richardson.
Richardson said he was satistfied regarding the progress made on fight against corruption.
Final ODI: Dazzling Buttler, Roy lead England to series win
"I am pretty positive about where cricket is at the moment in the battle of keeping cricket clean, the level of education that the international players go through now," he said.
Pakistan head coach Waqar Younis has also refuted allegations of fixing in the Sharjah one-day international.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ