Australia's tour to Pakistan unlikely

[Fusion]

Did they then pull out of a tour because a bomb exploded? They weren't touring the USA though were they? They were obviously worried that what happened there would cause tension in the region they were visiting. I'm happy for Oz not to have toured if they think there're problems, which there obviously are. It comes down to money really, possibly Bangladesh weren't in a position to refuse to tour due to needing international exposure and a corresponding tour to boost coffers. It's not like bombs have never gone off in Pakistan...as one of those articles points out, on one occasion it was very close to the teams themselves. Teams have either postponed, called off, or cancelled tours before. If SA want to tour, then good on them. The situation in Pakistan isn't great and safety cannot be guaranteed. If the end result is Pakistan don't tour here that's fine too.

I think the point that SS is making is that other teams, even if they cancelled a tour before, ended up touring eventually. Australia is the only team that hasn't toured in the last 10 years. There's something not right about that. I have said before that I will grudgingly accept Australia's decision not to tour if they fear their safety. I think those fears are unfounded and without proper knowledge of ground reality in Pakistan, but nevertheless I will accept their decision. However, I still expect Australia to make every effort to make up the tour. From what I have heard from CA so far, they seem to be willing to do that. In fact, PCB have already proposed a new date. It will be of great interest to me to observe CA's response and willingness to work with PCB to reschedule.

 

[silentstriker]

Did they then pull out of a tour because a bomb exploded?

Did Australia pull out when a bomb exploded in London? I can see canceling a tour if they are fearful of their safety, even if that decision makes no sense and is illogical. But to keep doing it for a decade while every other team has gone is ridiculous.

Completely agree with Fusion above. And can you tell me why its safer in India, or why its safer for other countries to tour?

 

[Cevno]

India toured pakistan after a war with pakistan.
I really fell australia should have toured as they would have got presidential security but i can understand why they decided to not at this time.Maybe they should have played at abu dhabi.
Hopefully things get better in pakistan and teams do not get carried away by the excess hybe before the champions trophy.

 

[Cevno]

Did Australia pull out when a bomb exploded in London? I can see canceling a tour if they are fearful of their safety, even if that decision makes no sense and is illogical. But to keep doing it for a decade while every other team has gone is ridiculous.

Completely agree with Fusion above. And can you tell me why its safer in India, or why its safer for other countries to tour?

To be fair ,over the past few months there have been bomb blasts/open firing in pakistan every alternate days with human bombs in many occasions.
Though they would have got top security and been safe in most regards ,i can understand this decision at this point of time.

 

[Richard]

Australia is the only team that hasn't toured in the last 10 years. There's something not right about that.

I think it should be noted that this is not entirely down to unreasonable reluctance, also partly due to unfortunate timing. Australia's 2 scheduled tours have both been at times when things have been "out of the ordinary" - in 2002\03 there were other teams (West Indies and I'm sure there was someone else but I can't think who) expressing the wish not to go to Pakistan, due to the US action against Afghanistan. Now, of course, the media attention surrounding elections has been heightened due to a high-profile murder. If Australia had been scheduled to tour in, say, 2005\06, I don't immediately see any reason they wouldn't have done so. Equally, if, say, England were due to tour now, I'd not be surprised if the same thing had been going-on.

 

[Fusion]

I think it should be noted that this is not entirely down to unreasonable reluctance, also partly due to unfortunate timing. Australia's 2 scheduled tours have both been at times when things have been "out of the ordinary" - in 2002\03 there were other teams (West Indies and I'm sure there was someone else but I can't think who) expressing the wish not to go to Pakistan, due to the US action against Afghanistan. Now, of course, the media attention surrounding elections has been heightened due to a high-profile murder. If Australia had been scheduled to tour in, say, 2005\06, I don't immediately see any reason they wouldn't have done so. Equally, if, say, England were due to tour now, I'd not be surprised if the same thing had been going-on.

Which is fine, as long as they make an effort to tour again when it's safe. I'm sure there was a window within the last ten years where Australia would've deemed Pakistan safe enough to tour. To their credit, CA has been saying the right things about making up the tour. I hope they are sincere about it.

 

[silentstriker]

Re-reading this thread, I think I come across as more overzealous than I intend. So I'd like to apologize for that, but my main position is that while they have the right and the need protect their safety, not touring for the past ten years when every other country has toured is unacceptable (especially as Indians, who are no favorites of the militants have toured multiple times, as have western powers). I also think its inappropriate to tour other countries, like India, who have similar warnings about safety.

 

[Richard]

Which is fine, as long as they make an effort to tour again when it's safe. I'm sure there was a window within the last ten years where Australia would've deemed Pakistan safe enough to tour.

But they weren't just going to think "ah, Pakistan's safe now, let's grab this chance and go and play there, thus dropping all the other inflexible schedules".

Australia touring Pakistan is scheduled by I$C$C. As is every other tour. The agreements in place (some only provisional) go forward decades. They also played Pakistan at a neutral venue in 2002\03. They can't be expected to go and play somewhere just because they haven't played there in ages, when a substitute was playing instead.

 

[silentstriker]

Australia touring Pakistan is scheduled by I$C$C. As is every other tour.

What? No they aren't. ICC just has a directive that every country must play each other home and away with at least Two Tests and three ODIs every six years. That's it. The countries themselves decide how many to play, when to play, etc.

 

[Fusion]

But they weren't just going to think "ah, Pakistan's safe now, let's grab this chance and go and play there, thus dropping all the other inflexible schedules".

Australia touring Pakistan is scheduled by I$C$C. As is every other tour. The agreements in place (some only provisional) go forward decades. They also played Pakistan at a neutral venue in 2002\03. They can't be expected to go and play somewhere just because they haven't played there in ages, when a substitute was playing instead.

The reason they played in neutral venues is that PCB didn't think they'd reschedule those tours to a future date in Pakistan. As we all know, those neutral venue tours were disasters for Pakistan, so they should never be attempted again. I realize that ICC sets the FTP and Australia has busy commitments. However, you can't tell me that they would've had NO free point in their itinerary to make up this tours in the past. It would've required tremendous effort, but it could've been done. Anyway, what's done in the past is over with. I'm now looking to the future. I would give CA all the credit in the world if they worked with the PCB to reschedule this tour IN PAKISTAN.

 

[Richard]

The point I'm making is that Australia weren't about to schedule a tour of Pakistan in 2004\05 (too soon after the previous "home" Pakistan series), 2005\06 (commitments full) or 2006\07 (the Champions Trophy got in the way).

You can only fit a peg into a hole in which it fits. Australia probably could've found time for a tour sometime, somewhere, but at the times which were available it'd have made no sense to, because there'd been another series played recently or there was another scheduled sometime in the immediate future. This date for 2007\08 will have been set, I'd imagine, for 3 or 4 years at least. So it wasn't going to be re-arranged because no-one could have known when the sensationalism of how dangerous Pakistan supposedly was was going to crop-up.

 

[Richard]

What? No they aren't. ICC just has a directive that every country must play each other home and away with at least Two Tests and three ODIs every six years. That's it. The countries themselves decide how many to play, when to play, etc.

I know they decide how many games and of what type to play, and what the exact dates are to be, but UIMM I$C$C are the ones who give the season (such things have of course been agreed at meetings of board heads in, IIRR, 2002).

I think the schedule until 2011\12 was agreed in 2002, though there was a small amount of room for maneouvre. It wasn't a case of Malcolm Speed drawing lines on a calender and saying "you will play here and you will play here" but there has to have been some form of fix, else no-one would be able to fine boards for breaking the schedule.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Did Australia pull out when a bomb exploded in London? I can see canceling a tour if they are fearful of their safety, even if that decision makes no sense and is illogical. But to keep doing it for a decade while every other team has gone is ridiculous.

Completely agree with Fusion above. And can you tell me why its safer in India, or why its safer for other countries to tour?

The difference being the bomb in Pakistan exploded next door, leaving some of the Pakistani players trapped in their rooms (I think Inzi was preparing to eat Shoaib 5 mins after the blast in case they weren't rescued before lunch ). I think a couple of NZ staff were also slightly injured. London isn't characteristically an unstable area, Pakistan is. This sort of stuff can happen anywhere, but then I'm less chance of getting involved in an incident walking down the main st of my hometown (where I can guarantee it will never, ever happen) than a main st of a city in Pakistan.

I can't tell you why it's safer in India as I'm not aware of the differences or what's been happening there.

To say it's safer for other countries to tour makes no sense. It's no more or less safe for them to tour, they decide to tour for whatever reason they think is viable. It doesn't mean CA or the Australian team agrees with the SA or NZ board's decisions. They could be politically-based; financially-based...you're assuming the decisions are made under the same circumstances. There have been some incidents there with international teams touring. At some stage, something could happen that involves an elite player getting seriously hurt. Personally, I wouldn't like to be in a position of responsibility for sending that team over to Pakistan when it happened.

 

[silentstriker]

'm less chance of getting involved in an incident walking down the main st of my hometown (where I can guarantee it will never, ever happen) than a main st of a city in Pakistan.

I'd venture to say that walking down a street in almost any city in the western world probably involves more risk than you'd find in most of Pakistan. Gang killings, muggings and normal hold-ups just don't make international news, but bombs do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd venture to say that walking down a street in almost any city in the western world probably involves more risk than you'd find in most of Pakistan. Gang killings, muggings and normal hold-ups just don't make international news, but bombs do.

I doubt it in my hometown mate, if anything happens of that nature to me I'll do a lap of the world nude on a pogo stick. I think it's the same anywhere in relation to cities, you have to be careful and know where not to go. I've travelled to a few places and have never had any trouble, but then I could end up in the wrong place at the wrong time tomorrow I suppose.

I find it hard to believe Pakistan is as rosy as a few people are attempting to make it out to be though.

 

[Richard]

I'd venture to say that walking down a street in almost any city in the western world probably involves more risk than you'd find in most of Pakistan. Gang killings, muggings and normal hold-ups just don't make international news, but bombs do.

Probably not in Exeter TBH, and probably not in quite a few other places (towns and cities) in the UK, but there's nonetheless plenty of cities over here where it would indeed be a fair risk of such. And by the sounds of things, worse still over in the US of A, without trying to make assumptions. I worry a fair bit whenever my dad travels to the US of A because of the gun culture, in a similar way to the illogical worries so many have about Pakistan. Because I've never been there, I can't appreciate that there's places in the US of A (probably more of them than not) that are as safe as Exeter or Morpeth. Because you never know what might happen if in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[silentstriker]

I doubt it in my hometown mate, if anything happens of that nature to me I'll do a lap of the world nude on a pogo stick.

Well you have to compare cities of similar sizes.....you can't compare a small town to Karachi.

I find it hard to believe Pakistan is as rosy as a few people are attempting to make it out to be though

No one said its rosy. People are just saying that not going for 10 years while going to places with India where there is a threat of terrorism, or SA where there is very high crime, is an overreaction. It's a decision based off ignorance. The Australian foreign office gives similar travel warnings to India, as it does to Pakistan. So I'd say they shouldn't go there either, otherwise their decision makes no sense.

 

[aussie]

Um, the terrorists aren't particularly fond of Indians either, in case you've missed the last fifty years of war and conflict between the countries..

That's true along with the kashmir issue or whatever. But since 04 IND/PAK relations have eased down & those along with the other asian nations would always be in the better position to understand PAK since they are culturally similar.

Australia hasn't toured for a decade, and every other country (non Asian too, as if that makes a difference) has..

You make it sound so simple. When PAK was deemed safe teams toured i.e post 9/11 & currently when it was teams toured.

I would say they should do what they did when bomb blasts occurred in London.

But Australians are culturally affiliated with our culture here & given the fact (other than the IRA) England doesn't have that dangerous feel to it (although i know the media has brianwashed the world about how bad PAK really is).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well you have to compare cities of similar sizes.....you can't compare a small town to Karachi.



No one said its rosy. People are just saying that not going for 10 years while going to places with India where there is a threat of terrorism, or SA where there is very high crime, is an overreaction. It's a decision based off ignorance. The Australian foreign office gives similar travel warnings to India, as it does to Pakistan. So I'd say they shouldn't go there either, otherwise their decision makes no sense.

"International murder rates for cities are difficult to obtain outside the developed world. According to some reports Bagota, Cali (112 deaths per 100,000) & Medellin (Columbia), Karachi (Pakistan), Lagos (Nigeria), Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) have some of the highest murder rates in the world, but there are no reliable statistics and Interpol refuses to make its statistics public."

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I think saying Karachi probably isn't as bad as other cities around the world when it comes to muggings etc is nonsense. Reading some stuff on the net about it seems to suggest the same, but then I'm not there and I have never been there. I'm not suggesting any of the Australian team would get murdered if they head over there either, that wouldn't be an issue.

If the decision is based on what has happened recently I can understand that...personally I've heard more about stuff happening in Pakistan than India. Whether or not that's due to the way the media is reporting it I don't know. As with all travel warnings, I guess they have to be married with an understanding of what you're going there to undertake.

 

[Precambrian]

Just 3 quick points to make:

1. Unfortunate decision by Cricket Australia not to tour Pakistan. One can understand fully from the point of view of the families of the Aussie cricketers, given that the only source of information about the place were from the media.

2. More unfortunate is the action by ICC. No official explanation sought for cancellation of tour. I think ICC should have arranged for a neutral security agency having the endorsement of both Australian and Pakistan boards and assess the security situation in Pakistan. Neither you or me can make a 100% perfect judgement from sitting outside Pakistan.

3. If Cricket Australia doesnt honor its commitment to do the tour in November / December (Hee Hee- Peak of Australian Home season) , then its in contravention of the ICC touring guidelines and Pakistan Cricket Board has every right to claim compensation for the same.

Not an iota of blame on the Cricketers here. But a bit on the Board, for not talking to them and trying to dispell, by sendnig a team to assess the secuirty there. Instead went blindly by current pop press. Not good for cricket in any run.