Sunil blasts the Australians part II

[Richard]

So 4-5 is "many"?

 

[ret]

So 4-5 is "many"?

how many should be 'many'?

 

[viktor]

So 4-5 is "many"?

Like I said earlier, we can debate how many is many but the point is that these articles were written, by different people and the fact that David Morgan had to respond to such a query

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...1YourView&xml=/sport/2008/03/18/scbrig118.xml
Morgan tried to argue that the decision had not been a political one. Asked whether Bindra had been marked down because of growing concerns over India's hold on the global game, he replied: "That was never seen as an issue. The best of the candidates was Imtiaz Patel."

shows that such a fear does exist among people within the cricketing fraternity. That you do not share this, while commendable, doesn't negate the point.

 

[silentstriker]

So 4-5 is "many"?

Considering there was an article about it in most of the places people read about cricket including the flagship of cricinfo, I'd say so. Easily.

 

[Burgey]

Exactly, who cares what Sunil says really.

I care that little I didn't even bother reading the article before I posted this

Actually mate, I care about it when a paid ICC official sees fit to write columns accusing other ICC officials of being racist, as he did earlier about Procter accepting one set of players' words over others because of their skin colour.
That was appalling, frankly. And if he continues commenting on issues like that and also throwing around this post-colonial stuff in the media, then his position at the ICC must be untenable. Either he stays at the ICC and tries to implement changes for the better from within, or he sees fit to comment on ICC officials and referees externally. How he, or anyone else for that matter, can do both and not have it considered a massive conflict of interest is beyond me.

 

[duffer]

Actually mate, I care about it when a paid ICC official sees fit to write columns accusing other ICC officials of being racist, as he did earlier about Procter accepting one set of players' words over others because of their skin colour.
That was appalling, frankly. And if he continues commenting on issues like that and also throwing around this post-colonial stuff in the media, then his position at the ICC must be untenable. Either he stays at the ICC and tries to implement changes for the better from within, or he sees fit to comment on ICC officials and referees externally. How he, or anyone else for that matter, can do both and not have it considered a massive conflict of interest is beyond me.

He holds such a token position I doubt he cares what happens to him with regards to it. If he thought it was important he wouldn't be mouthing off all the time.

 

[Sanz]

His use of "Europeans" isn't very nice either; if Geoff Boycott (to pick another embittered opener entirely at random) had used "Indians" in the same context he'd be (rightly) castigated as (at best) the worst kind of little Englander & at worst a borderline racist.

Oh come off it. People have been actually using this sort of language for quite some time, here is one for example :-

http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/crickets-power-base-has-shifted/2007/02/09/1170524302955.html

Seven years ago, England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Lord McLaurin returned from an International Cricket Council meeting and addressed his country's county chiefs.

Referring to the Asian subcontinent, he delivered the message: "The future of the game is black."

No one has called Mr. Mclaurin a racist for that remark.

Actually things that are being written about India's power in world cricket is much more offensive.

 

[Burgey]

He holds such a token position I doubt he cares what happens to him with regards to it. If he thought it was important he wouldn't be mouthing off all the time.

Yeah, that's probably right. I was surprised Procter hasn't taken that matter further, tbh.

 

[Richard]

Mr. Mclaurin

*Lord MacLaurin.

 

[Sanz]

Actually mate, I care about it when a paid ICC official sees fit to write columns accusing other ICC officials of being racist, as he did earlier about Procter accepting one set of players' words over others because of their skin colour.
That was appalling, frankly. And if he continues commenting on issues like that and also throwing around this post-colonial stuff in the media, then his position at the ICC must be untenable. Either he stays at the ICC and tries to implement changes for the better from within, or he sees fit to comment on ICC officials and referees externally. How he, or anyone else for that matter, can do both and not have it considered a massive conflict of interest is beyond me.

How is the above related to this thread ?

This is what I have problem with, every time Sunny is being discussed here on this forum,
a. some people bring up quotes from his book that was written 30 years ago to prove that he is some sort of racist
b. Bring about the only incident of poor behavior (Melbourne test) to show his behavior as a cricketer
c. him holding some grudge or other against ECB/Australia etc and hence his outbursts

And then the same people have the audacity to expect fair treatment from Gavaskar.

The more I see these threads, the more it becomes clear that some people on the forum are more interested in attacking the individual and not really discussing the point he has raised, which, it is obvious, is a very valid one.

 

[jeevan]

Somewhat disingenuous, IMHO, for Indian cricket followers to not recognize the some of the real difference between two Australians heading the ICC in 2003 and two Indians,BCCI officials no less, heading the ICC in 2009. That difference is the IPL, the enormous amount of money it brings into the game, and the potential disruptions to the international system it could cause (see the story of Gayle,Sarwan,Chanderpaul missing tests vs Australia - fortunately averted).

Surely you dont expect the ICC to resist this? Similar analogy would not be the 2 Malcolm's in 2003, but a hypothetical CA-backed Packer series and the 2 Malcolms in charge.

Not impossible that there are some people who think racist thoughts, but it is more of a stretch to accuse them of acting so blatantly, than the alternative.

Far more likely, for me, is the simpler explanation of beauraucratic self-preservation, which every administrator will act upon, even the cleanest and the most unbigoted of them.

ps Think IPL is a good thing overall. Despite all the (valid) criticisms, it puts money into the pockets of cricketers rather than some random starlets or pop-singers. Still wouldnt expect the ICC to embrace it, and have been rather surprised by the cooperation so far.

 

[Burgey]

How is the above related to this thread ?

This is what I have problem with, every time Sunny is being discussed here on this forum,
a. some people bring up quotes from his book that was written 30 years ago to prove that he is some sort of racist
b. Bring about the only incident of poor behavior (Melbourne test) to show his behavior as a cricketer
c. him holding some grudge or other against ECB/Australia etc and hence his outbursts

And then the same people have the audacity to expect fair treatment from Gavaskar.

The more I see these threads, the more it becomes clear that some people on the forum are more interested in attacking the individual and not really discussing the point he has raised, which, it is obvious, is a very valid one.

It's relevant because he holds a position at the ICC, which governs the game, yet at the same time sees fit to criticise, in a paid media column, fellow ICC officials and also member countires, and does so in a way which suggest they are racist or a throw back to some earlier colonial era.
It's not his views in the piece that are a problem per se - he raises some interesting points imo, I just don't see how he can reconcile his public media comments and attitude with his role within the ICC. I just see it as a conflict.

 

[haroon510]

there is an old saying that whenever ur pointing at someone else.. u r pointing one finger toward them while four fingers toward urself... i am not saying Aussies are angles but all i am saying that Gavasker isn't less than Aussies.. he has become the bad apple between two teams lately and his chearleading attitude for india is just disgraceful..

 

[bond21]

they can all talk ****, funny how noone can back it up where it counts.

 

[biased indian]

they can all talk ****, funny how noone can back it up where it counts.

are you suggesting about the last 2 test or last 2 ODI's played between any particular countries

 

[bond21]

no as long as we win every test series the other team can whitewash the ODIs for all i care.

 

[Jono]

they can all talk ****, funny how noone can back it up where it counts.

Serious question, do you look exactly in real life like the image you portray on the boards?

That is a ****ing idiot redneck wearing a flannel shirt with a poster of Brad Williams on your wall?

Can't believe you've been allowed to have so many posts, its the fact that idiots like you are being allowed to rampantly post subtle discriminatory bull**** on this board that makes Cricket Chat ordinary to come to.

 

[Smudge]

Serious question, do you look exactly in real life like the image you portray on the boards?

That is a ****ing idiot redneck wearing a flannel shirt with a poster of Brad Williams on your wall?

Can't believe you've been allowed to have so many posts, its the fact that idiots like you are being allowed to rampantly post subtle discriminatory bull**** on this board that makes Cricket Chat ordinary to come to.

 

[Fusion]

 

[Sanz]

It's relevant because he holds a position at the ICC, which governs the game, yet at the same time sees fit to criticise, in a paid media column, fellow ICC officials and also member countires, and does so in a way which suggest they are racist or a throw back to some earlier colonial era.It's not his views in the piece that are a problem per se - he raises some interesting points imo, I just don't see how he can reconcile his public media comments and attitude with his role within the ICC. I just see it as a conflict.

Well I see it as irrelevant to this discussion. It may be a conflict of interests and I dont really deny that but IMO it is between him and ICC. If ICC thinks it is then they may very well ask him to step down (which seems likely now). His position in ICC has got nothing to do with the way this discussion has gone.