ICC agrees to change Oval forfeiture to a draw

[Precambrian]

What has happened here is that BCCI and ECB indulged in some very ****ty horsetrading stuff on the back of Chingoka & Co. The results of the extremely farcical and despicable political cabaret were:

1. BCCI keeps the 5th guaranteed vote in its vote back intact.

2. ECB keeps the 20-20 tournament though it ostensibly sacrificed the Oval win.

3. Chingoka keeps the Millions.

Kind of makes me think to take up a bazooka and blast this entire Pawar, Giles, Chingoka bastards. Had they put half of this effort into improving the cricket actually being played!

 

[Richard]

Perfect example of can give, but can't take. And the second quote blatantly contradicts the first quote. Must be a tired man.

Err... no, it doesn't. The two statements are completely, 100% unrelated.

I don't think any "subcontinental" here in CW is naive enough to equate you or "people of your age" to the ECB.

I do. And they do, often enough. Anyone who basically says "ah so it was all right when the UK ruled cricket but now you moan about Asians ruling it" (and there are more than a few) is failing to grasp the basic concept that that person probably didn't suggest it was all right nor remembers such a time.

The grouse is against mainly the ECB, and to some extent the English govt. Noone is stupid to make it personal, dear Richard.

Much of which is stupid as well - as those involved in the ECB now had precisely zero to do with the TCCB or MCC of the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Craig]

What has Zimbabwe have to do with anything?

Clutching at straws surely?

 

[Precambrian]

Err... no, it doesn't. The two statements are completely, 100% unrelated.

Doesnt the fact the ICC itself was an adjunct or whatever of MCC make the game itself governed by them?

I do. And they do, often enough. Anyone who basically says "ah so it was all right when the UK ruled cricket but now you moan about Asians ruling it" (and there are more than a few) is failing to grasp the basic concept that that person probably didn't suggest it was all right nor remembers such a time.

There did exist such a time, but that's primarily because BCCI or the subcontinental boards were hardly interested in the politics. Yeah, all that changed with 1983.

Much of which is stupid as well - as those involved in the ECB now had precisely zero to do with the TCCB or MCC of the 1970s and 1980s.

However, that doesnt absolve institutions or organisations or boards of any liability. Board actions tend to stick, even when the individuals behind them have since long faded.

 

[Precambrian]

What has Zimbabwe have to do with anything?

Clutching at straws surely?

Oops my bad. I've edited the 4th point. Wrong thread, right idea.

 

[Richard]

Doesnt the fact the ICC itself was an adjunct or whatever of MCC make the game itself governed by them?

Apart from the fact that's a complete irrelevance, as the so-called contradiction you attempted to manufacture came from a quote that had no relation to that at all... no. I$C$C has only govorned the game since it became a govorning body. Before that it was nothing but a name. MCC was the govorning body, no-one even mentioned ICC in any way.

There did exist such a time, but that's primarily because BCCI or the subcontinental boards were hardly interested in the politics. Yeah, all that changed with 1983.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything? I'm well aware there was such a time, what I said was I do not want to hear about it and I don't want people telling me I revelled in it when I did not and what's more do not even have any recollection of it. Nor do I want to see anyone saying similar things to other people my age.

However, that doesnt absolve institutions or organisations or boards of any liability. Board actions tend to stick, even when the individuals behind them have since long faded.

Which is utter nonsense. An organisation is the people involved in it, and nothing more.

 

[Perm]

Holding quits ICC Cricket Committee

 

[BoyBrumby]

Holding quits ICC Cricket Committee

Hats off to Mikey. Whether one agrees with him or not, resigning on a point of principle is admirable.

Anyway, serious point: in light of the changing of this result could the 5th test of our 99/00 tour to SA be changed or expunged, even? Given what we know now it doesn't sit well as having "test" status for me.

Thoughts?

 

[Craig]

Hats off to Mikey. Whether one agrees with him or not, resigning on a point of principle is admirable.

Anyway, serious point: in light of the changing of this result could the 5th test of our 99/00 tour to SA be changed or expunged, even? Given what we know now it doesn't sit well as having "test" status for me.

Thoughts?

I would scrap it as well, it would of been a draw anyway because of the rain, but because of what we know now, there is no way it can be considered a Test win to England, really it should be South Africa 2-0.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hats off to Mikey. Whether one agrees with him or not, resigning on a point of principle is admirable.

Anyway, serious point: in light of the changing of this result could the 5th test of our 99/00 tour to SA be changed or expunged, even? Given what we know now it doesn't sit well as having "test" status for me.

Thoughts?

If anything was going to be done - which it isn't - they should just change it to abandoned as a draw at the end of the Fourth Day as what preceeded it was untarnished.

 

[Uppercut]

Nice to see mike holding make a stand, but no doubt he'll be replaced by someone with zero morals and make the organisation even dodgier.

 

[silentstriker]

Holding quits ICC Cricket Committee

Good for him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Good for him.

Good for you.

 

[Prince EWS]

Holding quits ICC Cricket Committee

Arguably the worst thing to come of this, IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Arguably the worst thing to come of this, IMO.

Do you mean Holding not being on the commitee anymore or his resigning on a point of principle? I can't see why anyone would think the latter a bad thing; Holding wasn't happy with a decision taken so has made certain the world knows it isn't being done in his name.

 

[Prince EWS]

Do you mean Holding not being on the commitee anymore or his resigning on a point of principle? I can't see why anyone would think the latter a bad thing; Holding wasn't happy with a decision taken so has made certain the world knows it isn't being done in his name.

I was strictly referring to the fact that he won't be on the committee anymore; I have no issue with the stand he took at all. The committee doesn't hold much relevance in the grand scheme of things but I felt slightly more assured in the future of the game when I learned Holding was a part of it as I agree with him on virtually every cricketing-based issue imaginable. His resignation may seem insignificant to some but I really think it sums up where the game is headed when Michael Holding doesn't want to be involved.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I was strictly referring to the fact that he won't be on the committee anymore; I have no issue with the stand he took at all. The committee doesn't hold much relevance in the grand scheme of things but I felt slightly more assured in the future of the game when I learned Holding was a part of it as I agree with him on virtually every cricketing-based issue imaginable. His resignation may seem insignificant to some but I really think it sums up where the game is headed when Michael Holding doesn't want to be involved.

Fair enough then. & I'd agree too, there are precious few men of genuine conviction in any positions of authority in the sport just now so we can ill afford to lose one. Hopefully his resignation will draw attention to this deficit.

Unlikely in the extreme, obv, but one still hopes...

 

[silentstriker]

Good for you.

??

 

[silentstriker]

Arguably the worst thing to come of this, IMO.

I think if he feels he is not getting heard or that he cannot influence the committee in the right way, he should resign rather than being associated with an organization that he clearly disagrees with. Obviously sad to see him go, but it's a very principled thing to do.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think if he feels he is not getting heard or that he cannot influence the committee in the right way, he should resign rather than being associated with an organization that he clearly disagrees with. Obviously sad to see him go, but it's a very principled thing to do.

Again, I agree, and I'm not saying that he shouldn't go. I probably should have made this clearer in my original post, but I was merely trying to suggest that the loss of Holding is arguably worse for the game than the over-turning of the result and the precedent it sets.