Championless Trophy? - stop the bs and go

[Richard]

Are you saying that security can be GAURANTEED in any other country? Even Australia and England may not be able to provide such an assurance. It would be impractical to demand such a guarantee from anyone.

Indeed. No-one can ever say for certain 100% that a player won't be set upon by an escaped bull or fall down the double-decker bus stairs sideways. OR that they won't be taken hostage by thieves holding the entire hotel they're staying in to ransom.

Life just doesn't work like that. Safety is never guaranteed. It's always a percentage, which is never 0 and never 100.

 

[Sanz]

Very Happy with the decision. Those who feel secure can go, those who do not, well, I can certainly understand.

 

[morgieb]

The last thing they want is a torumanment that is not full-strength. As Leslie said, it was a BCCI decision based, like Australia v India. Australia, NZ, SA & England not to send full-strength side. WTF happens if a player dies?

 

[Leslie1]

Are you saying that security can be GAURANTEED in any other country? Even Australia and England may not be able to provide such an assurance. It would be impractical to demand such a guarantee from anyone. Also, from the reports I’ve read, the South African board were supportive of Pakistan, and they got the same security briefings as others.

I am continually frustrated by this reasoning. The track record of the ICC and the PCB is 100% stellar when it comes to assessing terrorist threats. No player has ever been hurt or targeted by a terrorist in the history of the game! So when the PCB (or ICC if you prefer to blame them) says “it’s safe to tour”, they have a pretty good track record of backing up that statement.

Your frustration might be better served if ICC had made the better decision to go to Sri Lanka instead.

Let's put pros and cons in perspective. Forget who's right and whats wrong.

If Champions Trophy had gone to Sri Lanka (which is being prepared as the backup)... you get full participation from all 8 countries, no questions asked.

Now that you compromised by putting this 'fear' out there (BCCI, ICC politics aside) in sending teams to Pakistan instead knowing full well that there will be farcical under-strength teams turning your 2nd biggest tournament into a joke,

which is the more sensible option here? (edit: sensible in the sense that you get a better sporting spectacle with full strength sides)

A better question is, which countries are more likely to NOT send their full strength teams if the decision went either way? Is BCCI going to go as far as to say, we won't send our team to Sri Lanka (ironic they are there now), because ICC (you) opted out of Pakistan as the venue?

Farcical.

 

[Flem274*]

After all the bombed off NZ tours in Sri Lanka, with all due respect to them I'd be more worried about Sri Lanka than Pakistan.

I'm not fully aware of the current level of terror activity or dangerous activity in general in Pakistan but I guess if the report and the descision to go are at odds with each other then I can understand players being nervous about going, especially with the media spotlight in troubles in the Middle East these days. I understand the concerns of the withdrawing players because if I'd had a bunch of negative reports shoved under my nose I'd definitely be thinking twice about going.

Its disappointing the tournament will be a bit of a joke with under-strength teams being sent along. The positives though is that perhaps a few excellent players will be discovered and have their chance to shine. It would certainly save the tournament some face.

 

[Flem274*]

The last thing they want is a torumanment that is not full-strength. As Leslie said, it was a BCCI decision based, like Australia v India. Australia, NZ, SA & England not to send full-strength side. WTF happens if a player dies?[/QUOTE]

To state the obvious, all hell would break loose at the next ICC meeting and the affected team would definitely withdraw from the tournament. Unlikely they would go back for a while as well. However, from the sound of it players dying will be highly unlikely and I hope the situation does not arise.

 

[duffer]

The last thing they want is a torumanment that is not full-strength. As Leslie said, it was a BCCI decision based, like Australia v India. Australia, NZ, SA & England not to send full-strength side. WTF happens if a player dies?

Even if it was a BCCI decision I don't see why they're being criticised by people for it(not necessarily on here though). They just sent a full strength side there and the tour went off without any problems whatsoever. Why shouldn't they support the tournament staying in Pakistan if in their opinion it's absolutely safe to send their own team there?

As for a player dying? That could happen anywhere in any number of circumstances.

 

[morgieb]

Even if it was a BCCI decision I don't see why they're being criticised by people for it(not necessarily on here though). They just sent a full strength side there and the tour went off without any problems whatsoever. Why shouldn't they support the tournament staying in Pakistan if in their opinion it's absolutely safe to send their own team there?

As for a player dying? That could happen anywhere in any number of circumstances.

That's true, but my point was that teams/players are likely to boycott it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Are you saying that security can be GAURANTEED in any other country? Even Australia and England may not be able to provide such an assurance. It would be impractical to demand such a guarantee from anyone. Also, from the reports I’ve read, the South African board were supportive of Pakistan, and they got the same security briefings as others.

It can't be guaranteed anywhere, but it's also naive to attempt to start all countries off on equal footing when it comes to any perceived threat. Talking about this as if there's a starting point for all teams from which they should consider any threat in exactly the same way makes no sense. What South Africa does is their business, same goes for NZ, India, Australia, Sri Lanka and so on.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Its amazing how some people can manage to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[GGG]

Yeah crazy, just confirms the ICC (BCCI) put money above everything else, I hope we (New Zealand) don't send a team at all, nah better yet pick all ICL players.

 

[Richard]

You hope to see cricket in New Zealand destroyed then?

Because that's what you'd achieve by being deliberately anachranistic\nonconformist.

 

[Richard]

Your frustration might be better served if ICC had made the better decision to go to Sri Lanka instead.

Let's put pros and cons in perspective. Forget who's right and whats wrong.

If Champions Trophy had gone to Sri Lanka (which is being prepared as the backup)... you get full participation from all 8 countries, no questions asked.

After all the bombed off NZ tours in Sri Lanka, with all due respect to them I'd be more worried about Sri Lanka than Pakistan.

Exxxxxxactly.

The situation in Sri Lanka by all reports is every bit as dangerous as that in Pakistan currently.

 

[silentstriker]

Very good stuff from the ICC here.

 

[chaminda_00]

Maybe they kept it in Pakistan as Sri Lanka was more dangerous then Pakistan....

 

[duffer]

Yeah crazy, just confirms the ICC (BCCI) put money above everything else, I hope we (New Zealand) don't send a team at all, nah better yet pick all ICL players.

I'm not a BCCI fan by any stretch of the imagination but they shouldn't be criticised for supporting Pakistan here.

 

[GGG]

You hope to see cricket in New Zealand destroyed then?

Because that's what you'd achieve by being deliberately anachranistic\nonconformist.

Actually I would like to see a world wide boycott of India, but that won't happen as the $$$ is all the matters.

 

[GGG]

I'm not a BCCI fan by any stretch of the imagination but they shouldn't be criticised for supporting Pakistan here.

ICC = BCCI, or at least Indias bitch.

 

[duffer]

ICC = BCCI, or at least Indias bitch.

My point was the BCCI has done nothing wrong here supporting Pakistan.

 

[godofcricket]

ICC = BCCI, or at least Indias bitch.

One thing i dont understand is the fact that if the ICC has taken this decision it must be through a proper channel (all security arrangements). How can they risk such a big event and most importantly the cricket players for the BCCI? your being completely stupid here. Your just finding a way to criticise ICC because of this decision, thats as simple as that. I am 100% sure that ICC security delegation looked at all security issues through all angle. Even if they were 5% concerned about the security arrangments then they wouldnt risk such a decision becuase if something happens (i definetly hope not) then all the blame will come to ICC (and the pakistani board) not the BCCI. So rather than criticising other boards for supporting PCB just accpet the fact that whatever decision they have come upto must be right for the players and the event as a whole.

Now if some players dont wana come thats upto them as most people here have said.