Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[grecian]

Meh, I think Amir should be given a second chance, but you can hardly rubbish people who were affected by the issues from taking a moral stance.

 

[mr_mister]

Or maybe it's not trusting the proven cheating scum to bowl for the team rather than for his own gains.

scum lol? talk to me when you calm down a bit

i don't even understand what bowling for his own gains and not the team could mean in this context. he bowls, he'll take wickets, both himself and the team will benefit.

Is he secretly doing it for the fame, cash and glory rather than the pride of his nation? That's called being human


do people actually believe guys like Michael Clarke who used to say stuff like 'ah I don't care if I make 0 runs, as long as the team wins that's whats most important to me' because you know they're lying

 

[Flem274*]

**** him. im with azhar and hafeez tbh. as guys who were affected by his actions and will have be involved with him again, they're well within their rights to make a stand.

We don't know Amir personally but just imagine the testing times he has faced ? He made a bad mistake but there are so many reasons to forgive & forget for him. He must have thick skin though or grew into it because with the abuse he has got in the domestic games and pitching up for training seeing the senior core boycotting it because of him. Mentally if he had to play, could he ever be in the right frame of mind ?

i don't see anyone doing it for lou vincent, a man who fixed during his severe depression and during that time also did good deeds like charitable and awareness causes for mental illness

scum lol? talk to me when you calm down a bit

i don't even understand what bowling for his own gains and not the team could mean in this context. he bowls, he'll take wickets, both himself and the team will benefit.

Is he secretly doing it for the fame, cash and glory rather than the pride of his nation? That's called being human


do people actually believe guys like Michael Clarke who used to say stuff like 'ah I don't care if I make 0 runs, as long as the team wins that's whats most important to me' because you know they're lying

what are you on about man?

 

[Prince EWS]

#StandWithHafeez

 

[Bahnz]

**** him. im with azhar and hafeez

 

[nzfan]

Just let him play.. it's going to be a hard road for him anyways. I doubt if he will be good enough to sustain. H Gibbs was given a chance to comeback after serving the ban and I see no reason why Amir shouldn't be given a chance.

 

[Gnske]

Just let him play.. it's going to be a hard road for him anyways. I doubt if he will be good enough to sustain. H Gibbs was given a chance to comeback after serving the ban and I see no reason why Amir shouldn't be given a chance.

Yeah because he didn't do what Cronje told him to do, unlike Amir the spineless chump.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah got no idea why im fat and have a broomstick for not wanting amir back but whatevs it looks like a useful broom and there's plenty of books on the shelf along with what looks like a pokeball.

 

[Bahnz]

Watch more Family Guy

 

[mr_mister]

**** him. im with azhar and hafeez tbh. as guys who were affected by his actions and will have be involved with him again, they're well within their rights to make a stand.

i don't see anyone doing it for lou vincent, a man who fixed during his severe depression and during that time also did good deeds like charitable and awareness causes for mental illness

what are you on about man?

i was referring directly to marc's comment

i went into a bit more detail than was necessary

 

[Niall]

Watch more Family Guy

Good God no, don't do that its been ****e for ages now.

 

[Bahnz]

Good God no, don't do that its been ****e for ages now.

Heh fair call, that specific reference was from season 2 When the show was still pretty good though.

 

[manishsqrt]

It is really sad to hear that cricket players sell up their sole and cricket for money, anyway lets hope he will not repeat it again in future.

 

[cnerd123]

Didn't peg you for a corporate lackey, *****. Demands of professionalism are too often the cloak for getting the underlings to toe the line of immoral and incorrect decisions.

hehe

Seriously though, putting up with people you don't like and don't trust is part of the job. It's not up to Hafeez and Azhar to challenge the decisions made by the courtrooms and the cricketing bodies. Sure they may not agree with it, and they might not be the only ones in the side who don't trust Amir, but they are professional cricketers whose job it is is to play alongside whomever the selectors pick. Amir has done his time and has been cleared to return.

I think everyone here agrees that it is unacceptable to refuse to play alongside someone simply because you think they're a bit of a ****, or because you suspect them of not having the team's best interest at heart. If players had walked off and refused to play alongside men like Haddin and Boycott simply because they didn't like them then we'd be giving them **** for it and rightly so. Even a refusal to play alongside a team-mate who simply has accusations with no evidence of fixing around him would be deemed inappropriate.

But then why do we feel Azhar and Hafeez's actions here are justifiable? Amir, legally speaking, is completely cleared to return to International cricket. Qualified lawyers and judges -people with an actual education in the law and how to apply it- looked over all the available evidence, studied the situation, and decided on a punishment that they felt was fair, which Amir then followed.

On top of that, since his return he has been bowling well.

There are no reasons -legally or cricketing wise- for him to not be in the team.

The only issue is a Moral one. A moral stance. "I believe fixers should never play cricket again." And Amir is making a comeback, and this goes against the moral stance of Azhar and Hafeez, and so they walked out.

Should it also then be acceptable for a cricketer with the moral stance "I believe ex-criminals should not be allowed in professional cricket" to walk out when Mark Vermulean is picked in the same team as him?

What if his moral stance is "Players who opted out of a series in order to play in a T20 league should never be picked for the country again" Or "Players who are born in raised in one country should not be allowed to jump ship and play Tests for another" Or "Bowlers with dodgy actions should not be selected for professional cricket" Is it justifiable for a player who holds those moral stances to walk out on their side when a player who goes against them is picked?

 

[OverratedSanity]

The comparisons with players who've committed other crimes is meaningless here. Amir, Butt and Asif's actions made Pakistan cricket look terrible. It humiliated them and caused lots of people to pigeonhole all Pakistani cricketers as dirty fixers. It's an irreparable damage to their profession. So no, it's not just because they disagree with the verdict. It goes far beyond that.

 

[cnerd123]

It's a moral stance. Im not arguing aginst it being a good stance to take or not, just saying that their walking out isn't based on anything that is enforceable. Hard to find the right words for this, but what I am getting at is that legally and cricketing wise, Amir is fit to play. The PCB have broken no rules or laws selecting him, and its not one of those selections that make no sense based on recent on-field performances.

If the only objection is a Moral one, is that enough to justify their behaviour? Is it then justifiable for other cricketers to walk out on their sides due to other moral issues? Is this the precedent we want to set for acceptable behaviour from Professional cricketers? Where and how do you draw the line?

 

[cnerd123]

What I feel is happening in this thread, and it other places, is that people who believe Amir should never return are the ones supporting the Hafeez/Azhar walk out simply because it mirrors their own beliefs. It's not because the overall concept of 'Professional Cricketers taking a moral stance when deciding on whom they play alongside with' is a great idea that they support.


I personally think Cricketers shouldnt be doing that. Its unprofessional. Provide the selection is legal and has merit (I can forgive players refusing to play along someone selected due to nepotism, quotas, or other similar reasons), the players should make their peace with it and get on with the job.

 

[Flem274*]

What I feel is happening in this thread, and it other places, is that people who believe Amir should never return are the ones supporting the Hafeez/Azhar walk out simply because it mirrors their own beliefs. It's not because the overall concept of 'Professional Cricketers taking a moral stance when deciding on whom they play alongside with' is a great idea that they support.


I personally think Cricketers shouldnt be doing that. Its unprofessional. Provide the selection is legal and has merit (I can forgive players refusing to play along someone selected due to nepotism, quotas, or other similar reasons), the players should make their peace with it and get on with the job.

you think it's all good not to play alongside someone due to nepotism and quotas (something beyond the selected player(s) control, especially quotas) but not ok to rrefuse to play alongside someone who had complete control over his own choices and made a poor one?

And I absolutely believe 'Professional Cricketers taking a moral stance when deciding on whom they play alongside with' is a good thing. Posters who take your position on Amir once told me to stop assuming it was all about Amir's talent that was forming what I called the double standard between Amir and Lou Vincent. I think you're making unfair assumptions like I was here.

Suppressing a cricketer's right to have and act on his/her moral stance towards someone in the team is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[harsh.ag]

Suppressing a cricketer's right to have and act on his/her moral stance towards someone in the team is a dangerous road to go down.

Suppressing a cricketer's right to have a moral stance towards a teammate = dangerous road
Suppressing a cricketer's right to act on a moral stance towards a teammate = not a dangerous road if the cricketer understands the repercussions of said actions

 

[cnerd123]

you think it's all good not to play alongside someone due to nepotism and quotas (something beyond the selected player(s) control, especially quotas) but not ok to rrefuse to play alongside someone who had complete control over his own choices and made a poor one?

And I absolutely believe 'Professional Cricketers taking a moral stance when deciding on whom they play alongside with' is a good thing. Posters who take your position on Amir once told me to stop assuming it was all about Amir's talent that was forming what I called the double standard between Amir and Lou Vincent. I think you're making unfair assumptions like I was here.

Suppressing a cricketer's right to have and act on his/her moral stance towards someone in the team is a dangerous road to go down.

Firstly I think we are approaching this in different ways. While it definitely isn't the fault of the player who is picked due to nepotism/quotas/the selectors fancying their mum, I will support a player walkout because it's a protest against the selectors and not the player in question. It's a protest against unfair selection practices, which does directly affect the cricketer's own livelihoods, and as such is a fair reason for them to act out.

Picking Amir doesn't affect the cricketers own livelihoods since it is a selection based on merit. The only way it negatively affects them is if they feel that Amir is still a cheat, and will cost them games in exchange for cash. But this thought is problematic. Hafeez and Azhar may believe that he is still a cheat, but they cannot say that for sure. While his history isn't a 100% indicator that he will never fix again, it also doesn't mean that he will. And as far as I am aware of, the PCB and selectors don't gain by picking a player who will be throwing games for money. It's possible they might, and that's something worth looking in to, but as far as I am aware their is no obvious conflict of interest at the moment. Unlike with nepotism/quotas, I struggle to see how the selectors will gain from Amir continuing to fix games, unless one of them has a bookie for a nephew. Without any reason for the selectors wanting a fixer in the side, they seemingly have faith in Amir to play clean and bowl for victory and not money. If they didn't, he wouldn't be in the side.

Now, fair enough Azhar and Hafeez will be privy to a lot more information with regards to Amir and his dealing than me (or anyone else here). It is also possible the selectors haven't done their due diligence and are just so excited by the appeal of Amir that they rushed him back in. It is also possible that they have, and figure the pros of having Amir in the side (more spectators, probably more victories) outweighs the cons (his occasional dabbles in spot-fixing for some cash), and that Hafeez and Azhar are aware of this and don't want to play alongside Amir.

But I will refrain from such judgements and theories until we actually know something for sure. And all we know for sure is that Amir is a ****, but has been cleared to play and is bowling well.

Secondly, when talking about 'Professional Cricketers taking a moral stance when deciding on whom they play alongside with", my qualms with praising this basically boils down moral relativism. What morals are worth standing for and what arent? Sure right now Hafeez and Azhar get a ton of support for refusing to play alongside a fixer. What if they refuse to play alongside a bowler who was found guilty of chucking? A ball tamperer? A player who bailed on the national side to play T20s? Or something non-cricket related like playing alongside a racist or homophobe? Or an ex-con? Or a person who supports a different political party? What if they don't want to play with a guy because he pours his milk in before his cereal and that offends their sensitivities?

I'm not a fan of this grey area. While I get what you're saying about not suppressing a player's will to act on their values, I do not think we should be celebrating or encouraging it.

I agree with harsh basically. If Azhar and Hafeez want to walk out, they can. But when they, or any cricketer, issues such an ultimatum they should not be on the winning end of it. If Azhar and Hafeez walk out, the PCB should not say "all right, hang on, stay, we will drop Amir". The message should be that "You have decided to walk out, and we accept that. But we are going to continue on without you".