Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[Gnske]

So Azhar and Hafeez have a moral objection about playing with Amir, a spot-fixer. Good for them. How about they show a bit of consistency with their outrage though? Why are they ok playing under Waqar Younis, who was one of the players named by the Qayyum report as having delved into match-fixing? Have they refused to be in the same room as Wasim Akram, Inzi, and Mushy (all of whom were also named in the Qayyum report)? If not, then **** their selective moral outrage. If they found a way to forgive and forget those players, then they can do the same with Amir.

Might as well make a point about the entire Akmal family while they're at it.

 

[Jono]

Nah, blame the PCB. When something as unprecedented and controversial as a fixer coming back to train with the National team happens, the board/coach/someone in power has to take the initiative and have a sit down conversation with Amir and the players. Obviously that hasn't happened. Or if it has happened, it wasn't done properly since Hafeez and Ali still have massive reservations. The PCB has to have seen such reactions coming and having one of the pillars of their batting lineup and future captain protest like this is really bad. PCB suck. Paige's heel turn was fine but they've botched it badly since then.

Paige's heel turn? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It was me Misbah! It was me all along!

 

[OverratedSanity]

Paige's heel turn? What on earth are you talking about?

Team PCB? Paige Charlotte and Becky? Oh that's right you haven't watched WWE in 10 years. What a wasted reference

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

Why does it need to be a moral stance? These are players who have observed his return and perhaps feel that arrogance exists instead of the expected remorse and humility. Why would they trust such a person with the result of a game they're involved in?

 

[mr_mister]

Hasn't Amir been constantly getting these two out cheaply in the Pak Domestic leagues? Probs just sour grapes

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Why does it need to be a moral stance? These are players who have observed his return and perhaps feel that arrogance exists instead of the expected remorse and humility. Why would they trust such a person with the result of a game they're involved in?

because if you're gonna take that stance as a pakistani cricketer you basically would have to not play ever because there's always someone tainted around the team

 

[mr_mister]

i like how everyone was quiet when Amir was criticised for overcelebrating(which was harmless if you watch the clip)



you anti-amir crowd love to pick your battles dont ya

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

It's a pragmatic stance, not necessarily a moral one.

When employers are hesitant to hire ex-cons at their establishment of business, they're decision draws mainly from weighing the pros and cons of it, and is rarely a moral decision.

If my employer hired a known plagiarist/faker who was all over the news 5 years ago to collaborate at my lab, and he displayed no remorse privately (publicly of course, the facade persists), my objection to his presence would be mainly a practical one - I would not have trust in him to not taint the collective work I'm engaged in. Making my concerns known would be the professional thing to do. Professionalism entails responsibility, expertise, adherence to a code of ethics etc. It does not mean keeping a stiff upper lip as you roll over and play fetch to keep your misguided bosses happy.

 

[Flem274*]

eh? i don't really care about his celebrations. they were a non-issue.

i feel like some posters in this thread are trying to paint those who disagree as extremist crazies for not wanting a convicted fixer to play again. i mean really...

 

[Jono]

Team PCB? Paige Charlotte and Becky? Oh that's right you haven't watched WWE in 10 years. What a wasted reference

Diva reference? Pull your head in ffs

 

[G.I.Joe]

because if you're gonna take that stance as a pakistani cricketer you basically would have to not play ever because there's always someone tainted around the team

Amir is someone they've observed at close quarters while he was engaged in his shenanigans. They've probably got hard evidence of his complicity. Surely you can see how that would affect them personally unlike some of the others.

 

[G.I.Joe]

So Azhar and Hafeez have a moral objection about playing with Amir, a spot-fixer. Good for them. How about they show a bit of consistency with their outrage though? Why are they ok playing under Waqar Younis, who was one of the players named by the Qayyum report as having delved into match-fixing? Have they refused to be in the same room as Wasim Akram, Inzi, and Mushy (all of whom were also named in the Qayyum report)? If not, then **** their selective moral outrage. If they found a way to forgive and forget with those players, then they can do the same with Amir.

Wot? If there's a guy in your dressing room who pulled his stunts and apparently now displays no remorse for it, would you not be far more outraged against him than some old fuddy duddies who may or may not have done the same? You doth protesteth too much with false equivalences.

 

[cnerd123]

Amir is someone they've observed at close quarters while he was engaged in his shenanigans. They've probably got hard evidence of his complicity. Surely you can see how that would affect them personally unlike some of the others.

Hard evidence of past complicity != hard evidence of future complicity

 

[cnerd123]

Why does it need to be a moral stance? These are players who have observed his return and perhaps feel that arrogance exists instead of the expected remorse and humility. Why would they trust such a person with the result of a game they're involved in?

Like I said, if this is an issue of trust, then whats the evidence they are going off? The PCB have deemed him clean and believe he is back to win. Do you believe Hafeez and Azhar have more information than the PCB do? Or more information that we do?

If it's an issue of 'oh we dont like his behaviour', then that absolutely is a moral objection to Amir's personality and while I can understand the desire to walk off, I'm not going to laud it. It is unprofessional. No two ways about it.

 

[cnerd123]

If my employer hired a known plagiarist/faker who was all over the news 5 years ago to collaborate at my lab, and he displayed no remorse privately (publicly of course, the facade persists), my objection to his presence would be mainly a practical one - I would not have trust in him to not taint the collective work I'm engaged in. Making my concerns known would be the professional thing to do. Professionalism entails responsibility, expertise, adherence to a code of ethics etc. It does not mean keeping a stiff upper lip as you roll over and play fetch to keep your misguided bosses happy.

Your assumptions here are that:
A) Hafeez and Azhar haven't voiced their concerns in another manner prior to the walk out
B) The employer (PCB) is unaware of the Amir's actions and lack of remorse shown
C) A lack of remorse shown privately = solid evidence for Amir's willingness to fix again, and not just evidence of him being a ****

I would disagree with all three.

 

[Fusion]

Wot? If there's a guy in your dressing room who pulled his stunts and apparently now displays no remorse for it, would you not be far more outraged against him than some old fuddy duddies who may or may not have done the same? You doth protesteth too much with false equivalences.

Where are you getting the indication that Amir displays no remorse? Everything I've seen or heard from him since his jail stint displays nothing but remorse. You are creating false offenses here. Also, those old fuddy duddies, one of whom now runs the dressing room, were much older and in certain cases the Captains of their team, when they committed those offenses. I don't see how one can be morally outraged against Amir without feeling aggrieved against them.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hard evidence of past complicity != hard evidence of future complicity

I might have flunked an exam in school. Why oh why won't employers realize that past performances are not indicative of future performances?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Your assumptions here are that:
A) Hafeez and Azhar haven't voiced their concerns in another manner prior to the walk out
B) The employer (PCB) is unaware of the Amir's actions and lack of remorse shown
C) A lack of remorse shown privately = solid evidence for Amir's willingness to fix again, and not just evidence of him being a ****

I would disagree with all three.

A) I don't know whether they have. Not an assumption taken in consideration.
B) The employer might well be aware of his actions and lack of remorse shown, but want him in anyway because they figure he'll win them more matches than he'll lose anyway. The PCB are not above acting immorally for future personal gain. I assume the exact opposite of what you assume that I assume.
C) A lack of remorse might not be a guarantor of future fixes, but it certainly screws up the team atmosphere in such a malicious way that you'd understand their thought processes if you were part of a team sport (which surprises me exceedingly because AFAIK, you do play cricket).

 

[cnerd123]

I might have flunked an exam in school. Why oh why won't employers realize that past performances are not indicative of future performances?

I didnt say past performances aren't indicative of future performances. I said having hard evidence of someone having committed a crime in the past (that they have already been punished for too) cannot be used as hard evidence of any future wrongdoing. They may suspect him but thats all. They cannot, unequivocally say that he will fix again.

A) I don't know whether they have. Not an assumption taken in consideration.
B) The employer might well be aware of his actions and lack of remorse shown, but want him in anyway because they figure he'll win them more matches than he'll lose anyway. The PCB are not above acting immorally for future personal gain. I assume the exact opposite of what you assume that I assume.
C) A lack of remorse might not be a guarantor of future fixes, but it certainly screws up the team atmosphere in such a malicious way that you'd understand their thought processes if you were part of a team sport (which surprises me exceedingly because AFAIK, you do play cricket).

Well I have considered the possibility of B happening, so not going to disagree there, but based on the information we have that just remains a theory. Speculation. We cannot certainly say that is what is happening.

I also understand their thought processes. I've said this before, I can see why they won't want to play alongside him. My point is that it is still unprofessional to walk out. Part of the job of being an international team-sports athlete is learning how to get along and win alongside people you may not like and may not trust. If players keep walking out on guys they have a bad feeling about without any concrete evidence or reasons, we would barely be able to put together functioning playing XIs.

Amir has done his time. The ICC and PCB have cleared him as clean. He is bowling well. There has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that Amir is still fixing or likely to fix again. If Hafeez and Azhar still feel uneasy, and I can understand why, they can walk out. But they should suffer the consequences of that decision instead of being lauded for it.