-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Amir should have been banned for life: Graeme Swann
- Thread starter karan316
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
efa
hahahahahaha I didn't mean that. I mean I will be ok with him playing for Pakistan.Where will you go with him?
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
I love how there are these new pieces on Amir's return every other day now and not just 1 but 2-3 a day especially from guys like Chappeli. You wouldn't think that Amir has actually been playing international cricket for 6 months now including a World Cup. But it's only cricket when it's in England or Australia
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
well for all intents and purposes . . .I love how there are these new pieces on Amir's return every other day now and not just 1 but 2-3 a day especially from guys like Chappeli. You wouldn't think that Amir has actually been playing international cricket for 6 months now including a World Cup. But it's only cricket when it's in England or Australia
Migara
International Coach
Exactly. Warne should have not been allowed to return.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah Warne's mum should have been banned
Shady Slim
International Coach
i agree with this and it's got nothing to do with any draft at all
watson
Banned
People seem to grade sins differently according to their own moral code.
Clearly, Warne's sin seems to be little more than a trifle, and Murali's supposed chucking pale in comparison when compared to the evil of spot-fixing.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
Absolutely. “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we personally dislike.” - Oscar Wilde.
"This in turn is directly proportion to the extent of our dislike" - Black Warrior
BBC headline after the Somerset game was a case in point - Convicted Spot Fixer Amir gets 3 wickets on return .100 % accurate.
But I have never seen a similarly accurate headline like "Convicted drug cheat and *** offender Shane Warne gets 5 wickets in Ashes test".
Last edited:
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
Anil Kumble threatened to abandon tour and lied to save Harbhajan. All hail Rangana Herath.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
love fatty herath. Wag
watson
Banned
If I told you that it had been 'arranged' between a bookie and Joe Root that he would hole-out before reaching double figures in England's recent second innings then how would you feel about that?
If I were a Pakistan supporter then I would be very upset because Pakistan's brilliant victory would have just been undermined. After all, everyone would be making the assumption that Pakistan didn't really defeat England because their best batsman got himself out.
Obviously, Root deliberately throwing his wicket away is very different to the odd deliberate no-ball by Amir. But Amir's exploits are the thin end of the wedge because once spot fixing becomes endemic then it is more than likely that match fixing by influencing big name players will also become endemic.
And of course once the outcome of important matches is determined by deals with bookies rather than by an equal clash between two teams then you have just lost the game of cricket.
You could argue that performance enhancing drugs and chucking also threaten the fabric of cricket, but most people would make the assessment that these things don't threaten it as much as crooks and cricketers doing deals. Hence the moral outrage at Amir, and not so much at Warne.
Last edited:
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
We are talking two different things here. You are assuming I don't take spot fixing seriously, hence you feel the need to use the Root example against me. This is pointless.
I take spot fixing very seriously. That's why I have never ever defended Amir nor will you ever see me making bullshit arguments like "oh he was young and naive". No. He was 18, he was very smart and knew exactly what he was doing. But I also have complete faith and trust in a fair trial which for me is the very essence of a modern civilized society. A trial is not the same as moral outrage from people, especially victims. I can understand the outrage of Swann or other English players in that game. But there's a reason a jury is not made up of people directly effected by the case.
The trial was a fair one and it decided on 5 years. I accept that. I would have accepted even if it decided on 10 years or a life time. Because that's what a society works on - you have trials so that you accept the decisions..It's not there to please everyone..but it's there to have a semblance of justice and fairness and as far as I am concerned, justice was done.
Moral outrage on the other hand is completely subjective and everyone is entitled to it. That does not make one person's moral outrage over one act superior to someone else's because we all get outraged over different things. For me ***ually harrassing people is a bit more serious than spot fixing or performance enhancing drugs. But I don't believe it is relevant to Warne's cricketing ability..hence I will never bring it up in cricketing discussions. My post wast to point out that we pick and choose based on our personal preferences.
Warne is very popular in the UK hence neither his drug conviction nor his ***ual harrassment is ever talked about. Amir not so much..hence BBC will always make that headline.
Furball is disgusted by Yasir playing cricket again..yet had no issues with Warne playing in two Ashes series post 2003 drug conviction.
I was just pointing out that we all have our biases when it comes to moral outrage. Hence if you are going to argue that the BBC headline was justified, then either you have to acknowledge that a similar headline should have been made on Warne, or accept that you have different standards - one for someone you like (Warne) and one for those you don't like (Amir). That was also my original point.
Last edited: