Lions81 said:
Cricket is a team sport. You live and die in teams. If you don't have simple respect for your teammates then you don't deserve to be called a cricketer. And what do you mean since when was the national squad concerned about MacGill? He's their teammate. I've heard sports often metaphorized to war, and so in this case, he'd be one of their fellow soldiers. Especially a team like Australia which has been very stable over the years, I'm sure they've all become quite close on those long tours. There can't have been more than 20 or so cricketers who've donned that baggy green over the past 2-3 years, so I'm sure the national squad cares more than a little about MacGill.
If fifteen Australian cricketers decided not to go, and one decided he was going to tour, would you be trumpeting his rights as an individual to do that as well? If you can honestly say that it would have still been in your eyes a courageous decision if the decision was the opposite of the way you feel, for example, if in this case the decision had been for MacGill to be the only person to tour, then I will accept that and respect your opinion on the matter. Otherwise, your response to my post is more than a little melodramatic...
Cricket is most definitely a team sport - but that should not get in the way of individual decisions as to whether someone has a personal objection to tour or not. People have opted out of tours for a multitude of reasons in the past, but for me, MacGill deciding that he cannot tour Zimbabwe on moral grounds is just as valid as Jonathan Edwards saying years ago that he could not compete on a Sunday because of his own religious beliefs and should be given equal respect.
The fact that people equate a sporting contest with a war (or being akin to war) is, of course, nonsense. Just because people do something doesn't make it right. Like Shankly saying that 'Football is not a matter of life and death. It is much more important than that' - only an idiot believes that he meant it. I don't think that MacGill has to stand in line with his team-mates on this issue at all - and no, they don't have to support him either - just respect his decision.
I have always trumpeted the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the like (Look around this site - you will see me in off-topic threads vehemently defending the rights of 'foreigners' to burn the Union flag, whether I support their cause or not, I support their RIGHT to do it - in the face of extreme opposition). I also support the right of peaceful counter-protest.
If 15 Aussies decided not to tour, I would applaud their decision, but equally I would uphold the decision of the ones who decided that they could travel. What I would LIKE to see is the ICC taking steps to suspend Zimbabwe, but that won't happen. Next best is for the Australian government, then the British government through the EC to introduce/extend sanctions to include sporting links, but that's not going to happen either. Consequently, the English tour - and the Australian one - will take place.
I have said many times that I see no difference between what's happening now in Zimbabwe and what happened in 1970 in South Africa - and my opinion is that if world cricket judges them to be different just because the colours have been reversed (which appears to be the case), that is hypocritical.
I also respect your right to try to tear my arguments to shreds - if you argue from a genuine contrary position and not either
a) gainsay
or
b) try this 'Devil's Advocate' bullcrap.
