Championless Trophy? - stop the bs and go

[Athlai]

Hate to repeat myself, but maybe he read this:
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Pakistan."]http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Pakistan.[/URL]

Yeah but maximum security kind of changes the whole prospect of that doesn't it?

 

[WhatisRight]

Hate to repeat myself, but maybe he read this:
http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Pakistan."]http://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Pakistan.[/URL]

Ok maybe thats why australia dont wana tour, becuase they read these kind of smarttravel **** and change their mind. So tell me how can u compare this advice for general public wanting to go to pakistan and a international team provided with the biggest security?

 

[Matt79]

^ and ^^:
Depends upon your opinion of the competence and efficacy of that security in actually securing you. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it's the PCB making the promises about maximum security, and I wouldn't trust them to be able to fall off a log right, let alone take their word for it that I don't need to worry about advice from my government saying "don't go there unless you really have to".

And as I've also mentioned Musharraf has presumably the best security possible and there have been some attacks on him that came very close to succeeding. No security effort in terms of guards etc are going to be definitely adequate if the people seeking to attack you have brains and are willing to die to succeed.

 

[WhatisRight]

Yeah but maximum security kind of changes the whole prospect of that doesn't it?

Exactly. My point.

 

[Athlai]

The Asia Cup had more security guards than spectators. Thought that'd be a clear indication of the kind of security that they'd be willing to give. The PCB also blatantly wants this tour to be a success as a failure would certainly ruin all hopes of an IPL type champions league entry which in turn means a loss of massive potential profit. And if there is money to be lost for lack of safety then I think the PCB will do their finest in protecting the boys.

 

[WhatisRight]

^^ Depends upon your opinion of the competence and efficacy of that security in actually securing you. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it's the PCB making the promises about maximum security, and I wouldn't trust them to be able to fall off a log right, let alone take their word for it that I don't need to worry about advice from my government saying "don't go there unless you really have to".

If PCB is saying it, it means its directly coming from the government. I hope you knew that?

 

[WhatisRight]

Another thing i dont understand is the fact that the teams wont be going to hang or shop around so WHAT ARE THEY SCARED ABOUT? They will remain in the stadium with hundreds of police guards and commandos. WOW. it is really beyond me what people like symonds have in their minds. Really feel for people like him. He should really follow a brave player like watson, dont even know why i am saying brave but in the context of symonds he does look more brave.

 

[Matt79]

Another thing i dont understand is the fact that the teams wont be going to hang or shop around so WHAT ARE THEY SCARED ABOUT? They will remain in the stadium with hundreds of police guards and commandos. WOW. it is really beyond me what people like symonds have in their minds. Really feel for people like him. He should really follow a brave player like watson, dont even know why i am saying brave but in the context of symonds he does look more brave.

Ok, why would they want to do that? Why put yourself in a situation where you can't come out from behind hundreds of armed guards if you don't have to.

I'm not saying I think the players are necessarily right to not want to go. I'm not saying whether or not I would go in their shoes (although I'm pretty sure that if I didn't need the money, I wouldn't bother). I'm just saying that they have valid reasons and simply labelling them cowards or sooks for not wanting to go is unfair. And just saying "well you could get hit by a car anywhere" or similar, isn't really a meaningful response to those concerns.

 

[WhatisRight]

Ok, why would they want to do that? Why put yourself in a situation where you can't come out from behind hundreds of armed guards if you don't have to.

I'm not saying I think the players are necessarily right to not want to go. I'm not saying whether or not I would go in their shoes (although I'm pretty sure that if I didn't need the money, I wouldn't bother). I'm just saying that they have valid reasons and simply labelling them cowards or sooks for not wanting to go is unfair. And just saying "well you could get hit by a car anywhere" or similar, isn't really a meaningful response to those concerns.

It is. I know one thing and that is pakistan board is not that rich and you have to understand the boards prespective that it will be in tatters once teams dont go there. if it is providing you with a massive security (have to repeat this) and assuring you protection then still if you dont go then you really are a coward. Obviously PCB cant force anyone, they will try their best till the end and if it doesnt work out then this board will continue to go south financially. These words cant really describe the exact situation of the board, if you know what i mean.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, but you're still arguing from the point of view of the PCB and the Pakistani fans, and I understand why you identify with that point of view. But what I'm saying is that to understand the Australian player's position, you need to put yourself in their shoes. And to persuade them to come, there needs to be a reason that makes it attractive to them to come, rather than only attractive for the PCB for them to come. That's why the ICC levies fines on teams for refusing tours that are on the FTP - because they need to make it in the team's interest to attend.

 

[WhatisRight]

Yeah, but you're still arguing from the point of view of the PCB and the Pakistani fans, and I understand why you identify with that point of view. But what I'm saying is that to understand the Australian player's position, you need to put yourself in their shoes. And to persuade them to come, there needs to be a reason that makes it attractive to them to come, rather than only attractive for the PCB for them to come. That's why the ICC levies fines on teams for refusing tours that are on the FTP - because they need to make it in the team's interest to attend.

pakistan is not hosting a fashion show here. What more attractiveness do they wana see more than hundreds of guards protecting you.

 

[Matt79]

OK, but all I'm saying is that you mention the hundreds of guards as many times as you want to, but as I've said, having to endure that level of security simply to avoid the risk of being bombed is in itself a disincentive to want to go. And given that they don't really need the money, and because of the security won't get a chance to see any of the country or meet the locals, there's very little reason for them to want to go. Until that changes, they're going to continue to be extremely reluctant to go.

And you can laugh, but they're not the ones who are upset at the prospect of not going.

 

[WhatisRight]

OK, but all I'm saying is that you mention the hundreds of guards as many times as you want to, but as I've said, having to endure that level of security simply to avoid the risk of being bombed is in itself a disincentive to want to go. And given that they don't really need the money, and because of the security won't get a chance to see any of the country or meet the locals, there's very little reason for them to want to go. Until that changes, they're going to continue to be extremely reluctant to go.

And you can laugh, but they're not the ones who are upset at the prospect of not going.

Their decision is laughable as ur logic and words are.

I seriously cant understand your point of view. Cricketers are safe but because of your media and your travel advice site, the way it protrays the situation of the country is just too much of an exaggeration. Anyhow what i am saying is this is what makes them soo scared and that is why your fellow players raise soo much concern and that is exactly why that much amount of security is being provided. Not the other way around as you may seem to think. Its becuase of the concerns. Pakistan wont take any risk for teams to boycott their venue.

 

[Matt79]

Meh, I've explained it at far more length than I think is really necessary and in as plain language as I can manage. If you can't understand what I'm saying, it's because you are unwilling to try to see things from the point of view of others. You want things to be one way, and dismiss anything that suggests that that view might not be accurate. As such, there's little point in discussing this further. You're entitled to your opinion - I think that opinion is unfair, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[WhatisRight]

Meh, I've explained it at far more length than I think is really necessary and in as plain language as I can manage. If you can't understand what I'm saying, it's because you are unwilling to try to see things from the point of view of others. You want things to be one way, and dismiss anything that suggests that that view might not be accurate. As such, there's little point in discussing this further. You're entitled to your opinion - I think that opinion is unfair, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I still think its very fair . Anyway, you dont have to agree with me. It was just an argument.

 

[WhatisRight]

As i was writing the above post just read this:

Ponting & Co to boycott Champions Trophy in Pakistan: report

Cricket Australia is heading towards a major crisis with its leading cricketers set to boycott the Champions Trophy in Pakistan owing to security apprehensions, according to a media report in Melbourne on Thursday.

 

[Fusion]

OK, but all I'm saying is that you mention the hundreds of guards as many times as you want to, but as I've said, having to endure that level of security simply to avoid the risk of being bombed is in itself a disincentive to want to go. And given that they don't really need the money, and because of the security won't get a chance to see any of the country or meet the locals, there's very little reason for them to want to go. Until that changes, they're going to continue to be extremely reluctant to go.

And you can laugh, but they're not the ones who are upset at the prospect of not going.

It’s one thing to claim that it’s dangerous to tour so the players don’t want to go. That point is debatable, but understandable. But if the argument is “because of all the heavy security, I won’t have any fun”, then the players would deserve all the colorful adjectives hurled their way. They are rich because they are part of a system. That system requires them to meet certain obligations. They have to tour unattractive places so the whole system/organization continues to function (and hence lets them earn their millions). Your above point is completely ludicrous.

 

[Matt79]

That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Although as an aside, I'm not certain that the "whole system" will cease to function is Australia doesn't tour Pakistan.

 

[Fusion]

That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Although as an aside, I'm not certain that the "whole system" will cease to function is Australia doesn't tour Pakistan.

I’m not talking about this one occurrence. If players/boards are allowed to skip tours because country x is “not fun”, then in the long run the game will suffer greatly and I can see the whole system collapsing. I don’t think my view here is that outlandish.

 

[HoYoYo]

I think the auzzies shud go. they shud go to pakistan.