Championless Trophy? - stop the bs and go

[Jakester1288]

It will be very interesting to see how many players opt not to go. I am waiting to see what Andrew Symonds and the Australians to the most, but it will be interesting to see how many players say no in total. Do you think that if enough players don't go that there is a chance the competition will be moved/cancelled?


EDIT: Halfway to 1000 posts.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It will be very interesting to see how many players opt not to go. I am waiting to see what Andrew Symonds and the Australians to the most, but it will be interesting to see how many players say no in total. Do you think that if enough players don't go that there is a chance the competition will be moved/cancelled?


EDIT: Halfway to 1000 posts.

Given the way the ICC's been going about things I'd imagine even if it was just India and Pakistan who decided to play they'd still have group stages, quarter finals, semis, and a final.

 

[brockley]

Word is most of the australian squad of 30 won't go if not all of them,sticking together as a team.

 

[WhatisRight]

Taufel confident over CT security in Pakistan

SYDNEY: Simon Taufel, the Australian umpire, has expressed confidence over the security situation in Pakistan, saying that he will officiate in the Champions Trophy in September if selected. Taufel has been to Pakistan on ten occasions, most recently in June, when he stood in seven games of the Asia Cup.

“There are no guarantees in any area of life,” Taufel told the Sunday Herald. “In all my experiences there, the Pakistan people have been friendly and hospitable. Everything is absolutely first class.

“They make a huge effort in the security stakes. At no stage have I felt worried, in danger or threatened in Pakistan,” he said. “If I’m selected to be an umpire, I will not hesitate to go.”

Taufel’s comments come in the wake of fears that members of the Australian team could opt out of the Champions Trophy. Ricky Ponting had indicated in June that his team-mates were uneasy over touring, while Andrew Symonds was not convinced about player safety. However, the players are expected to take their final calls after security briefings by Cricket Australia.

 

[howardj]

Lawson On Mission

Fair dinkum, this bloke should be Pakistan's tourism ambassador.

He could get his right arm blown off but would still declare the place safe.

 

[Fusion]

Lawson On Mission

Fair dinkum, this bloke should be Pakistan's tourism ambassador.

He could get his right arm blown off but would still declare the place safe.

Good on him. He lives there so obviously has a better understanding of the situation than someone living thousands of miles away. It’s interesting to note that most people who’ve visited Pakistan recently, or who had a chance to live/stay there for an extended time have deemed the place safe. Besides Lawson and Taufel, the late Bob Woolmer had also considered Pakistan safe.

 

[four_or_six]

And yet in the same breath...

"The weekly Rapport newspaper reported that D.J. Mavimbela, the country's high commissioner in Pakistan, had sent a letter to Cricket South Africa warning it of the risk to players' safety."

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/iccct2008/content/current/story/364792.html

It's all a bit of a mess really.

 

[Fusion]

And yet in the same breath...

"The weekly Rapport newspaper reported that D.J. Mavimbela, the country's high commissioner in Pakistan, had sent a letter to Cricket South Africa warning it of the risk to players' safety."

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/iccct2008/content/current/story/364792.html

It's all a bit of a mess really.

I saw that and was shocked tbh. I can’t fathom why the high commissioner would come to that conclusion without consulting with proper authorities responsible for player’s security. I must admit one thing though: If I was a South African player already reluctant to go, this letter would probably seal my decision. If a representative of your country living in Pakistan is advising you not to come, then it would be pretty hard to overcome your fears.

 

[brockley]

ICC meets nz tomorrow,australia friday,england and south africa on the weekend.
We should know on or before the 20th where these teams stand,including the players.

 

[WhatisRight]

Just read in cricinfo that the ICC fails to convince NZ players. How much more should they do to get them? this is getting ridiculous...

 

[brockley]

ICC do not convince nz players or player association.
If thats the case i don't see the icc impressing australia,s africa or england.
Champions trophy now looks doomed.

 

[four_or_six]

From Cricinfo quotes:

"The Australians put their views across in a very polite way and perhaps not as animated or as cynical as the New Zealand players."

The ICC's general manager of cricket, Dave Richardson, says convincing 22 New Zealand players of the security measures in Pakistan was a tough ask.

Sounds like the Australian meeting was slightly calmer than the NZ... though Australia just had Ponting and Clarke representing the players whereas NZ seem to have had their whole squad.

 

[WhatisRight]

by the way why have they got srilanka as an alternate venue? If everyone wants to play in a completely safe environment then atleast go for some country that is much much "safer" than srilanka, india or pakistan.

 

[GIMH]

Iraq?

 

[four_or_six]

by the way why have they got srilanka as an alternate venue? If everyone wants to play in a completely safe environment then atleast go for some country that is much much "safer" than srilanka, india or pakistan.

I'm not sure that's quite the point though... as far as I can tell, it's more the point that Australian (and British) interests have been specifically threatened as targets in Pakistan, whereas in India or Sri Lanka the concern is more about being in the wrong place at the wrong time which is easier to plan against.

 

[Richard]

Is it?

I'd have thought it'd be the other way around TBH.

You're far more likely to be able to defend yourself if you know you're a target than if you don't.

 

[four_or_six]

Is it?

I'd have thought it'd be the other way around TBH.

You're far more likely to be able to defend yourself if you know you're a target than if you don't.

I don't agree. You could put the argument that if terrorists are specifically targetting Australians then you are much more at risk than if the are exploding bombs at a market, for example. In that case, if you are concerned you can just stay in your hotel and are unlikely to be affected.

For example, as a Brit, I would feel significantly more at risk stood outside a British Embassy in Pakistan than I would in Sri Lanka.

 

[WhatisRight]

I don't agree. You could put the argument that if terrorists are specifically targetting Australians then you are much more at risk than if the are exploding bombs at a market, for example. In that case, if you are concerned you can just stay in your hotel and are unlikely to be affected.

For example, as a Brit, I would feel significantly more at risk stood outside a British Embassy in Pakistan than I would in Sri Lanka.

Whatever. That still doesnt convince me, if safety is the number one priority (which certainly is) then they should play at a place which is much safer then countries in the sub-continent. I agree sri lanka is safer than pakistan when it comes to foreigners but still its far from a safe country. Even though pakistan is abit more "dangerous" still they are providing that much more security than other countries so it really balances everything out.

 

[James]

Well Australia and New Zealand have basically ruled themselves out of going to the Champions Trophy in any form

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24189142-23212,00.html?from=public_rss

England and South Africa to probably follow their lead and pull out completely as well I would think.

Dear oh dear

 

[brockley]

In cricinfo icc said it had not ruled out the trophy going to srilanka,seems that is very much on the cards now.
Better than having west indiies,3 asian teams,bangladesh zimbabwe and 2 minnows anyway.