Slow Love™
International Captain
Sanz, you are really misrepresenting the facts here. Personally, I DO have some sympathy for why Murali might not want to tour Australia, and I acknowledge his right to do so. I also recognize that many players the world over have decided not to tour for ALL sorts of reasons, so much of the rancour directed his way in Australia is misguided.
However, I fail to see how you can compare touring a country (Sri Lanka) that in 1996 was declared to be in a State of Emergency by its government, and was facing a barrage of bombing attacks by the LTTE, to being abused by a crowd at a cricket match. You bring up Warne's (and if I remember at the time, Healy's also?) reluctance to tour based on actual death threats directed at both them and their family. This STILL is nothing like being abused by a crowd at a cricket match, and I would suggest that if Warne couldn't stomach crowd abuse, he wouldn't have been touring South Africa and England, where let me tell you, he receives HELL from the crowds.
Besides all this, what is your actual POINT? If you wish to deride Warne's fear for his security (and the fears both the Australian and West Indian sides had for their security related to the situation in Sri Lanka in '96), why on earth would you be DEFENDING Murali's stance? Can you see how your argument makes no sense? If Murali has the right to make this kind of decision (which I believe he has) not to tour because of the abuse he believes he'll receive from the crowd, then surely Warne has the right not to tour because people have actually threatened to do him physical harm. As have the Australian (and West Indian - I know you keep avoiding mentioning them) team the right not to tour a region in the violent throes of a civil war. Murali's reasons are a little less serious than these - even if I acknowledge that they're still valid reasons.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but in doing so, you've lost the basis of your argument. To make sense, you'd have to defend Warne and the Australian team at least as much as you do Murali.
However, I fail to see how you can compare touring a country (Sri Lanka) that in 1996 was declared to be in a State of Emergency by its government, and was facing a barrage of bombing attacks by the LTTE, to being abused by a crowd at a cricket match. You bring up Warne's (and if I remember at the time, Healy's also?) reluctance to tour based on actual death threats directed at both them and their family. This STILL is nothing like being abused by a crowd at a cricket match, and I would suggest that if Warne couldn't stomach crowd abuse, he wouldn't have been touring South Africa and England, where let me tell you, he receives HELL from the crowds.
Besides all this, what is your actual POINT? If you wish to deride Warne's fear for his security (and the fears both the Australian and West Indian sides had for their security related to the situation in Sri Lanka in '96), why on earth would you be DEFENDING Murali's stance? Can you see how your argument makes no sense? If Murali has the right to make this kind of decision (which I believe he has) not to tour because of the abuse he believes he'll receive from the crowd, then surely Warne has the right not to tour because people have actually threatened to do him physical harm. As have the Australian (and West Indian - I know you keep avoiding mentioning them) team the right not to tour a region in the violent throes of a civil war. Murali's reasons are a little less serious than these - even if I acknowledge that they're still valid reasons.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but in doing so, you've lost the basis of your argument. To make sense, you'd have to defend Warne and the Australian team at least as much as you do Murali.
