OK, So why are the Aussie going ahead with the Indian tour

[pasag]

So, people complain about security not being enough, so the hosts offer them presidential level security, and then those people complain that the need for such security means they shouldn't go.

I love this type of reasoning, it usually gets you a job in the Bush administration ASAP.

He was playing on the term 'Z-Grade'...

Amercians and humour

 

[silentstriker]

I have no sense of "humour". Learn to spell.

 

[Fusion]

Posting here since this seems to be the more active thread than the one in the CT forum. Two good articles below from Derek Pringle and Mike Selvey. Both touch upon the issue of perceived hypocrisy if players take part in IPL but skip Pakistan. Both seem to be of the view that CT should be moved from Pakistan, but players should be consistent in their actions. I think that makes sense. I would strongly disagree with the tournament being moved, but I want to see consistency from any player/country that does boycott it. All speculation at this point of course.

Pringle: England cricketers will tour lucrative India but 'dangerous' Pakistan is causing concern

Selvey: ICC wrong to insist on Pakistan but players still look like hypocrites

 

[silentstriker]

Both of them are spot on - exactly what I've been saying for a long time here. It's got nothing to do with actual risk. It's merely percieved risk modified by the politics of touring the country itself and amount of cash on offer. There is no night life in Pakistan and players don't like being cooped up in hotels. They can't go out and make a couple hundred grand in a commercial like in India. And its easy to villify the country because few are going to call you out on it.

 

[Richard]

Has it really been 'over the last 6 months or so'? Apart from Sydney I can't recall too many instances of things going his way all the time.

Had an obscene amount of luck in West Indies, was dropped by Tendulkar at The WACA, and before this there was the lbw that wasn't given against MSP at The MCG in 2006/07.

 

[Dissector]

It is being very presumptuous to say that the players are using this as an excuse. How do you know they are not genuinely fearful?

There are corporations in the world that issue advisories to their staff who travel across the world, not to travel to certain countries in such times. I have been similarly advised by my board of Directors and stopped from traveling on very important business trips.

Lets nit just castigate sportsmen as if they are made of some special heroic clay. I know people who did not go to the US for quite some time after 9/11. Others who did not come to Bombay after the 93 blasts.

One may feel differently from another person's threat perception but one cant presume insincerity because of this difference in perception.

I didn't mean to imply insincerity when I used the word "excuse". Anyway let me explain my point with the following example. Suppose an employee is scheduled for a business trip when there is news of a plane crash somewhere. He cites that as a reason for missing the trip arguing that he is now fearful of air travel. Would that be considered a legitimate reason? Not if I were his boss. Of course I couldn't force him to go for the trip and it probably wouldn't be a firing offense on its own but I would explain that this attitude is not appreciated and would significantly hamper his future prospects. IMO that is the correct attitude for foreign boards to take with respect to players who refuse to go.

IMO part of the expectation for an international cricketer should be that they are expected to travel to and play in countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka which have the odd terrorist attack. The players should expect reasonable security arrangements (which I am sure they receive) but provided these are available they will be expected to play.The risk they face is miniscule: probably lower than what they face at home from car accidents, food poisoning and the like. If facing even such tiny risks is too much perhaps they should consider another career.

 

[Richard]

While it's probably true that the risk of car-crashes in the UK is little different to that of being caught in terrorist blasts in Pakistan, to compare terrorism to food-poisoning is ridiculous. One is life-threatening, one is usually no more than slightly unpleasant.

 

[Dissector]

I was referring to extreme food poisoning which leads to death. For example around 5000 people die of food poisoning in the US every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm

 

[Uppercut]

A lot of people who smoke, when discussing the detrimental effect it has on their health say things like, "well I could get ran over crossing the road, so should I never do that?"

When discussing terrorism and its dangerous, it is a poor analogy IMO to say that there are more pressing dangers, of course there are. I could leave my back door open all night, chances are noone would ever notice and it would never make any difference to anything, it doesn't mean I should start leaving it open as it is an unncessary risk. If terrorism has been happening in a country then people are right to worry, if they perceive the risk as unnecessary (ie some players may think that it is worth it to play for your country) then they should not be maligned for not wishing to take that risk. Whereas refusing to cross the road would be a little silly really, as you wouldn't be able to go to many places. There is risk in everything we ever do, but most of the time it is minute.

I don't really agree with your analysis of risk. It would be considered ridiculous if i were to say that i don't want to go to SA because there's mosquitoes there, but that's a much greater risk than terrorism in Pakistan. Falling seriously ill due to the heat in Pakistan or India is a much greater risk for those of us from the UK not used to such temperatures than terrorism is, but it never stopped teams from here touring those countries before.

In these circumstances it may seem rather trivial, but skewed risk perception can be a serious problem. It's widely believed that the UK could face a widespread measles epidemic in the near future because mothers are opting not to give their children the MMR vaccine through unfounded and irrational fears it may cause autism. By trying to minimise whatever risk there is, they're inadvertently putting their children at a much greater risk.

Obviously, it's the responsibility of the player and they should never be pressurised into touring, or even playing at all, if they're not comfortable with doing so. But they shouldn't be passed off as logical concerns when really they're raw emotions based on one's personal experience.

 

[GIMH]

It's all about risk v benefit though. I won't for a minute pretend that not wanting to tour Pakistan and then touring India, current situation considered, isn't hypocritical. But at the end of the day, it is natural human logic and if players feel they need more reward than the thrill of playing for their country then they will make the same analysis as the rest of us, ie what will I get out of taking this risk? I am much more likely to leg it across the road if there is a car close by if I see a spare thousand quid on the other side.

All this being said, I stand by my original point that I disagree with comparing the risk of terrorism to the risk of a car crash. A car crash can happen anywhere where there are cars, the only way to be sure of avoiding them is to never go near one. There is no sure way of avoiding terrorism but as hot spots for such things are not that frequent in the grand scheme of things, then wanting to avoid going to one is not a decision that should be criticised, IMO.

Would have no problem with anyone criticising the hypocrisy though, want to make that clear, even though as I've said I can actually understand that as well.

 

[four_or_six]

Here are the first paragraphs from the Australian government's travel advice for Australians visiting the countries discussed. Taken from http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/

Australia foreign office travel advice to Pakistan:

"We strongly advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Pakistan at this time due to the very high threat of terrorist attack, sectarian violence and the unpredictable security situation. If you do decide to travel to Pakistan, you should exercise extreme caution. If you are in Pakistan and concerned for your safety, you should consider leaving if it is safe to do so."

Australia foreign office travel advice to India (updated two days ago):

"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in India because of the high risk of terrorist activity by militant groups."

Australia foreign office travel advice to Sri Lanka:

"We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Sri Lanka at this time because of the very high risk of politically motivated violence. Attacks in Colombo have become more frequent and have killed many civilians. Further attacks can happen at any time, anywhere in Sri Lanka. Australians could inadvertently become victims of violence directed at others."

Australia foreign office travel advice to South Africa:

"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in South Africa because of the high level of serious crime."

---

Agree with these or not, it's understandable why players read them and worry. Pakistan's is the strongest, followed by Sri Lanka. Although when you read them in full there's a clear distinction in tone where broadly Pakistan's is saying Australian interests may be targets whereas Sri Lanka's is saying Australians may be inadvertantly caught up in violence. India's is nowhere near as strong.

 

[Uppercut]

I think these risks are exaggerated due to their out-of-proportion news coverage. Similar advice was probably given to Australians travelling to Belfast ten or fifteen years ago but in reality tourists were probably the group least likely to be the victim of a sectarian attack.

 

[Ikki]

I think these risks are exaggerated due to their out-of-proportion news coverage. Similar advice was probably given to Australians travelling to Belfast ten or fifteen years ago but in reality tourists were probably the group least likely to be the victim of a sectarian attack.

I think they also exaggerated out of proportion because in the highly unlikely event it does occur people don't want fingers pointed at them.

 

[four_or_six]

I think these risks are exaggerated due to their out-of-proportion news coverage. Similar advice was probably given to Australians travelling to Belfast ten or fifteen years ago but in reality tourists were probably the group least likely to be the victim of a sectarian attack.

I'm not trying to comment on the validity of the advice, just that this is the foreign office travel advice, and that is a very valid source that the players are likely to have read and may be basing their opinions on.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not trying to comment on the validity of the advice, just that this is the foreign office travel advice, and that is a very valid source that the players are likely to have read and may be basing their opinions on.

Oh i know, i wasn't criticising you, i was criticising the advice.

 

[Uppercut]

I think they also exaggerated out of proportion because in the highly unlikely event it does occur people don't want fingers pointed at them.

True, but those running a country generally don't wish to see it portrayed in the popular foreign mindset as a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

 

[four_or_six]

Oh i know, i wasn't criticising you, i was criticising the advice.

No, I know I just think it's a bit unfair to be too harsh on the players when they must be getting this kind of advice.

 

[GIMH]

All you can do is act on the information available to you, unless you have first-hand experience. They are professional cricketers not foreign affairs experts, as such they are going to listen to advice that they receive on such matters.

 

[Burgey]

yes, SJS, obviously if certain players are not willing to go, then let them not go. But why is CA insisting on not touring Pakistan as some kind of a rule even when they are promised Z grade security while they don't do that way with India? Let them just pick whoever is willing to tour and go and play at least once.


As I keep saying, it all comes down to the fact that there is some stigma attached (rightly or wrongly) about tourning Pakistan and only a tour by Australia or some other team which has similarly concerned players can remove it to at least some extent.

But they're not insisting on it as some kind of rule. The past 2 scheduled tours of Pakistan by Australia have coincided with increases in security concerns. No one can say "so and so toured somewhere 18 months ago so you should go now" if there's been a change in circumstances since then, coz it's apples and oranges.

As for touring India, frankly if there's bombs going off in cities where there are matches scheduled, no doubt players will be apprehensive and I'd actually hope CA would arrange for security analyses in those areas before commiting the side to touring there. If they don't they're hypocritical about it (which would hardly be a first for a cricket administration ).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Had an obscene amount of luck in West Indies, was dropped by Tendulkar at The WACA, and before this there was the lbw that wasn't given against MSP at The MCG in 2006/07.

I didn't see most of the West Indies series as I don't have Foxtel, only saw the highlights.