Wasim says ICC is run by whites

[social]

can we hear what you speak of ?

As for ICC.. although they say they are neutral but they haven't quite reached that point yet.
One instance i can never forget.. 2001- Dravid Vs SLater..... how did SLater ever get away without even getting a suspension.... can't remember whether he got fined or not but pretty sure he got away lighlty. After claiming he took a catch although the replay suggested otherwise.
The less we say about umpiring is better.

a. racism in asia

b. pales into insignificance compared to the slap on the wrist that Afridi received for tampering with a test pitch.

 

[Jono]

Stupid comment by Wasim.

 

[C_C]

Please explain how any of the above remotely relates to the wide-spread, i.e. virtually everyone does it, use of verbal and/or physical intimdation to assist in the winning of a cricket match?

It doesnt relate to it directly nor inderectly (straightforwards). However, i was replying specifically to 'Swede's' comment : "you seem to believe only the west can be racist, strangely." directed towards me- i was talking from a historical perspective.

When it comes to cricket, i still see the Aussie players getting off for identical 'crimes' committed by subcontinental or kiwi or west indian players - such aussie behaviour is excused ( Warne screaming at the umpires) or flat out denied by posters here and the ICC taps them much lightly on the wrist for stuff like that. Apparently Harbhajan can be fined for over-appealing but Warne literally pointing to the replay screen and screaming at Dar isnt 'over appealing'. I think incident-by-incident catalouge shows a slight but definitive pro-Aussie bias from the elite umpires and this is totally contradictory to the cover story of 'best teams get the better end of the decisions' simply because teams like West Indies didnt get the best decisions- they infact got the worst decisions of all.
The ICC(and its predecessors) have a clear-cut history of favouring white nations, especially England and Australia- openly till the mid 80s and distinctly in the 90s. Infact the entire premise for the ICC cricket ratings were drawn (ie, the ratings applied to) when England,South Africa and Australia were precisely at their best position- not a year before or a year after.
As such, an organisation that has an openly biassed history for the first 100+ years of its existance and a shady at best record for the next 10-15 years deserve to be viewed with caution simply because it 'claims' to be neutral in the last 10-odd years.

 

[Craig]

Look-you can pretend as much as you want but facts clearly indicate that ICC ( or its previous avatars) were largely a ' whiteboy club' till the mid/late 80s. Facts prove this- the ICC ( and its previous avatars) have consistently taken decisions to protect English and Aussie interests only leading up to that period- most rule changes were brought forth when one ( or both) of the two abovementioned teams were struggling against the other team(s). The lbw laws were changed as soon as Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine flummoxed the English batsmen in England. Bouncers were okay when Thommo and Lillee were peppering the batsmen away - overs and overs at a stretch but murmurs began as soon as West Indies did the same- with better efficiency. That eventually led to the bouncer rules. Third umpiring was brought forth largely due to the Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident, despite the fact that English or Australian home umpires were historically no worse than the Pakistani ones ( the most biassed three countries when it came to home umpiring). Blatant cheating by NZ umpires resulted in the WI series loss to NZ in 1979/80.
The examples are too numerous to dismiss the fact that ICC has been pro-white for most of its existance.

That is what you get when you get home-town umpiring, and umpires in the subcontinent weren't exactly perfect either...

 

[C_C]

That is what you get when you get home-town umpiring, and umpires in the subcontinent weren't exactly perfect either...

No they wernt but Pakistan apart, nobody had a problem with IND/SL umpires...nowhere as much as Aussie umpires.

 

[SJS]

If I can read right, Wasim is talking of how ICC IS run and not how it was run.

Am I right or am I right ?

 

[C_C]

If I can read right, Wasim is talking of how ICC IS run and not how it was run.

Am I right or am I right ?

'Is' is a question yet to be answered owing to the overwhelming evidence of history pointing otherwise. This debate is relevant in another 20 year's time. Now it is irrelevant as its too soon to tell if anything has changed or if it has merely gone into the shadows.

 

[swede]

I dont believe that only the west can be racist.
But historical evidence suggests that the west has had the largest % of racists in their population and still do quite easily ( the only legitimate competition comes from the gulf arab countries).
That is historically documented and easily verified.
And i can tell you too where that stems from - Christianity and the so-called 'curse of ham' and fundamental fear of the unknown. Do not try to debate this, for there is historical documentation available( which i can also reproduce) that shows official catholic/protestant/orthodox/orthodox jewish faiths arguing genetic superiority until very recenetly. And you will find that while religious violence has occured more frequently in the east than the west in the last century or so, the east has very little concept of racism and didnt have any concept of racism till the west showed up. Again, that is factually documented. The west is becomming civilized but its only been recent - last 50 years or so at most.
The rest of the world hasnt been doing much better, but it has taken care of bigotry a lot longer before the west has. You dont see the rest of the world perpetrating slavery to the scale of the west and that too, along a fundamental line of skin color and racial superiority. You dont see the rest of the world genociding the native americans in cold blood and a cold blooded genocider like Columbus being hailed as some sort of hero. You also dont see the rest of the world attempting to re-write history along their racial/regional agenda- apparently newton 'discovered' the laws of gravity ( when scientifically speaking, it is impossible to construct the lighthouse of alexandria or the gates of persia without understanding F=ma to its fundamental scientific level). You dont see the rest of the world adamantly claiming that columbus/vikings discovered the americas. You dont see the rest of the world marching across thousands of miles, arid deserts, mountains and all simply to wage a religious war. ( except for Arabia but the arabs and the west have far more in common historically and philosophically with each other than the rest of the world, owing to the catastrophe called Christianity/Islam/Judaism)
You dont see the rest of the world chanting about their superiority due to blahblah or actively tolerate racism like it does from fundamentalist Jews. You also dont see the rest of the world invading another nation, genociding/displacing its populace to create a nation because they hold this ludicrous notion that this is 'making things right'.

But understand one thing- depicting the truth, even when the truth is bitter, is not an attack directly upon you, unless you wish to uphold the concepts. Its understandable that many here hail from western backgrounds stretching back hundreds(if not thousands) of years and there is a fundamental bond you have that favours the west over the east- the eastern folks do too, which is why it irks many indians when sati practice is mentioned. But understand one more thing- your attachment to the west( or east) comes essentially from an illogical and unreasonable bond with your ancestral heritage, that is tied directly to your ego. Ie, people feel less receptive towards the crimes of their ancestors simply because they somehow feel that they are being belittled/attacked upon. That instinctive nature is easily solved by discarding the fundamental christian notion( and essentially a cultural notion that is still very deep entrenched in the west) of 'passing on the sins to your progeny' - it doesnt matter if your great great great grandfather ( or whatever) was a racist murdering scumbag. I come from a brahmin family and i dont think my ancestors in the 1600s or 1700s were paragons of virtue either- they probably belived in the superiority of the brahmins, the inferiority of the untouchables and burning of widowed women, given how prevalent that notion was in that era. It doesnt reflect upon me, unless i wish to attach any extra value on some scumbag 300 years ago who happens to be related to me. It doenst reflect upon you either about the scumbags from the past who happens to be your ancestors. Unless you want it to reflect upon you.

This is the fundamental cause of western angst towards the east - the west is guilty of far more attrocities than the east in the last 1000 years or so but western folks dont like hearing the truth and develop angst towards who propagate the truth.
Once you understand the basis of your emotional response, you can easily figure it out/fine tune it or eliminate it alltogether.

And once you can accept the fact that the west has done far more harm than good to humanity during its dominant phase over the globe, you can try and set things right. But what you dont admit, you dont set right.
Oh and one last thing - before you dismiss me for being 'anti jewish, anti west, racist,blahblahblah', consider the fact that i am part white and part jewish ( though in small parts).

well I completly disagree with your perception of the west and that it has done more harm than good.
The west has influenced the world enormously and continue to do so with more and more countries developing by moving towards the western economic model.

The world has never been richer

There has never been less poor people in the world

The chance of dying in a war has never been smaller in the history of the world.

The number of wars are in steep decline and international law makes it ever harder for thug states. The west interferes and should in my opinion continue to do so.

The west developed through the acceptance of the physical sciences etc to reach a dominant position, and many actions followed that would be considered imoral today but it was hardly a peaceful happy world where others didnt do the same. The west was just stronger thus able to do good and bad on a much larger scale.
Just as the west was able to kill eachother on a much larger scale than in wars elsewhere,

If the historic actions of the west shall be subjected to moral evaluation of the present shouldnt the cultures they affected as well, many of which offered a life in abject poverty and stiffling oppression and terrible practises.

The only way I can really beleive the west has been a negative for the world is if we believe the average person everywhere on the globe lived far happier lives than now in the pre western-developement world. I dont.

 

[Slow Love™]

Somehow Ive never had the feeling that Murali, Kumble, etc, etc will ever die wondering when it comes to appealing.

The Indians, in particular, are past masters of placing pressure on the umpires through incessant appealing.

And the Sri Lankans, under Ranatunga, were definitely one of the worst behaved sporting outfits that it has ever been my misfortune to witness. Ranatunga, in particular, played on the stereotype of his countrymen being "gentle, etc" to extricate himself from blame for controversy after controversy and was more than happy to play the race card whenever it suited. It's the reason why he was/is one of the most despised cricketers in recent memory.

Yeah, but I don't think honestbharani's point was about whether the Indians or Sri Lankans were less egregious appealers than the Australians, South Africans, etc.

It was about the fact that Procter assumes that being polite and quiet is part of their cultural identity, and being louder and aggressive is part of the Aussies, Saffies and NZ (and therefore they should be given more of a free rein).

See the ramifications of such an assumption?

 

[Slow Love™]

Wasim reminds me of the leftists in India who keep mouthing socialist slogans long after they have lost all significance just ecause it has become a habit

they never had any significance...the rest of the world slowly but surely realized that, the morons(who deem themselves intellectuals) shut their eyes and ears firmly and continue shouting their inane slogans....

Oy! You guys will have your backs to the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[Slow Love™]

^I've only ever heard Aussies say they 'despise' Ranatunga...same with Ganguly. Perhaps because these two actually decided to challenge the Aussies at their own game.

I have to fess up, I cannot stand the man.

It's one thing to stand up for your countrymen, and I respect that. But IMO, Ranatunga frequently played the game in a terrible spirit, he's a loudmouth idiot who insults an entire country in order to get payback on one player (which would have been considered inexcusable had it happened the other way around, and rightly so), and he actually resorted to physically manhandling an umpire on the field, something I've never seen before, and I hope I never see again.

At least in my case, I don't think it's about challenging the Aussies at their own game at all - and in fact, I completely agree with your assessment of Ganguly, and I've now and then compared him to Ian Chappell on that basis, because he is very good at getting under his opponent's skin). Not in the same category at all.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I actually agree with Slow Love in regards to Ranatunga. Firstly I think you'll find more than just Australians dislike Ganguly, I think many English cricket fans will say the same. I think the reasons are different than Ranatunga's.

I remember watching Inside Cricket and when Gavaskar was on they were talking about Ganguly not being selected for the ODIs, and guys like Mark Waugh, and even Border and Brendan Julian spoke about it with a smirk on their face. Its shown further with the way they joke about Ganguly's over rates and other things he does which just irk people. Its his general attitude and aura that pee a lot of Australians, and pretty much most cricket fans off. He does get under the skin of many people, and I kind of admire that in him when it comes to leading the Indian teams as a captain.

I dare say its the same opinion many non-Australian cricket fans dislike Ponting and Graeme Smith. I see all those 3 in the same basket. Either arrogance, or their whining, hypocrisy or something of the sort. Usually opposition cricket fans just can't stand them. You don't see the same with say Fleming, Atapattu or Jayasuriya when he was captain. Because they're far less overtly annoying for a lack of a better word. Much more quiet and do their job captains, which I suspect Dravid will be too.

Ranatunga is hated for a different reason IMO. See SL's post for reference.

 

[marc71178]

If I can read right, Wasim is talking of how ICC IS run and not how it was run.

Am I right or am I right ?

Come off it SJS, when he says "is" he clearly means "was 70 years ago"

 

[marc71178]

'Is' is a question yet to be answered owing to the overwhelming evidence of history pointing otherwise. This debate is relevant in another 20 year's time. Now it is irrelevant as its too soon to tell if anything has changed or if it has merely gone into the shadows.

No, is means right now, so it is a relevant debate now.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah I actually agree with Slow Love in regards to Ranatunga. Firstly I think you'll find more than just Australians dislike Ganguly, I think many English cricket fans will say the same. I think the reasons are different than Ranatunga's.

I remember watching Inside Cricket and when Gavaskar was on they were talking about Ganguly not being selected for the ODIs, and guys like Mark Waugh, and even Border and Brendan Julian spoke about it with a smirk on their face. Its shown further with the way they joke about Ganguly's over rates and other things he does which just irk people. Its his general attitude and aura that pee a lot of Australians, and pretty much most cricket fans off. He does get under the skin of many people, and I kind of admire that in him when it comes to leading the Indian teams as a captain.

I dare say its the same opinion many non-Australian cricket fans dislike Ponting and Graeme Smith. I see all those 3 in the same basket. Either arrogance, or their whining, hypocrisy or something of the sort. Usually opposition cricket fans just can't stand them. You don't see the same with say Fleming, Atapattu or Jayasuriya when he was captain. Because they're far less overtly annoying for a lack of a better word. Much more quiet and do their job captains, which I suspect Dravid will be too.

Ranatunga is hated for a different reason IMO. See SL's post for reference.

Actually, you (and SL) are both right.

 

[honestbharani]

Somehow Ive never had the feeling that Murali, Kumble, etc, etc will ever die wondering when it comes to appealing.

The Indians, in particular, are past masters of placing pressure on the umpires through incessant appealing.

And the Sri Lankans, under Ranatunga, were definitely one of the worst behaved sporting outfits that it has ever been my misfortune to witness. Ranatunga, in particular, played on the stereotype of his countrymen being "gentle, etc" to extricate himself from blame for controversy after controversy and was more than happy to play the race card whenever it suited. It's the reason why he was/is one of the most despised cricketers in recent memory.

I know that. I am just saying that Procter's words seem to indicate that he wouldn't mind certain gestures and words from Australian, South African and New Zealand players while he would mind them if they came from an Indian or a Sri Lankan or an English player. He obviously is not fit to be match referee at the international level anymore if he believes the rules work differently for different people, simply based on their nationalities.

 

[R_D]

I know that. I am just saying that Procter's words seem to indicate that he wouldn't mind certain gestures and words from Australian, South African and New Zealand players while he would mind them if they came from an Indian or a Sri Lankan or an English player. He obviously is not fit to be match referee at the international level anymore if he believes the rules work differently for different people, simply based on their nationalities.

Well its certainly been like that for a while now.. although we may not have heard comments like his before but you know there are double standards when it comes to handing out those fines/suspensions.

 

[marc71178]

Are there really?

And what basis do you have that?

 

[C_C]

No, is means right now, so it is a relevant debate now.

It is irrelevant to debate this now, because there is no way of telling without letting the events play itself out. We are not measuing a physical quantity here, we are measuring human perceptions

 

[C_C]

well I completly disagree with your perception of the west and that it has done more harm than good.
The west has influenced the world enormously and continue to do so with more and more countries developing by moving towards the western economic model.

The world has never been richer

There has never been less poor people in the world

The chance of dying in a war has never been smaller in the history of the world.

The number of wars are in steep decline and international law makes it ever harder for thug states. The west interferes and should in my opinion continue to do so.

The west developed through the acceptance of the physical sciences etc to reach a dominant position, and many actions followed that would be considered imoral today but it was hardly a peaceful happy world where others didnt do the same. The west was just stronger thus able to do good and bad on a much larger scale.
Just as the west was able to kill eachother on a much larger scale than in wars elsewhere,

If the historic actions of the west shall be subjected to moral evaluation of the present shouldnt the cultures they affected as well, many of which offered a life in abject poverty and stiffling oppression and terrible practises.

The only way I can really beleive the west has been a negative for the world is if we believe the average person everywhere on the globe lived far happier lives than now in the pre western-developement world. I dont.

Look- i am not saying that the west has done absolutely no good. But it is indisputable that it has been the largest source of depravity over the last 2000 odd years.

As far as happier lives go- you'd be surprised to hear that the UN did a survey about happiness ( where they asked people to rate their state of happiness in a scale of 1to 10) over the world not too long ago and countries such as States, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. landed near the bottom half. Which country was surveyed to be the happiest ? Nigeria. Followed by Norway.

As per western economic influence, that is quintessential example of how people are brainwashed to believe that they are better off with artificially constructed demand.
Just turn on your tv and watch the brainwashing through advertisements. The western culture is the origin and flagbearer of artificially constructed demands- we dont NEED that SUV or that stupid ipod or that nice varnished couch made in victorian fashion.
Beyond food, shelter, means of transport and communication, we dont NEED anything else.
Yet the west creates artificial demands by making people 'feel' that they need stuff they really dont need.
Besides, what is the genesis of western economic systems ? Capitalism. And capitalism is based on exploitation. The riches of the west were built not on the back of fair trade, but on the backs of slavery and utter butchery.
And whats worse is that the capitalistic economic model is unsustainable. I can elaborate on that if required.
But the fact is, the west is rich at the expense of the rest of the world.And the west is protesting when the other countries are trying to climb up the ladder ( see the uproar with outsourcing).
There is a finite amount of resources on this planet and the west is far richer than the rest of the world due to disproportionate allocation of resources. That is the fundamental genesis of capitalism. And as long as capitalism exists, you cannot have the whole world getting richer ( income levels rise but that is irrelevant without taking into account inflation that is standard and an ever-present factor in a positive population growth model).
Many thing the west is a champion of today, such as human rights, originate in the east and was in practice in the east before the west went in and bolloxed that up.
Human rights was written by King Kurash and the next major ruler to adopt that was Emperor Ashoka.
Why dont you investigate stuff that never makes the news and see how the west maintains its position of economic superiority - backing utter nutcases like Saddam Hussein, Mabuto sese Seko ( sp?), Pinochet, etc. when it suits their purpose economically, irrespective of the harm they do. As long as the resources flow into the west, they dont give a toss.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, the west has learnt a lot about how to become better civilized - thanks to the hippies.
But it has much left to prove and despite pretensions of moral superiority, it has none.
Just about the only good thing that has come from the west is mass propagation of education institutes for the public. Overall, that is a bit like applying a band aid after chopping up someone to small bits.
So how is the overall balance of influence from the west in anything but massively negetive overall ?