Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Laaloo

'Australia, England scared of India's rise'--Gavaskar

Recommended Posts

Sunny is talking sense. He keeps repeating it, as someone has to stick up for the brownies. ICC are to##ers and need sunny so there is change. An example of this is bias umpiring which cost us test series in oz and the fact india has no umpires on this so called elite panel. Without people like sunny the status quo will remain
That is a deliberate ploy- its because of our "fair and balanced" colonial hangover citizens that someone has to play the fool and go a little overboard otherwise the issues will just be swept away. Thanks to Sunny for playing the role for his country:two_thumbs_up:

Share this post


Link to post
As soon as Mr Bindra’s name was announced' date=' [/color']there were a flurry of articles in England and Australia that giving him the job would put too much power in India’s hands, as Mr Pawar was going to be President of the ICC in 2010.
And you are telling me that this is a new event??? Anytime a Head Honcho of International Sports is to be "elected" a lot of activity is seen. So long as these activities are not against the spirit of the association I see nothing wrong with it. For the longest time Asian countries have stuck together and have received support from West Indies, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Australia, England, NZ form the other side and you have to be pretty ignorant if fail to see that.
I will not repost the article but SMG criticizes the British and Aussie media heads on. He goes on to question why the double standards & no hue and cry by the media when 2 Aussies were at the helm??
Because Australia doesnt exert the same influence as India does today. Simple. Help me understand the difference between Aussie and Indian influence here. Indian influence is strictly about money and frankly I am not too comfortable for it. Many non-Indians have openly said how Indian cricket was becoming too powerful a monster and frankly I can see a point there
Then folks like Lurker criticize SMG for reverse racism.
Did too and substantiated it as well. If you have issues pick on that, whats with a footnote here and there?
Have MM & Lurker read British and Aussie papers to even understand what SMG is talking about here??
Do you have a clue as to what I read, and what I dont? And if do not how about a few basic manners first Suraj?
Do they even know that SMG has booked a room at Lords for the celebration of teh silver jubilee of Indian WC win?
And your point is?
Conflict of interest???- SMG is serving in ICC and criticising the British and Aussie media; since when does holding office in ICC mean you cannot talk against the British and Aussie media; last I checked there are cricket boards that are members of ICC and that too more than English and Aussie ones.
Of course there is a big conflict of interest. Sunny is an ICC servant. He doesnt like how ICC works, or its member countries for that matter, he should simply put in his paper. Who is stopping him? He gets to sit on all these ICC membergroup, makes recommendations to ICC and then keeps hitting out nonsense one after the other. Show us where your mouth is , resign off ICC and then criticize to your hearts desire. xx

Share this post


Link to post

Of course there is a big conflict of interest. Sunny is an ICC servant. He doesnt like how ICC works, or its member countries for that matter, he should simply put in his paper. Who is stopping him? He gets to sit on all these ICC membergroup, makes recommendations to ICC and then keeps hitting out nonsense one after the other. Show us where your mouth is , resign off ICC and then criticize to your hearts desire. Lurker, Can you show me again where SMG is criticizing how ICC works rather than lambasting British and Aussie media in the article?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't actually see why people have a problem, what he is saying is absolutely correct. And he is criticising the Western Media who write bullshitt about us, so there is no conflict of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
And you are telling me that this is a new event??? Anytime a Head Honcho of International Sports is to be "elected" a lot of activity is seen. So long as these activities are not against the spirit of the association I see nothing wrong with it. For the longest time Asian countries have stuck together and have received support from West Indies, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Australia, England, NZ form the other side and you have to be pretty ignorant if fail to see that.
Not sure why you fail to understand the difference- usually there is discussion on a process change & its pros and cons whereas here there was a big deal being made just because the 2 heads were not going to be from what is considered as "fair" nations by the media in England and Australia
Because Australia doesnt exert the same influence as India does today. Simple. Help me understand the difference between Aussie and Indian influence here. Indian influence is strictly about money and frankly I am not too comfortable for it. Many non-Indians have openly said how Indian cricket was becoming too powerful a monster and frankly I can see a point there
Are you trying to say that all decisions in the past by ICC were taken only with the good of the game in mind because the Aussies were sooooooooooo good and now bad evil India is going to ruin it all by only putting money first- even in the past finances were always a top priority
Did too and substantiated it as well. If you have issues pick on that, whats with a footnote here and there?
Substantiated what?? that Sunny is engaging in reverse racism- I don't see any reasoning or logic in criticizing something that was published in English and Aussie media as reverse racism. By that token if now someone in Australia says that SMG's article is crap then he should be branded a racist.
Do you have a clue as to what I read, and what I dont? And if do not how about a few basic manners first Suraj?
No idea why you are taking it so personally- my example was just to state that SMG's article could be reaction to teh overboard media in those countries
Of course there is a big conflict of interest. Sunny is an ICC servant. He doesnt like how ICC works, or its member countries for that matter, he should simply put in his paper. Who is stopping him? He gets to sit on all these ICC membergroup, makes recommendations to ICC and then keeps hitting out nonsense one after the other. Show us where your mouth is , resign off ICC and then criticize to your hearts desire.
Again, SMG's criticism here is against the media- what does ICC have to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Of course there is a big conflict of interest. Sunny is an ICC servant. He doesnt like how ICC works' date= or its member countries for that matter, he should simply put in his paper. Who is stopping him? He gets to sit on all these ICC membergroup, makes recommendations to ICC and then keeps hitting out nonsense one after the other. Show us where your mouth is , resign off ICC and then criticize to your hearts desire. Lurker, Can you show me again where SMG is criticizing how ICC works rather than lambasting British and Aussie media in the article?
Didnt I mention that clearly Suraj?? (see the underlined bit) Corrolary to this would be if you could show me if an Aussie(say) great who sits on ICC committee criticizes India(board or media) ad-nauseum?? Care to give me one name?

Share this post


Link to post
Didnt I mention that clearly Suraj?? (see the underlined bit) Corrolary to this would be if you could show me if an Aussie(say) great who sits on ICC committee criticizes India(board or media) ad-nauseum?? Care to give me one name?
- So you are saying there is no difference between criticizing a member country's media and a member country's board or its people- IMO he only stuck to the media I also do not agree with your suggestion of "servant" menatlity approach- any succesful organization in the present world does not seek "yes men" only but rather someone who can challenge the status-quo and criticize the leadership or its finctioning if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Didnt I mention that clearly Suraj?? (see the underlined bit) Corrolary to this would be if you could show me if an Aussie(say) great who sits on ICC committee criticizes India(board or media) ad-nauseum?? Care to give me one name?
Not on some techincal comittee, but he is the CEO of the ICC himself, Malcolm Speed who criticised the BCCI back in Nov 06.

Share this post


Link to post
Not sure why you fail to understand the difference- usually there is discussion on a process change & its pros and cons whereas here there was a big deal being made just because the 2 heads were not going to be from what is considered as "fair" nations by the media in England and Australia
That is what you assume. The way I look at is simple. ICC has become a wrestling ground for countries today. An average cricket fan didnt give a damn who was the head of ICC in mid 90s(forget 60s and 70s). So I dont really see any big deal if two Aussies(or Englishmen for that matter) were at top in 70s or even recently. However today ICC is fast becoming a golden goose, specially the way Indian cricket is making money so there is obviously a closer scrutiny than the past.
Are you trying to say that all decisions in the past by ICC were taken only with the good of the game in mind because the Aussies were sooooooooooo good and now bad evil India is going to ruin it all by only putting money first- even in the past finances were always a top priority
Examples would suffice. I say yes the recent Indian monetary hegemony does not come all good for the future of cricket. And yes I would also be sceptical if too much power goes in the hands of Indian officials, most of which dont exactly fill me with confidence. Also can you give some concrete evidence of where you think an Aussie ICC head has done damage to cricket?
Substantiated what?? that Sunny is engaging in reverse racism- I don't see any reasoning or logic in criticizing something that was published in English and Aussie media as reverse racism. By that token if now someone in Australia says that SMG's article is crap then he should be branded a racist.
What is the logic in criticizing English and Aussies media in the first place? Did Sunil Gavaskar commend Australian media when they were going nuts after Ponting and his team? Did Sunil Gavaskar celebrate Peter Roebuck when he called for Ponting to be dropped as a captain? Did Sunil Gavaskar commended any of those Aussies mediamen who openly mocked Hayden and Symonds?? What is it, if not reverse racism, that Sunny keeps harping the same old India-has-been-hard-done-by when he has never appreciated how other medias have been good to Indians too?
No idea why you are taking it so personally- my example was just to state that SMG's article could be reaction to teh overboard media in those countries
Not taking personally but when you write - Have MM & Lurker read British and Aussie papers to even understand what SMG is talking about here - it obviously means you are questioning what I read and I will definitely defend it, specially if you dont give me any benefit of doubt. xxx

Share this post


Link to post

@Lurker, I am not quite sure if any ICC member can speak out against India right now, because in all likeliness, he'll lose his job. Everyone outside of the ICC is speaking against us because it doesn't hurt them. One exception is the WI and they are a disconnected bunch right now but for a few people like Holding and he has not had an opinion on this topic. Allan Border, Rodney Hogg, and so many other Australians, some South African legends like Barry Richards, etc. have all been speaking out directly against India having so much power. I cannot help but think that these guys are always thinking in a "holier than thou" attitude, that whatever we do is wrong, and everything they do is correct. Obviously the Australian media is against us, I have read some South African articles that were pretty anti-India, and same with some UK articles, and the ECB's pretty evident dislike of the Indian administration. I think this is what Gavaskar was merely pointing out. I am not at any point saying we are faultless, and we all know how much we hate the BCCI but to say that merely having an Indian representative in the ICC (at the higher levels) will ruin the game while anyone else would've been awesome is very wrong, I feel, and obviously, so does Gavaskar.

Share this post


Link to post
I am not quite sure if any ICC member can speak out against India right now' date=' because in all likeliness, he'll lose his job. Everyone outside of the ICC is speaking against us because it doesn't hurt them. One exception is the WI and they are a disconnected bunch right now but for a few people like Holding and he has not had an opinion on this topic. [b']Allan Border, Rodney Hogg, and so many other Australians, some South African legends like Barry Richards, etc. have all been speaking out directly against India having so much power. I cannot help but think that these guys are always thinking in a "holier than thou" attitude, that whatever we do is wrong, and everything they do is correct. Obviously the Australian media is against us, I have read some South African articles that were pretty anti-India, and same with some UK articles, and the ECB's pretty evident dislike of the Indian administration. I think this is what Gavaskar was merely pointing out. I am not at any point saying we are faultless, and we all know how much we hate the BCCI but to say that merely having an Indian representative in the ICC (at the higher levels) will ruin the game while anyone else would've been awesome is very wrong, I feel, and obviously, so does Gavaskar.
Fair post there Graphic but where I differe with you is that you are assuming, and correct me if I am wrong here, that a Border/Richards are speaking against India because they dislike Indian growth. I personally think they see the danger of India simply doing a big damage to cricket as such, and personally I agree to it. An example. Hasnt BCCI arm-twisted ICC so much that ICL, and the player who compete, is banned??? How does it make sense that a player can not represent the team he wants to?? Why is IPL legal and ICL illegal? And which board is responsible for it? xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Not on some techincal comittee' date=' but he is the CEO of the ICC himself, Malcolm Speed who criticised the BCCI back in Nov 06.[/quote'] Sorry my memory beats me. Can you elaborate on that please?

Share this post


Link to post

"The war of words between the International Cricket Council and the Board of Control for Cricket in India has intensified further with Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, suggesting that India could not aspire to become a cricketing force without putting its own house in order." Speed's job is to make sure the ICC runs fine, not to argue with boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Fair post there Graphic but where I differe with you is that you are assuming, and correct me if I am wrong here, that a Border/Richards are speaking against India because they dislike Indian growth. I personally think they see the danger of India simply doing a big damage to cricket as such, and personally I agree to it. An example. Hasnt BCCI arm-twisted ICC so much that ICL, and the player who compete, is banned??? How does it make sense that a player can not represent the team he wants to?? Why is IPL legal and ICL illegal? And which board is responsible for it? xxx
I never believed it to be Indian growth, but the point you made, I feel is not something they should adhere to. Because I feel that comes from the basic belief that we are not good administrators and we don't care for cricket, and further more, that an Indian head of the ICC would be a boon for our cricket team, and a license to do anything, and never get punished for it. While I don't deny that the recent actions by the BCCI threatening to forfeit the tour, did not help increase the faith in our administration, I do believe that a fair assessment of the people chosen should be made. What I mean by a fair assessment is actually talking to the man involved, and getting his ideas on how he thinks he will help the ICC improve and sustain the game. "The Australian" did an interview with IS Bindra, and the interviewer said he got some positive vibes from him, and that he was looking forward to seeing Bindra at some level in the ICC. I think that is more important than saying that Indians are corrupt and they only care about the money that comes from the sport. In recent years, we have seen several players come from the lower-middle class families from relatively small towns and villages, and I think something to do with a bit more money being invested in improving some facilities in these towns. I don't think any large improvements have happened but definitely money has been invested to get the small town guys involved, and I remember Gavaskar saying that he's proud that our ODI captain is someone from Ranchi, rather than from Mumbai or any metropolitan cities. Why I have stated this is that there is evidence that we care about cricket, and its not all about money. --------------------- I do agree with you on the point you made about the ICL. I believe thats just stupidity. I feel that they should actually cooperate with the ICL and perhaps play a game or two between the winners of both leagues. Because ultimately, the goal is help fund the game better, and take it to newer heights. I think Subhash Chandra's ideas should have been considered seriously by the BCCI but they made a mistake (as always) by ignoring it, and I think rather they should've involved him with the IPL, and there wouldn't have been so much of a mess. Even now, its not too bad that there are two competing leagues. One league cannot take all the players, so the best thing they can do is legalize ICL and make it part of BCCI's future plans.

Share this post


Link to post
"The war of words between the International Cricket Council and the Board of Control for Cricket in India has intensified further with Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, suggesting that India could not aspire to become a cricketing force without putting its own house in order." Speed's job is to make sure the ICC runs fine, not to argue with boards.
That statement is very cryptic. Is there a link you can point me to so I can see the entire context?

Share this post


Link to post
I never believed it to be Indian growth' date=' but the point you made, I feel is not something they should adhere to. [b']Because I feel that comes from the basic belief that we are not good administrators and we don't care for cricket, and further more, that an Indian head of the ICC would be a boon for our cricket team, and a license to do anything, and never get punished for it.
I dont think thats true. Dalmiya was as good an Administrator as ICC has seen. He did have his drawbacks, specially his behind the scene manoevers but as an Administrator he was quite decent.
What I mean by a fair assessment is actually talking to the man involved, and getting his ideas on how he thinks he will help the ICC improve and sustain the game. "The Australian" did an interview with IS Bindra, and the interviewer said he got some positive vibes from him, and that he was looking forward to seeing Bindra at some level in the ICC. I think that is more important than saying that Indians are corrupt and they only care about the money that comes from the sport.
Fair enough. Can't disagree with that. As you pointed out certain media have made an effort to cross the boundary and frankly these media should be talked about more than those who are dissing without checking the facts.
In recent years, we have seen several players come from the lower-middle class families from relatively small towns and villages, and I think something to do with a bit more money being invested in improving some facilities in these towns. I don't think any large improvements have happened but definitely money has been invested to get the small town guys involved, and I remember Gavaskar saying that he's proud that our ODI captain is someone from Ranchi, rather than from Mumbai or any metropolitan cities.
I sort of touched on this in a different thread. To me the first person who broke the small town barrier was Kapil Dev. Chandigarh in 70s was not very different to Ranchi of today. And you will have to excuse me for being cynical since I remember quite well how Sunil Gavaskar treated Kapil, or the former's atitude as if he owned cricket India. Yes sure he can be all happy that Dhoni is the captain today but how exactly did he celebrate another small towner's success when Sunny was in the team?
I do agree with you on the point you made about the ICL. I believe thats just stupidity. I feel that they should actually cooperate with the ICL and perhaps play a game or two between the winners of both leagues. Because ultimately, the goal is help fund the game better, and take it to newer heights. I think Subhash Chandra's ideas should have been considered seriously by the BCCI but they made a mistake (as always) by ignoring it, and I think rather they should've involved him with the IPL, and there wouldn't have been so much of a mess. Even now, its not too bad that there are two competing leagues. One league cannot take all the players, so the best thing they can do is legalize ICL and make it part of BCCI's future plans.
Thats my worry. BCCI seems to be becoming powerful, almost dominant. And just as Aussie board domination is wrong so is Indian board's as well. xxx

Share this post


Link to post
"The war of words between the International Cricket Council and the Board of Control for Cricket in India has intensified further with Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, suggesting that India could not aspire to become a cricketing force without putting its own house in order." Speed's job is to make sure the ICC runs fine, not to argue with boards.
Okay now I get it. Well its a mess obviously but you have to bear in mind that Speed didnt just go nuts at BCCI. It was BCCI, specially Lalit Modi, who was firing at ICC and Speed returned the fire. Not the best thing to do but still you have to read both side of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
That is a rather strange argument there. So Sunil Gavaskar should keep shut if he is paid, and he should be allow to utter garbage(or wisdom be as it may) if he is not?? In other words his ability to speak should be inversly propotional to the money he makes off ICC?? I hope you see the fallacy of your argument there. As for his comments on this whole "Dinosaur" issue, isnt he just repeating himself again and again?? What is new in his diatribe? That the Aussies/English associations had veto-power?? When was that last used?? Frankly what is sensical about this article at all?? xxx
I cannot see any fallacy here. He is targetting the western (mainly Australian and the English) media here. Why cannot he do that? Obviously he is paid for writing columns and can write about western media and their way of thinking. What on earth is wrong there? Can you point out?
Of course there is a big conflict of interest. Sunny is an ICC servant. He doesnt like how ICC works, or its member countries for that matter, he should simply put in his paper. Who is stopping him? He gets to sit on all these ICC membergroup, makes recommendations to ICC and then keeps hitting out nonsense one after the other. Show us where your mouth is , resign off ICC and then criticize to your hearts desire. xx
Please show where in the present column, Gavaskar has critisized the way ICC work. This column is directly attacking the western media, yet some people see conflict of interest. How? Where? And where is Gavaskar indulding in reverse racism here? Will be quite glad if you substantiate your claims about his present column!!

Share this post


Link to post
I cannot see any fallacy here. He is targetting the western (mainly Australian and the English) media here. Why cannot he do that? Obviously he is paid for writing columns and can write about western media and their way of thinking. What on earth is wrong there? Can you point out?
Not just media, he accused his bosses (ICC) of being pro-Aus and Eng and anti-Asian. You cant speak against your own employer in media and expect to keep your jb for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Not just media' date=' he accused his bosses (ICC) of being pro-Aus and Eng and anti-Asian. You cant speak against your own employer in media and expect to keep your jb for long.[/quote'] Can you quote the lines from his present column, where he did say that? Because I certainly didn't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Didnt I mention that clearly Suraj?? (see the underlined bit) Corrolary to this would be if you could show me if an Aussie(say) great who sits on ICC committee criticizes India(board or media) ad-nauseum?? Care to give me one name?
"The war of words between the International Cricket Council and the Board of Control for Cricket in India has intensified further with Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, suggesting that India could not aspire to become a cricketing force without putting its own house in order." Speed's job is to make sure the ICC runs fine, not to argue with boards.
Okay now I get it. Well its a mess obviously but you have to bear in mind that Speed didnt just go nuts at BCCI. It was BCCI, specially Lalit Modi, who was firing at ICC and Speed returned the fire. Not the best thing to do but still you have to read both side of the equation.
So you think that since Modi was saying few things, Speed needed to answer that criticising BCCI, despite being ICC CEO? In fact, ever since the post of ICC CEO had been created in 1993, only Australians have been in its position. Would you want to see how money minded ICC has become from '93 to '08? What great things have they done for the game during this period and how can anyone (including you) think that Bindra would do worse than what these two guys did in last 15 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Can you quote the lines from his present column' date=' where he did say that? Because I certainly didn't see it.[/quote'] http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/343691.html Gone are the days when two countries, England and Australia, had the veto power in international cricket, even though the dinosaurs may not open their eyes and see the reality he is clearly speaking of ECB abd CA which had the veto power Those worried of the prospect of India's hegemony were conveniently forgetting that only a few years back, there were two Australians at the top of the ICC. It is a misplaced belief that they are the only ones with honesty, integrity and have the welfare of the game at heart, while the 'subcontinentals' do not."

Share this post


Link to post
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/343691.html Gone are the days when two countries, England and Australia, had the veto power in international cricket, even though the dinosaurs may not open their eyes and see the reality he is clearly speaking of ECB abd CA which had the veto power Those worried of the prospect of India's hegemony were conveniently forgetting that only a few years back, there were two Australians at the top of the ICC. It is a misplaced belief that they are the only ones with honesty, integrity and have the welfare of the game at heart, while the 'subcontinentals' do not."
Sorry to interfere in your discussion, but I still fail to see where the bold parts in the second statement support the claim that Sunny was against the ICC. He addresses "those worried of prospect of India's hegemony", and never mentions the council as a whole. I felt that it was rather geared toward the media, the people, and the former legends who were questioning India's power on the ICC. This is how I interpret it. Where he did criticize the ICC is not in this article but rather in the article about Procter's decisions where he claimed that council has to address this partiality, and claimed that they were ignoring the topic. I did not feel that this criticism was wrong because it was true, and he is not part of the committee that decides on this issue. It could've been taken as something the ICC should address in its forthcoming meetings. I have a sense that the ICC expects everyone to be diplomatic and beat around the bush rather than be blunt and call the spade a spade. But no matter. The ICC have lost something, not Gavaskar by asking him to step down. Though he has several flaws, I am unable to believe that the ICC is dropping him because he spoke against them. Do they always want a "Yes, Sir!" person administering the game? I hope not, because then the game cannot possibly improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Where he did criticize the ICC is not in this article but rather in the article about Procter's decisions where he claimed that council has to address this partiality, and claimed that they were ignoring the topic. I did not feel that this criticism was wrong because it was true, and he is not part of the committee that decides on this issue. It could've been taken as something the ICC should address in its forthcoming meetings.
if I remember correctly then as per the ICCs statement he is getting sacked for that article about Proctor

Share this post


Link to post
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/343691.html Gone are the days when two countries, England and Australia, had the veto power in international cricket, even though the dinosaurs may not open their eyes and see the reality he is clearly speaking of ECB abd CA which had the veto power Those worried of the prospect of India's hegemony were conveniently forgetting that only a few years back, there were two Australians at the top of the ICC. It is a misplaced belief that they are the only ones with honesty, integrity and have the welfare of the game at heart, while the 'subcontinentals' do not."
Really? He hasn't mentioned the name of the boards. So why would you assume that he is talking about the boards. On the other hand, in the second statement, who has this misplaced belief? Obviously the English and the Australian media and that he has mentioned many times in the column. ECB and CA do not hold the veto power anymore but still the media in their countries want to see maximum officers from those countries in ICC. Is this talking about the boards or the media? It is a fact that in 2002 the two Malcoms, who were from Australia, held the top two posts in ICC. But there were no ripples in the media then. So who is he talking about here? The two Australians or the media there?

Share this post


Link to post
Really? He hasn't mentioned the name of the boards. So why would you assume that he is talking about the boards. On the other hand, in the second statement, who has this misplaced belief? Obviously the English and the Australian media and that he has mentioned many times in the column. ECB and CA do not hold the veto power anymore but still the media in their countries want to see maximum officers from those countries in ICC. Is this talking about the boards or the media? It is a fact that in 2002 the two Malcoms, who were from Australia, held the top two posts in ICC. But there were no ripples in the media then. So who is he talking about here? The two Australians or the media there?
The veto power was given to the boards and not to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
The veto power was given to the boards and not to the general public.
So? That is a known fact. He is simply slamming their media who are unable to digest two BCCI officials at the top two posts. Unless CA and ECB agree for for Pawar and Bindra at ICC President and CEO posts respectively within ICC, it might not happen. So obviously the boards were NOT uncomfortable with the thought. It was the media, and more importantly, few former cricketers who write columns regularly. You have to read the whole article to understand who the column was referring to, who it was addressing to.

Share this post


Link to post
I will give you a name LALIT MODI.
Except that Lalit Modi is not in contention.
It needed an INDIAN in Dalmiya to transform the ICC and now another INDIAN is transforming world cricket
It didnt 'need' an Indian to transform the ICC- Dalmiya continued/finished what Packer started, essentially. As for 'another Indian transforming world cricket' , pffft...thats a no-brainer. A country of 1 billion mostly fanatical cricket supporters doesn't take a genius to figure out how to finally make a healthy profit out of it...that we didn't for the last 50 years is only indicative of how unqualified the BCCI honchos are at running cricket.
What the hell has your man Speed done apart from maintain the old staus quo!
Handled the matchfixing saga pretty well, has handled numerous spanners in ICC's works, like zimbabwe, these dime-a-dozen bans/player spats etc. fairly well and is the chief architect of the 4 year Future Test plan.
CC your adulation of all things white is sad and clearly is a result of spending to much time in the west. You need to take a long hard look at yourself and your hero worship of the gora.
Again, that is nothing more than your inferiority complex and chip on your shoulder where you refuse to see the FACT that Goras run their countries/businesses a helluva lot better than desis do- and its got nothing to do with 'race', its got everything to do with precedence- they've been at it for 400 years, we've been at it for less than 200...they come from nations with 95%+ education base, we from a nation where barely 40% are literate...and no, i don't admire 'anything and everything gora'...but for a touchy desi who is too caught up in jingoism and refuses to improve & learn his attitude/nation, its an expected response. FYI, i don't worship anyone- i have been around the goras, the desis, the arabs, etc. all my life and excelled in the 95th percentile bracket or above....had my fill of fun,adventures,women,etc and still do- i have really, really, nothing to be insecure or 'worshipping' about. Which is why i dont indulge in this 'gora/brown' diatribe like you do, which is nothing more than indicative of your inferiority complex and denial.

Share this post


Link to post
And how can you say that Pawar and Bindra would not have done a better job that the two Malcoms?
Nowhere as qualified as the Malcolms- those guys come with bona-fide education in specifically managing a company/business....Pawar/Bindra are nothing more than politician chutiy@s who are largely responsible for the mess BCCI is.
And if it was not for India, no white nation could have been able to safeguard the interest of cricket because the game might have been sidelined enough due to lack of revenue.
Granted, if it wasn't for India's consumer base, no 'white nation' could've safeguarded cricket against the onslaught of soccer & American sports. But having a consumer base doesn't make competent CEOs, executives and directors. Otherwise China should be running soccer, Brazil should be running volleyball,etc. Management is almost a science and definitely a high quality skill- something that Indians arn't exactly known around the world for and the PROOF of that is how historically (and currently) shambolic and inefficient BCCI is compared to the ECB/CA.
And you're talking as if corruption is there only in India!! It is a well known fact that apart from giving the test recognition to Bangladesh, Dalmiya had done a fantastic job when he was the ICC President. No president has got as much success AS YET in ICC.
Yes, and i noted that...which is why i said 'apart from Dalmiya, none of the desi BCCI honchos are comparable to the Aussie/English/Kiwi administrators of cricket'.
He has been an abject failure, be it handling the issues of umpiring, taking a proactive step in the introduction of technology or dealing with utter dire state of Zimbabwe cricket. The terrible failure of 2007 WC was another feather in his so called "failure cap". In fact I can't remember anything of note that Speed has achieved during his tenure.
I disagree completely...i feel that Speed has handled the challenges thrown to him admirably. For one, i think he's done an excellent job regarding Zimbabwe- given that the FOREIGN POLICY of nations like UK,Australia, Canada etc. have been very convoluted over Zimbabwe, what the hell is a cricket official going to do ? He's managed to walk that tightrope pretty well. As for technology, i give credit to Speed for not succumbing to the ignorant pressures of the subcontinental crowd, hell-bent on witch-hunting umpires in favour of technology. So many idiots here argue in favour of technology, but tell me- do you ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND how hawkeye works or how snicko works ? What the control mechanism is, what are the failsafe protocols in their control mechanism and what are the exceptions outside the controls ? These are something, i am sorry to say, hardly any of you here are qualified to comment on, let alone understand. As an electrical engineer ( look it up, control theory is one of the central pillars of EE), i can state it as a FACT that hawkeye,snicko,etc. are nowhere accurate enough to replace umpires, nor are they consistent enough. I am glad Speed realizes this and this blatant ignorant views about 'must implement technology' by the subcontinent posse is not only frustrating, its also clear indicative of how ill-qualified most of us are to talk on this topic.
But Bindra could have been ably replaced him because if you do not know, Bindra is a retired IAS officer and has handled many such posts in the govt of India successfully during his service period.
Right...IAS officer....like that actually means anything more than ' 1 outta 2 are corrupt a$$holes'. Sorry, but Bindra is nowhere as qualified or experienced as Speed is to run an international business organisation on sports...compare their resumes if you want and get back to me on this.
His job is reflected in the way PCB is run, the way Mohali has the the best facilities available and the way PCB has its own website--all very professional.
professional...by desi standards....but nothing hoo-haa when compared to English/Saffie/Aussie/Kiwi standards....look,its very simple-the Aussies are the masters of running cricket....far far more qualifed, proven and efficient than 99.9999% desi administrators....the way CA is run as opposed to BCCI is indicative of this....and if cricket is your primary interest in this discussion,not jingoism, i cannot see how one can push for a desi administrator over an aussie one.

Share this post


Link to post

I could have appreciated your post had you used civilised language. But qualification or not, Speed has been an abject failure with his failures weighing far more that whatever success he had. Here is the list of failures enlisted by a friend of mine and and I agree completely with it: Actions 1. Capetown Test (16-20 Nov,2001)- Match referee Denness penalises six Indian players for offences like excessive appeal( 4 players), ball tampering ( Tendulkar), and inability to control his players ( ganguly). everyone got one match suspension, sehwag, a newcomer even got suspended from bowling because of his excessive appealing. It goes without saying that Pollock and co got scotfree. To add insult to injury, BCCI players were brusquely told that they could not even appeal against the penalty.Unlike normal legal action, where accused are innocent till proved guilty, here the match referee had pronouned the BCCI players as guilty,and no appeal was allowed against that. Just how autocratic and arbitrary, not to say highhanded can one get ? 2. Speed rubs in BCCI- It was supposed to be an address by Percy Sonn, it was in India, and it was after India had crashed out of Champions trophy in 2006. Speed, who had no business speaking, spoke, and how ? He ridiculed BCCI telling that BCCI was not running its affairs well as the BCCI team had failed to win any tournament of substance in cricket since 1983. I have no objection to it, if he made similar remarks against South Africa when they crashed out of world cups in 2003 and 2007, which they hosted, or against England. And incidentally, he also ridiculed BCCI for not taking care of their constituent bodies. Yes, yes, we know, he was himself taking very good care of BCCI, a constituent body of ICC. 3.Not taking constituent bodies into confidence while organising tournaments- While organising tournaments, ICC kept the local constituent out and organised the tournaments themselves, without having much appreciation of the ground realities. Thus, we had champions trophy, 2006 in India, and WC in West Indies, where spectators were kept out because of unrealistic prices of tickets, and dictats like not allowing spectators to bring musical instruments to the ground, etc. ODI matches going unattended in India in 2006 Champions trophy- ICC actually managed this feat in India. 4. Oval test, Darrel hair episode- The case is now known for the forfeiture of the test, but many of us have forgotten the root cause. Hair had summarily decided that Pakistani players were doing ball tampering, and so he changed the ball. To this day, no evidence has been presented to show how he arrived at this conclusion. On the other hand, in case of Bhajji ( discussed later), ICC was hell bent to seek evidences, even where none existed. Proctor was the match referee. 5. World cup final umpiring- It turned out that none of the officials were aware of the rules. The officials were given token penalty, and all was well. Cricinfo verdict on WC 2007-Speed's standing was hardly enhanced by his initial stubborn refusal to admit to the failings of the 2007 World Cup, and then when he was no longer able to defend the indefensible, his attempts to heap the blame on the local organisers. The ICC certainly made millions of dollars, but the damage to the image of the game has yet to be quantified. 6. Sydney test,2007-08- Just how poor, incompetent, and biased could the officials be- As if to show that incompetence was not the sole preserve of field umpires, the TV umpire reprieved Symonds when every one, including Australian commentators clearly saw that Symonds was out stumped. The match referee, Chris Broad, had Mike Denness as his ideal, it seems when he penalised Harbhajan, again without evidence. Incidentally, Clarke taking a catch on the bump was not penalised, though it was the second time in two weeks that Clarke had done that. Latif for a similar offence was banned from a few matches by none other than the very same match referee viz Broad in 2004. Incidentally, the same third umpire seriously contemplated doing the same in second CB final, even when the clear nick of Hussey was cleanly taken by Dhoni. 7. Match referees would be too proactive against sub continental teams-. Offences like slow over rate, excessive appealing etc were freely used to book Indians as well as Pakistani captains. Vaughan was also doing the same repeatedly during the same period, but no one was surprised that he was never booked. 8. Chucking- mandate was clear. Only sub continentals and West Indians chucked. Brett Lee and Andre Nel did not chuck according to the guidelines issued to umpires and match referees, nor dil Kyle Miles chuck. When the going got too tough, then instead of banning the chuckers, chucking was legalised. 9. Drug tests- Be it Warne or Shoaib ao Asif- looking the other way was the policy adopted. 10. Match fixing- shoved under the carpet when it came to Mark Waugh, for instance. 11. Vendetta against BCCI-Is the ICC trying to undermine the clout India has in world cricket today? Is there some sort of vendetta against the Indian cricket board? This was a question asked not only by ordinary fans, but also by a reporter while interviewing Speed. Inactions 1. Zimbabwe- He had no appreciation, nor any say in the matter of Zimbabwe cricket. He just watched Zimbabwe cricket going to dogs, doing nothing. His energies, as we have repeatedly seen, were reserved mainly against BCCI. 2. Kenya- Kenya, the most successful minnow nation in cricket, which reached a WC semifinal, was allowed to wither away as a cricketing nation. 3. BD- If Speed could use a fraction of his bluster on BD telling them that they were a club team masquerading as a test team, and forced them to play against first class teams, then may be Speed would have had the satisfaction of atleast being able to bully a subcontinental nation into submission. 4. Chucking- The manner in which the ICC's technical committee headed by former Aussie skipper Bobby Simpson was disbanded was seen in bad taste. Mr Simpson complained the ICC was ignoring the threat of chuckers in international cricket. Speed poohpoohed Simpson's complaints saying that he was complaining because he was not in the committee. 5.Aussie ex cricketers who did not share Speed's outlook were persona non grata for him. Not just Simpson, even Ian Chappell faced his ire when Speed ordered him ( alongwith Croft) to be thrown out of the commentary team from the 2003 world cup. 6. Drugs- Warne got away almost scotfree, and certainly did not suffer any trauma or shame, unlike what atheletes suffer. Same has been the case with Shoaib and Asif. 6. Match Fixing- No idea what is speed's contribution in arresting match fixing. 7. Dilution of test cricket- Standard of test cricket had been allowed to decline, not only by the continued mediocrity of minnows, even erstwhile strongest team like West Indies have been allowed to decline. Speed may gloat that he pushed Twenty20 cricket down the throat of a reluctant BCCI, but who knows, it may cause serious erosion in the standards of longer version cricket in ways not envisaged by him or anyone else. IPL is a direct result of his misguided enthusiasm in popularising twenty20 cricket. 8. Umpiring- The less said about it the better 9. Match Referees- the less said about it, the better --------------------------------- There must be many more which have escaped my memory. And if you think introduction of technology in umpiring only means introduction of Hawk-eye or snick or hotspot, then you need to read the posts out here more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post

You want more? LINK Malcolm in the middle of a cricketing disaster zone Malcolm Speed is presiding over a forgettable period for international cricket, culminating in the World Cup. Marina Hyde April 12, 2007 12:15 AM As the World Cup continues its progress, apparently determined by a special enjoyment-crushing algorithm created by the International Cricket Council, the question is no longer whether Malcolm Speed's glass is half full. It concerns the nature of its contents. Whatever the cocktail of liquid hallucinogens that allowed the ICC chief executive to "concentrate on the positives rather than the negatives" when assessing the tournament last weekend, with crowds occasionally nudging triple figures and an international coach dead, presumed murdered, it must be a fairly lively brew. Last week, Malcolm was finally moved to address the sepulchral atmosphere in some of the grounds, when he revealed that spectators wishing to take in musical instruments had been required to write to local organising committees for formal permission. "We want the Caribbean atmosphere to be here," he explained to bemused local reporters in Guyana. "But there is a protocol. You would find similar requirements at other tournaments, such as the upcoming Masters golf championship." Ah yes, the Masters . . . As anyone who has ever attended a cricket match in the West Indies will attest, there is no more analogous event in terms of ideal atmosphere than the Masters, played out on the reggae-pulsing greens of Augusta, where everyone's your friend and your hosts are comfortably the least repressed people on the entire planet. Malcolm was evidently attempting to make some kind of satirical point about the fiascoid spectacle in the Caribbean. Indeed, by describing the tournament as "a huge legacy product", he reminds us that sporting events are increasingly just plot devices in the far more exciting narrative of amenity regeneration - something we shall no doubt feel even more keenly as the 2012 Olympics approaches. As for contriving to blame the prohibitively high ticket prices on the local organising committees - well, he does much to dispel the image of his organisation as a bunch of blazer-clad chisellers who would no more cough to a gross error of judgment than they would admit to having once had slightly confusing feelings about a boy in the year below them at school. And yet, even by the apparently minimal performance standards required, can Malcolm truly be said to be delivering in his sinecure? Having staged World Cup matches in Zimbabwe last time around, the bar was not desperately high. On that occasion, Malcolm refused to state whether or not he'd have staged matches in Nazi Germany. Not the most finely balanced question, you might think, but it's a tribute to his judgment that he dismissed it out of hand. "We simply don't make political judgments," he ruled. "They're for politicians." On the issue of the use of performance-enhancing drugs in cricket, though, he has been less circumspect. Less than two years ago, when the players' federation warned that the expanding fixture calendar might tempt cricketers to use drugs to assist in recovery, as has occurred in other sports, Malcolm was having absolutely none of it. "Remarks like that," he exploded, "serve no purpose in a reasoned debate." At least on the vaguely topical issue of spot-fixing, the best that may be said is that the hopelessness of others has flattered the ICC chairman's stance into appearing adequate. After all, who wouldn't benefit from comparison with the England and Wales Cricket Board chairman, David Morgan, who stated prior to the World Cup: "I sit at the ICC and hear annual reports from Lord Condon . . . and at no stage has spot-fixing been talked about as something that is prevalent in the game." (We shall draw a veil over the Condon Report's express finding that match-fixing breeds in the uncompetitive matches for which the ICC, under Malcolm's stewardship, has exhibited such an apparent mania.) Does all this add up to a good innings? It was our hero who memorably summarised the Oval ball-tampering row last summer as "a series of unfortunate and entirely avoidable over-reactions" and, taken in isolation, many of his ICC career lows might be regarded as unfortunate. Taken together, however, they make one wonder how long Speed can continue stretching the phrase "taking responsibility" to limits of meaninglessness disdained even by Tony Blair. The esteemed chief executive's motto seems to be "Nothing to see here" - a point the empty seats in the Caribbean are making most eloquently for him. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- And more? Packed agendas as well as hidden ones: ICC faces tough decisions in Dubai All these show what a terrible failure he has been despite all the education and being a barrister and what not. On the other hand I can only laugh at your assumption that an IAS officer is an uneducated fellow and also a politician along with an expletive!!

Share this post


Link to post
fun' date='adventures,women,etc and still do- i have really, really, nothing to be insecure or 'worshipping' about. Which is why i [b']dont indulge in this 'gora/brown' diatribe like you do, which is nothing more than indicative of your inferiority complex and denial.
Yeah right:hysterical:from the fella who said sunny was bitter against white nations cos of his mediocre record against them:hysterical: No doubt yopu want crcinfo to introduce a new filter were averages can be analyised by performance against white nations, black nations aand brown nations. Heck why not analyse stats against individual players and their race as well:hysterical: Don't indulge in this gora/brown diatribe:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
who said sunny was bitter against white nations cos of his mediocre record against them
His record indeed is pretty mediocre against white nations......and that is a fact...that Sunny routinely rails on white nations and makes it a race issue when it clearly isn't leads me to believe that he has an agenda thats beyond cricket. I am not making a new point about this white-brown thing, i am saying that Sunny is making this a white-brown thing because of other reasons, perhaps that the fact he never got much recognition in those countries due to his dodgy records against them.
I proved you wrong in this point and you know it. You said name one indian apart from Dalmiya who could run ICC like Speed. I gave you one I win
Just being another Joe-blow in business management is not that great deal in my opinion...as i said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make money out of a 1 billion strong market....BCCI is still a shambolic institute- we OURSELVES rail about it here ever so often...but suddenly when you come across an article that a typical inferiority complex-driven man writes, your own inferiority complex makes it a brown-vs-white issue and suddenly BCCI executives are 'capable' by and large....like please, gimme a break!

Share this post


Link to post
at your assumption that an IAS officer is an uneducated fellow and also a politician along with an expletive!!
Nothing 'assumptive' about that comment, pal. I don't trust Indian govt. officials as far as i can throw them and with good reason...the track record of our govt. employees is reason enough to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Nothing 'assumptive' about that comment' date=' pal. I don't trust Indian govt. officials as far as i can throw them and with good reason...the track record of our govt. employees is reason enough to begin with.[/quote'] I don't care about what you trust and what you don't. But if you think that uneducated people can become IAS officers, then you are just a laughing stock. That too, when Bindra is a retired IAS fellow, much before all that resevations came in. That, and then you think that barrister is much more educated than an IAS officer is!!! BTW, have you EVER lived in India? Do you even know one IAS officer?

Share this post


Link to post
But if you think that uneducated people can become IAS officers, then you are just a laughing stock.
I disagree....govt. services in India has no standards by and large.
That, and then you think that barrister is much more educated than an IAS officer is!!!
Most definitely.
have you EVER lived in India?
Yes...and yes to the next question too.

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree....govt. services in India has no standards by and large. Most definitely. Yes...and yes to the next question too.
Then perhaps you've not faced good officers or unforunately knew just the corrupt ones. But your perception doesn't mean that that you don't require high class education for even competing to be an IAS officer. Just goes on to show that you have very shallow knowledge of such service and its officers. But no word on your highly educated CEO's enlisted failures?

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is a great example of how facts can be used to disrobe the idiocity of some Chandan you rock !!!!! Just to clarify I am referring to those who keep making all arguments based on one theory that anything Indians do is inferior, anything white people do is superior. My sarcasm is not directed at those who are arguing that Sunny did something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
I cannot see any fallacy here. He is targetting the western (mainly Australian and the English) media here. Why cannot he do that? Obviously he is paid for writing columns and can write about western media and their way of thinking. What on earth is wrong there? Can you point out?
That basically gives me an insight on your line of thinking rather than anything else. A columnist is paid money to give insights on the game, not for targetting Western media. Gavaskar is no different. He should limit himself to thoughts on cricket, specially since he belongs to the ICC cricket committee. How often do you read an article where Gavaskar criticizes Australia and the article will go on to mention something like - Gavaskar, the former Indian great who now head ICC's cricket committee?? Do you see how his stature is brought into all the time?
Please show where in the present column, Gavaskar has critisized the way ICC work. This column is directly attacking the western media, yet some people see conflict of interest. How? Where? And where is Gavaskar indulding in reverse racism here? Will be quite glad if you substantiate your claims about his present column!!
Not only me, even the ICC saw the conflict of interest and Gavaskar has been asked to step down. Game, set and match. End of this ridiculous psedu-patriotism. xxxx

Share this post


Link to post
That basically gives me an insight on your line of thinking rather than anything else. A columnist is paid money to give insights on the game, not for targetting Western media. Gavaskar is no different. He should limit himself to thoughts on cricket, specially since he belongs to the ICC cricket committee. How often do you read an article where Gavaskar criticizes Australia and the article will go on to mention something like - Gavaskar, the former Indian great who now head ICC's cricket committee?? Do you see how his stature is brought into all the time?
Not only me, even the ICC saw the conflict of interest and Gavaskar has been asked to step down. Game, set and match. End of this ridiculous psedu-patriotism.
Hold one yet : BCCI denies Gavaskar's sacking report Indo-Asian News Service Chennai, March 25, 2008 First Published: 21:34 IST(25/3/2008) Last Updated: 22:02 IST(25/3/2008) The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC) on Tuesday denied reports of Sunil Gavaskar being removed as chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC)'s cricket committee. Replying to a query on Gavaskar's removal, BCCI treasurer N Srinivasan said: "As far as we know, the ICC has not taken any action against Gavaskar and so, there is no question of commenting on these reports." He was speaking to the media after the meetings of BCCI's finance and working committees categorically said the reports were "not correct". The news regarding Gavaskar's sacking emerged out of a report in the London daily The Times, which reported that at last week's ICC executive committee meeting in Dubai it was decided in an unanimous vote that Gavaskar should be asked to resign because of a conflict of interest between his honorary ICC position and his paid role as a columnist and commentator. Apparently the ICC is incensed with Gavaskar's reaction in his syndicated column where the legendary batsman described England and Australia as "dinosaurs" who cannot "open their eyes and see the reality". Gavaskar wrote: "The cricketing world has found that India has no longer a diffident voice but a confident one that knows what is good for its cricket, and will strive to get it." Gavaskar was defending his criticism of Mike Procter, the ICC Match Referee, in January after he had ruled against Harbhajan Singh for an allegedly racist aside to Andrew Symonds during the second Test match between Australia and India in Sydney. There were reports that ICC were not happy with Gavaskar's strong statements as it amounted to "clash of interests" in view of his position as the chairman of the cricket committee and also a television commentator.

Share this post


Link to post

Whatever Bindra could or could not have been done, I am sure he would not have presided over the farce of the WC final last year and let all guilty parties walk scot free. That in itself would have been a huge jump over the trashy standards of ICC.

Share this post


Link to post

As inflammatory and acrimonious, as he may sound, Gavaskar is correct. I'm in complete agreement with him. This is where Gavaskar's history hurts him. He has the credibility of 'the boy who cried wolf' time after time, that even when is making genuinely truthful comments, people dismiss them as comments from a bitter old man. But if you pay attention to what he says, forgetting his history or his tone, you can see some hard truths in it. Aussies & the English are hypocrites. They've had their way all these years. ICC has been a 'for the whites', 'by the whites', 'of the whites' organization, thus far. You could see it in the way the game has been run. ->Why are the Aussies & the English concerned about two Indians at the helm ? Why wasnt this an issue when Gray & Speedo were ruling the ICC ? ->Why was Chris Broad reinstated as an official after he was kicked out ? ->Why is Darrell Hair reinstated after being shown to target the Asians ? ->Why have the Aussies repeatedly gotten away with day light murders, while the Asians dinged at every possible opportunity ? I for one, detested the bias the Asian teams had to put up with, for a no. of years. I wouldnt mind, seeing the Asians dominate the sport in the forthcoming years. Its only fair that we have our way for sometime, afterall!

Share this post


Link to post

Patriotic Gavaskar tells it like it is Okay, just who are the paranoid ones here? Is it the Western media or the International Cricket Council and its non-South Asian minions? Or is it the many brown sahibs still living in reflected glory of the days of the Raj? Just maybe, had anyone else other than Sunil Gavaskar in this case - say Kapil Dev or fellow columnist Sandeep Patil - called a spade a shovel and referred to those former ICC masters England and Australia as dinosaurs, the episode would have been brushed over. Gavaskar has long been known as a erudite and skilled author and comments man behind the mike or on television. Sure he has a sharp tongue and makes his points known. Anyone who has read, as an example, his first book Sunny Days, would have quickly picked up this trend. He was as prolific and challenging as a batsman and he now is as a writer. But this does not suggest in anyway that his media work influences his role as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee. That as he sees it: his media role is to point out the anomalies of what he sees and feels about the game. The position on the cricket committee is to improve the way the game is played and work within those parameters. In the case of Harbhajan Singh and the charges he faced he was thinking of his own patriotism; there is nothing wrong with being loyal at a time when in general the Australian media were, in a sense, gunning for Bhajji. This is where Gavaskar felt there was a need to show his support for the player in this case and if the charge is one of nationalism, there are many at where fingers can be pointed. There is also the fine line of balance between comment, criticism and outright condemnation. In the article referring to Mike Procter and his handling of the Harbhajan issue over charges of referring to another player as a 'monkey', Gavaskar is critical of the decision, but doesn't refer to Procter in racist terms. He also denies the charge. To be honest, the ICC is still hidebound as well as haunted at times by a legacy that is on the verge of turning 100 years old. For this you cannot blame the present council's officials but the umbilical cord from which it was given life. Millionaire and a former Transvaal bowler Sir Abe Bailey, whose idea it was to form an international body, did so in 1908 when England, Australia and South Africa were the constituent nations playing the game at international level. The ICC was formed a year later. What is not well known is how on enquiry the United States were refused membership. They were still a force in the game through their Philadelphia links and refusal was a deliberate slap in the face as the old imperial (Raj) forces were at work here, not the genuine benefactors. Granting membership to the USA would have meant a non-British Commonwealth nation being involved admitted to this collection of nations. Now, as England and South Africa were financially wealthier at the time than the more upfront Australians, the terms imperial and conference sounded better than international and council. There was a misguided feeling too that the Yanks would act in such an iconoclastic way they would take over the running of the game. This wouldn't have been a bad idea either as commercialism and sponsors would have come a lot sooner than they did. Under the pompous imperial cricket conference charter, England and Australia had the veto. It is how South Africa escaped being kicked out long before they should have. If these thoughts seem sacrilegious to some, why is it the United States and Fiji, welcomed as associate members of the reconstituted ICC in 1965 not advanced beyond this status while Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) were not even accorded any recognition at that time. From 1909 to 1993, the sport was run by an MCC/ICC hierarchy that was quite happy to switch one hat for another. Instead of making it a game for all, the Raj held control. Why did it take only the threat of the Oxford educated and Pakistan's first captain, Abdul Hafeez Kardar, to challenge Lord's and the ICC was there reaction about furthering the game in Asia? He may have been a touch eccentric and thorny on some subjects, but Kardar was at least a visionary. He attributed some of this to his Oxford tutors as well as Warwickshire and New Zealand player Martin Donnelly whose quiet Kiwi honesty he enjoyed more than anything. Gavaskar has similar views, but writes and talks from experience. In his annoyance at what he feels is still post-Lord's influence, there are times he may seem too critical. But what is wrong with justified criticism? In his book 'Sunny Days' there are strong criticisms of the Sabina Park crowd and the way they reacted. In a chapter titled 'Barbarism in Kingston' it may border on racism, but here he joins others, Jeremy Coney, the lanky New Zealand captain is one, who expresses similar thoughts. There are also his reactions to the Sri Lanka media and spectators as well as umpires. Welcome to the club Sunny. Four tours of the island and now living in the country tells you a lot about an ingrown inferiority complex. Letters in the Colombo papers about 'brave little' Sri Lanka taking on the big bullies are to smile at. New Zealand, who draw on a cricket population the size of a New Delhi suburb, are smaller but don't suffer from such inferiority. If anything, as is his patriotic right, Gavaskar is only explaining how Indians feel at being accused of acting the big bully on the international stage. He is right to suggest that when Malcolm Gray and Malcolm Speed ran the ICC in 2002 and 2003 there was no suggestion of an Aussie takeover. It is all a matter of perception. There is no gainsaying that while many non-Asian media are quick to offer their opinions, they should also be mature enough to accept his point of view. This comes from a man who has been a great Test player and good captain, and knows the struggle to achieve the level India has reached. Otherwise, such thoughts would not have been written. http://www.cricketnext.com/columns/trevorchesterfield/696/30572/patriotic-gavaskar-tells-it-like-it-is.html

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×