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

[suraj]

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:

[Lurker]

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

[suraj]

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?

[Kartikey]

"First world power is seen as natural and neutral; Asian power is somehow suspect and sinister." Found this on the Internet, and this is exactly what Sunny is trying to say.

[Kartikey]

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.

[suraj]

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?

[Lurker]

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?

[suraj]

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.

[Kartikey]

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.

[Lurker]

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

[graphic23]

@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.

[Lurker]

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

[Lurker]

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?

[Kartikey]

"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.

[graphic23]

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.

[Lurker]

"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?

[Kartikey]

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/266507.html

[King Tendulkar]

Can you imagine what people like speed say about india behind closed doors!

[Lurker]

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

[Lurker]

"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.