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

[Chandan]

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!!

[CSK Fan]

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.

[Chandan]

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.

[Desi Cartman]

can we add a poll to this thread to see how many posters think Sunny is right in saying what he did and is it ok to sack him for that . I dont wanna start another thread just for the poll

[Chandan]

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.

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

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?

[CSK Fan]

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."

[graphic23]

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.

[Desi Cartman]

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

[Chandan]

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?

[CSK Fan]

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.

[Chandan]

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.

[CC1981]

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.

[CC1981]

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.

[Chandan]

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.

[Chandan]

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!!

[King Tendulkar]

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:

[King Tendulkar]

Except that Lalit Modi is not in contention.

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:hysterical: I win:yay:

[CC1981]

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!

[CC1981]

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.

[Chandan]

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?