does the subcontinent run the game?

[dr nick]

certainly seems to from where i am.

here are some examples of where the ICC have bowed at the knees to these teams. please add because i am sure there are more examples.

* India refusing to name a preliminary 30 man world cup squad.

* Sri lankan bowler muttiah muralitharan's action "cleared" by the ICC.

* India refusing to let the ICC appointed Mike Denness referee the 3rd test in South Africa

* India refusing to impose the 1 match ban on Sachin Tendulkar for ball tampering

* Umpire Darryl Hair not allowed to umpire any matches involving Muralitharan.


When are Australia, South Africa and England going to stand up to the ICC and all this nonsense?? and whats the latest on the world cup conflicting sponsors?

 

[bunsen burner]

Yet another example of one group crying racism and the other group bending over. Those sub continent teams need to be put in their place (equality rather than giving them all these concessions).

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by nicko18
certainly seems to from where i am.

here are some examples of where the ICC have bowed at the knees to these teams. please add because i am sure there are more examples.

* India refusing to name a preliminary 30 man world cup squad.

* Sri lankan bowler muttiah muralitharan's action "cleared" by the ICC.

* India refusing to let the ICC appointed Mike Denness referee the 3rd test in South Africa

* India refusing to impose the 1 match ban on Sachin Tendulkar for ball tampering

* Umpire Darryl Hair not allowed to umpire any matches involving Muralitharan.


When are Australia, South Africa and England going to stand up to the ICC and all this nonsense?? and whats the latest on the world cup conflicting sponsors?

What a load of twaddle, sure India were late, but they had exceptional reasons due to the sponsorship contracts dispute. And they weren't the only late team, England were also a few days late, but I don't hear you bleating about them. This is just Steve Waugh having a whinge because he wasn't included. If Australia can't choose a 15 man squad from a 30 man squad chosen only 30 days before, then you have to wonder as to the way cricket is run in this country.

The technical avisory panel that cleared Murali included Michael Holding. Are you accusing him of cheating in favour of the sub-continent.

India refused to have Mike Denness and as such the match lost it's test match status. Mike later thanked the ICC for standing by him. So how is this a case of the ICC favouring the sub-continent?

Unless I missed something, Tendulkar received a suspended sentence for a technical breach of failing to notify the umpire that he was removing grass from the seam and India have accepted that. So what's your issue?

It's unfortunate that Hair won't umpire, not that he can in a match involving Australia and Sri Lanka under normal rules. However cricket should be played under an atmosphere free from external pressures. Having Hair umpire is always going to be uncomfortable for Sri Lanka.

Add to this the ICC is based in the UK and top two officials are both Australian, then this makes your ICC a pro sub-continent and anti traditional nations argument look a demented whinge fest.

 

[dr nick]

Re: Re: does the subcontinent run the game?

Originally posted by Jim Boy
What a load of twaddle, sure India were late, but they had exceptional reasons due to the sponsorship contracts dispute. And they weren't the only late team, England were also a few days late, but I don't hear you bleating about them. This is just Steve Waugh having a whinge because he wasn't included. If Australia can't choose a 15 man squad from a 30 man squad chosen only 30 days before, then you have to wonder as to the way cricket is run in this country.

The technical avisory panel that cleared Murali included Michael Holding. Are you accusing him of cheating in favour of the sub-continent.

India refused to have Mike Denness and as such the match lost it's test match status. Mike later thanked the ICC for standing by him. So how is this a case of the ICC favouring the sub-continent?

Unless I missed something, Tendulkar received a suspended sentence for a technical breach of failing to notify the umpire that he was removing grass from the seam and India have accepted that. So what's your issue?

It's unfortunate that Hair won't umpire, not that he can in a match involving Australia and Sri Lanka under normal rules. However cricket should be played under an atmosphere free from external pressures. Having Hair umpire is always going to be uncomfortable for Sri Lanka.

Add to this the ICC is based in the UK and top two officials are both Australian, then this makes your ICC a pro sub-continent and anti traditional nations argument look a demented whinge fest.

once again, and not surprisingly, you have missed the point. of course the two top officials are australian, has nothing to do with them not bowing to subcontinental teams. the fact is they cry racism every time something does not go their way, so the ICC has a reputation of giving in to them. it has nothing to do with being pro-subcontinent, but it was only a matter of time before some halfwit twisted what i was saying into this.

your justification that michael holding was on the panel that cleared murali was just the bomb. are you saying that they did a thorough investigation, under random match conditions, or better yet, that he does not chuck??

about the suspension of one of the indian players, it could have even been sehwag, but either him or tendulkar was banned for the match and said that they counted the "tour match" as that suspension, once again another farce.


"having hair umpire is always going to be uncomfortable for sri lanka" precisely my point, a rule for them and a rule for the rest of us. never mind the other countries who feel uncomfortable having to face this cheating rubbish.

 

[Dipper]

IMO there are definite grounds for suspecting that the ICC have fudged the issue of chuckers from the subcontinent as they have been genuinely frightened of a split in world cricket down racial lines & from what I've read this has been a real threat.

I think the ICC has not served cricket well by running scared of the asian nations & I think they (asian countries) have played the race card cynically.

It saddens me greatly that the leading wicket taker in Test history will (injuries permitting) be a chucker & that he may well post a target that will never be beaten.

 

[jim boy]

Re: Re: Re: does the subcontinent run the game?

Originally posted by nicko18
once again, and not surprisingly, you have missed the point. of course the two top officials are australian, has nothing to do with them not bowing to subcontinental teams. the fact is they cry racism every time something does not go their way, so the ICC has a reputation of giving in to them. it has nothing to do with being pro-subcontinent, but it was only a matter of time before some halfwit twisted what i was saying into this.

your justification that michael holding was on the panel that cleared murali was just the bomb. are you saying that they did a thorough investigation, under random match conditions, or better yet, that he does not chuck??

about the suspension of one of the indian players, it could have even been sehwag, but either him or tendulkar was banned for the match and said that they counted the "tour match" as that suspension, once again another farce.


"having hair umpire is always going to be uncomfortable for sri lanka" precisely my point, a rule for them and a rule for the rest of us. never mind the other countries who feel uncomfortable having to face this cheating rubbish.

hey I am not saying that the ICC don't buckle under Sub-continet pressure, even though I don't think they do. It's just that you haven't provided one coherent argument.

For example you have got worked up about some suspension, but your not sure whom and in what circumstances, hmmmm that's not a very convincing argument.

Your whole argument is just another whinge about the Murali saga. Now I haven't seen anywhere enough footage or consider myself to be a suitable enough expert to say if he chucks or not, but I certainly accept that his action is suspect. So all I can go on are the reports of other experts. But in the end it boils down a big fat controversy in which you can't keep everyone happy. You don't have to like the umpires decision, but you have to abide by it.