Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak  This is such a huge subject that I can't possibly cover everything in a couple of paragraphs reply, but I'll throw out a couple of examples to you of exactly why people don't like the ICC, criticise them and why they're not fit to run our International game. |
Scott, I am fully aware of many of the gripes people have with the ICC.
Like Ernest, before you, there was no need for you to go back through them.
I was more interested in the people's solutions be they subtle changes or a revolution.
Most of your points are asking me to reply as to the ICC's motives or as if I am a spokesman for them.
Quote:
|
Can you honestly say with any conviction at all that the ICC are actually running International Cricket in the best interests of ALL it's members or do they just pander to the sub-continental sides who wield a lot of power and money and influence on the ICC boards?
|
The answer to that should be obvious. Of course those who have the financial power get to wield the influence.
It is the way of the world.
Money and the power it has talk.
Which is why every suggestion Ernest has made so far is completely unworkable because you can't remove the influence of money unless you change money's influence in the world as a whole. Furthermore. no national board (another body set up to preserve its own interest) is never going to agree to any decision that undermines itself in the favour of another.
But I'm glad we have got here because is the problem,
a) The reality that a few boards wield money and power and influence way more than others, or
b) The identity of which boards hold the money and power and influence?
Cricket has never been run with all boards having equal power and for most of its years of international existence, England and Australia, have had far more power.
But apparently some want to go back to those times because the game was "better run".
Quote:
|
Um, one parting thought - are you surprised Harbhajan escaped his 'racial jibe' charge?
|
He escaped?
I thought it was never proven.
I didn't now having a decision overturned on appeal meant escaping.
Considering it was not caught on a stump mic or no umpire heard it, how else would you have decided to come to a decision?
I believe in innocent until proven guilty for racial abuse and other matters like whether a player in a team tampered with the ball. for example.
Once those in officialdom are able to punish people with no proof of their misdemeanour (Oval 2006 and Sydney 2008) you get the reactions you are now seeing.
And on another note, Hair was removed by vote 7-3, I believe
Players get dropped and so can umpires too. I see nothing wrong with that.