|
|||
|
Message Boards
|
|||
| in WA they don't need to they saved up enough daylight that they don't require candles! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hey KO how is WA going to prepare for Earth Watch when they havent got electricity yet do they blow out the candles??? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Too much hurry in his curry me thinks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The issue with Gavaskar, and this topic being created , was his wearing two hats - journalist and ICC committee member, and his using his newspaper column, to ventilate his negative feelings towards member nations of the ICC. If Gavaskar wants to rant and rave , then so be it. It was not so much his content, but the fact that he has been performing the dual roles for some time. The ICC has finally corrected the problem How would you feel if Steve Bucknor wrote for a newspaper column and ventilated his negative feelings towards the BCCI and Indian cricketers??? Some roles in international cricket MUST preclude any media role, and it is a pity the ICC had to push the arrogant Gavaskar into accepting this fact. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| why do you think I'm racist? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Of course there is a conflict of interest. don't have a problem with that. He should resign if he has to from one of the positions. Matter closed! I was only commenting on Gavaskar's observations in his column. When last week the ICC actually appointed a South African as the ICC CEO as a compromise because they felt that appointing an Indian would give too much power to India given that another Indian will become the ICC Chief in 2009. The media in England and Australia had created a big hue and cry about "too much power" in the hands of India. So what's the problem with two Indians occupying top positions in the ICC? No one accused Australia of "too much power" when the two Australians were appointed in ICC top positions not too far back. Are Australia and Australians more privileged in running cricket? You read |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stinaikar..you truly are a racist. I sure hope you dont live in Australia! You dont read things properly and your racist against australians! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Still dont get it , do you stinkyair??? It is not ethical to hold the position of ICC cricket committee chairperson, whilst, at the same time, publishing personal and highly judgmental opinions in the print media against many of the officials and players on the International cricket scene whilst holding that position. It has nothing to do with nationality, and only a one-eyed ignoramus would try to defend this conflict of interest as another anti-Indian or anti-Asian conspiracy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Still, it is a habit that is hard to get over, and so it is anathema to think that those who were the ruled can one day become the rulers. It is this supercilious and condescending attitude that is hard to understand at time when the world even thought it is still round more even than ever before. Gone are the days when two countries, England and Australia, had the veto power in international cricket, even though the dinosaurs, still trying to voice their prejudiced opinions in the media, may not open their eyes and see the reality. The cricketing world has found that India has no longer a diffident voice in the international cricketing community, but a confident one that knows what is good for its cricket, and will strive to get it. What may have worried these people was the manner in which India defended its player Harbhajan Singh on the 'racist' allegation made against him. India was insistent that Harbhajan had not said anything racist, and when all the technology in the world was unable to prove that he had indeed said anything, these guys, especially those in Australia, having got so used to getting it their way, were unable to stomach it. They kept referring to India's threat of calling off the tour, completely ignoring the statement of Mr. Pawar where he categorically stated that there was no question of calling off the tour. Yes, there were some other BCCI members who were aggressive, but it was the President who had been authorized to take the final decision, and when he made it clear that there was no threat to the continuation of the tour, that should have been that. So, to ignore that and project others from the BCCI as bullies and thus create that kind of image of BCCI suited the particular newspaper, which even now refuses to accept that its players could be mistaken, despite Justice Hansen's judgement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Two different articles. But the Cricinfo article is just a summary report on Gavaskar's column. Which incidentally is also quite distorted. The original article is titled "What's wrong with two Indians at the ICC"? But Cricinfo chose to focus on his dinosaur comments. This is the original article. A few days before the recent meeting of the ICC Executive Board in Dubai, the names of the two candidates to replace Malcolm Speed as the Chief Executive Officer of the ICC were announced. Mr. I. S. Bindra, former President of the Board of Control in India, and Mr. Imtiaz Patel, currently the CEO of the Supersports TV channel in South Africa, were the contenders shortlisted for the post. As soon as Mr. Bindra's name was announced, 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. The ICC CEO was to be given a three-year contract, which could be renewed of course, but it was only in the final year of his contract that there could have been two Indians at the helm of the ICC. 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. Malcolm Gray as President and Malcolm Speed as the CEO, but there were no fears about Australia ruling the game then. Why is it that these writers have no qualms about similar situations when it concerns their own countrymen, but are quick to raise a hue and cry when it is from India or the sub-continent? Once again, it is 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. Every controversy in international cricket has shown that no country has the monopoly on honesty and integrity, and so should not be looking down upon others. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| They're two totally seperate stories ya numpty. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Numbskull, that's the original article by Gavaskar. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| No that's the "Indian" version. The full link and real story is: http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/baggygreen/content /story/343691.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the full link of the article. http://www.dreamcricket.com/dreamcricket/news.hspl ?nid=8765&ntid=3 A portion is presented below: "A few days before the recent meeting of the ICC Executive Board in Dubai, the names of the two candidates to replace Malcolm Speed as the Chief Executive Officer of the ICC were announced. Mr. I. S. Bindra, former President of the Board of Control in India, and Mr. Imtiaz Patel, currently the CEO of the Supersports TV channel in South Africa, were the contenders shortlisted for the post. As soon as Mr. Bindra's name was announced, 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. The ICC CEO was to be given a three-year contract, which could be renewed of course, but it was only in the final year of his contract that there could have been two Indians at the helm of the ICC. 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. Malcolm Gray as President and Malcolm Speed as the CEO, but there were no fears about Australia ruling the game then. Why is it that these writers have no qualms about similar situations when it concerns their own countrymen, but are quick to raise a hue and cry when it is from India or the sub-continent? Once again, it is 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. " |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How can someone hold a job in the ICC hierarchy, whilst spewing out vitriole about officials from other countries?? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunil Gavaskar, who polarised opinion with outspoken comments during the recent Australia-India series, has. h!t out at England and Australia, describing their approach to the global game as being akin to "dinosaurs". Gavaskar has a foot in two camps, working as a journalist and also as chairman of the ICC's cricket committee. In his syndicated newspaper column at the weekend, he said that England and Australia needed to come to terms with the new world order. "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 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. "What may have worried these people was the manner in which India defended Harbhajan Singh on the 'racist allegation made against him [in Australia in January]. When all the technology in the world was unable to prove that he had indeed said anything, these guys, especially those in Australia, were unable to stomach it. "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." In January, Gavaskar's remarks about Mike Procter, the ICC match referee during the infamous Sydney Test, were commented on by David Morgan, the ICC's president-elect. "Conflicts of interests pervade our sport," Morgan said. "In terms of Gavaskar, within the ICC, there is a concern now that he's chairman of the cricket committee and a journalist who has expressed some fairly outspoken comments." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved. Advertise with Us - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help |