Wasim says ICC is run by whites

[FaaipDeOiad]

http://cricket.expressindia.com/fulleistory.php?content_id=59683

Haven't seen a thread on this yet, and it seemed significant enough to warrant one. What are people's thoughts on his comments?

Personally, I have to say I think they're not only totally inaccurate, but rather out of line as well. It's one thing to criticise the ICC because of a specific issue, but to draw a tenuous connection between players being punished for certain behaviour and race is a pretty irresponsible thing to do, especially for someone who's fairly well respected as a pundit.

 

[Jamee999]

Isn't that untrue?

England, Australia, New Zealand - White (generally)
South Africa, Zimbabwe - Let's not go down that road.
West Indies, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka - Black (generally)

 

[Craig]

Wouldn't it also be a raciast comment?

I have admired the bowling talents of Wasim Akram during his playing days and was often in awe of him, but I think I will disagree with him.

Of course CC (or somebody else) might say otherwise and will tell me I'm talking rubbish of course.

 

[greg]

Isn't that untrue?

England, Australia, New Zealand - White (generally)
South Africa, Zimbabwe - Let's not go down that road.
West Indies, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka

I think he was referring to the "independent" (ie non country aligned) ICC officials. Not that that makes his observations any more accurate.

 

[archie mac]

I DON'T believe Wasim would say any of those things, it makes him sound like an inarticulate moron.

 

[C_C]

Wouldn't it also be a raciast comment?

I have admired the bowling talents of Wasim Akram during his playing days and was often in awe of him, but I think I will disagree with him.

Of course CC (or somebody else) might say otherwise and will tell me I'm talking rubbish of course.

Look-you can pretend as much as you want but facts clearly indicate that ICC ( or its previous avatars) were largely a ' whiteboy club' till the mid/late 80s. Facts prove this- the ICC ( and its previous avatars) have consistently taken decisions to protect English and Aussie interests only leading up to that period- most rule changes were brought forth when one ( or both) of the two abovementioned teams were struggling against the other team(s). The lbw laws were changed as soon as Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine flummoxed the English batsmen in England. Bouncers were okay when Thommo and Lillee were peppering the batsmen away - overs and overs at a stretch but murmurs began as soon as West Indies did the same- with better efficiency. That eventually led to the bouncer rules. Third umpiring was brought forth largely due to the Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident, despite the fact that English or Australian home umpires were historically no worse than the Pakistani ones ( the most biassed three countries when it came to home umpiring). Blatant cheating by NZ umpires resulted in the WI series loss to NZ in 1979/80.
The examples are too numerous to dismiss the fact that ICC has been pro-white for most of its existance.

Right now, i think its not really a 'white bias' but rather a bit of a bias towards Australia and England.
In the test i've watched involving these two nations, they usually get the longer end of the stick when it comes to 50-50 decisions and true shockers more often than not.
As of now, i think that the bias has lessened considerably but still exists.
One tends to forget that 'equality' and 'no racism' policy in the west is rather new- essentially gaining mass momentum from the mid-late 1960s. Typically it takes a long time and several generations to change ( for better or for worse) the social norms of a society and i need not point out that many of these so-called elite umpires and officials grew up in a society that openly thought whites were superior to all other human beings.
So overall, i would say Akram's statement has some merit to it.

 

[Slow Love™]

http://cricket.expressindia.com/fulleistory.php?content_id=59683

Haven't seen a thread on this yet, and it seemed significant enough to warrant one. What are people's thoughts on his comments?

Personally, I have to say I think they're not only totally inaccurate, but rather out of line as well. It's one thing to criticise the ICC because of a specific issue, but to draw a tenuous connection between players being punished for certain behaviour and race is a pretty irresponsible thing to do, especially for someone who's fairly well respected as a pundit.

Is he? Genuine question.

I think his comments are inaccurate. If he was talking historically I might give the comments more leeway, but he doesn't make any such distinctions (so, as a result, I think C_C is being FAR too generous).

It smacks of a vague, populist comment to me. Perhaps he needs to be more specific.

 

[greg]

Look-you can pretend as much as you want but facts clearly indicate that ICC ( or its previous avatars) were largely a ' whiteboy club' till the mid/late 80s. Facts prove this- the ICC ( and its previous avatars) have consistently taken decisions to protect English and Aussie interests only leading up to that period- most rule changes were brought forth when one ( or both) of the two abovementioned teams were struggling against the other team(s). The lbw laws were changed as soon as Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine flummoxed the English batsmen in England. Bouncers were okay when Thommo and Lillee were peppering the batsmen away - overs and overs at a stretch but murmurs began as soon as West Indies did the same- with better efficiency. That eventually led to the bouncer rules. Third umpiring was brought forth largely due to the Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident, despite the fact that English or Australian home umpires were historically no worse than the Pakistani ones ( the most biassed three countries when it came to home umpiring). Blatant cheating by NZ umpires resulted in the WI series loss to NZ in 1979/80.
The examples are too numerous to dismiss the fact that ICC has been pro-white for most of its existance.

Right now, i think its not really a 'white bias' but rather a bit of a bias towards Australia and England.
In the test i've watched involving these two nations, they usually get the longer end of the stick when it comes to 50-50 decisions and true shockers more often than not.
As of now, i think that the bias has lessened considerably but still exists.
One tends to forget that 'equality' and 'no racism' policy in the west is rather new- essentially gaining mass momentum from the mid-late 1960s. Typically it takes a long time and several generations to change ( for better or for worse) the social norms of a society and i need not point out that many of these so-called elite umpires and officials grew up in a society that openly thought whites were superior to all other human beings.
So overall, i would say Akram's statement has some merit to it.

lol.

There's no indication that Wasim was talking about umpires so your argument there is meaningless. And arguments about "the ICC" in the past are completely irrelevant as well - seeing as it's "previous incarnation", such as it was, was the MCC, a completely different organisation with a completely different constitution, with a very different remit.

were okay when Thommo and Lillee were peppering the batsmen away - overs and overs at a stretch but murmurs began as soon as West Indies did the same- with better efficiency

Bodyline?

BTW I thought the LBW laws were changed (in the bowlers' favour!) because of May and Cowdrey, not Ramadhin and Valentine.

 

[howardj]

Right now, i think its not really a 'white bias' but rather a bit of a bias towards Australia and England.
In the test i've watched involving these two nations, they usually get the longer end of the stick when it comes to 50-50 decisions and true shockers more often than not.
As of now, i think that the bias has lessened considerably but still exists.
One tends to forget that 'equality' and 'no racism' policy in the west is rather new- essentially gaining mass momentum from the mid-late 1960s. Typically it takes a long time and several generations to change ( for better or for worse) the social norms of a society and i need not point out that many of these so-called elite umpires and officials grew up in a society that openly thought whites were superior to all other human beings.
So overall, i would say Akram's statement has some merit to it.

As far as umpiring is concerned, it's not unusual that Australia and England are currently getting the close calls in their favour. That's what happens when you're the dominant team. Just as, as stated by Allan Border and Graham Gooch, the Windies got the close calls in the 1980's.

 

[C_C]

There's no indication that Wasim was talking about umpires so your argument there is meaningless. And arguments about "the ICC" in the past are completely irrelevant as well - seeing as it's "previous incarnation", such as it was, was the MCC, a completely different organisation with a completely different constitution, with a very different remit.

No, the past is completely relevant- it provides precidence and if precidence is totally contradictory to the assessment, the onus is on the one who made the assessment to make their case, not vice versa. Ie, with the precident in mind, the onus is to prove that the governing body in cricket is no longer operating with a pro-white bias, rather than vice versa.
If the KKK today claim to be a non-racist organisation, the onus is on KKK to prove that point given its past history, not the other way round.

Bodyline?

BTW I thought the LBW laws were changed (in the bowlers' favour!) because of May and Cowdrey, not Ramadhin and Valentine.

No, lbw laws were changed in batsmen's favour ( cannot be out anymore to balls pitching outside leg, cannot be out padding up on the front foot unless the ball landed in line with the off stump).

by the way- i said 'most' rule changes, not all, with bodyline in mind. However, you will struggle to give me examples when rules were changed to inhibit the winnings of Australia and/or England apart from one ridiculous brouhaha called Bodyline. I have already given you several examples of it working the other way round.

 

[C_C]

As far as umpiring is concerned, it's not unusual that Australia and England are currently getting the close calls in their favour. That's what happens when you're the dominant team. Just as, as stated by Allan Border and Graham Gooch, the Windies got the close calls in the 1980's.

Except that the WI didnt usually get the close calls even in the 80s - if they did get fair calls, they wouldn't have lost the series to NZ in NZ and several results against OZ and ENG would've been a lot more lop-sided. Both Michael Holding and Joel Garner are on record saying that Australian umpires are the most biassed umpires they've ever played against. So is Gavaskar.

 

[howardj]

Except that the WI didnt usually get the close calls even in the 80s .

That's your view.

I'll stick with Goochy and AB

 

[greg]

No, the past is completely relevant- it provides precidence and if precidence is totally contradictory to the assessment, the onus is on the one who made the assessment to make their case, not vice versa. Ie, with the precident in mind, the onus is to prove that the governing body in cricket is no longer operating with a pro-white bias, rather than vice versa.
If the KKK today claim to be a non-racist organisation, the onus is on KKK to prove that point given its past history, not the other way round.

The ICC is a completely different organisation to the MCC, in both constitution and remit. The MCC should not even be really considered it's predecessor. Your KKK argument is spurious because you talk of the same organisation re-organising itself. A better analogy (apt in the context) would be the South African Government pre-Mandela, and the South African government post-Mandela. You wouldn't suggest that Mandela's ANC government had to prove its anti-black credentials because of the actions under apartheid.

No, lbw laws were changed in batsmen's favour ( cannot be out anymore to balls pitching outside leg, cannot be out padding up on the front foot unless the ball landed in line with the off stump).

I'm pretty certain you've got mixed up on this. Padding up by batsmen had long been seen as a problem in cricket in the 30s and gained new life again after the famous May/Cowdrey partnership in 53(?). A campaign which finally culminated in the law change in 1970. I don't think batsmen have EVER been given out to balls pitching outside leg stump, but if they have I'm pretty sure it was changed long before Ramadhin and Valentine.

I only mentioned Bodyline as a direct response to your argument about bouncers and the Windies. It is also speculation, but it seems a fair hypothesis that action wasn't taken against Australian bouncers because of the historical analogies - analogies which just didn't apply to the West Indians.

You have also conveniently overlooked the changes to the throwing regulations, which, whatever their justification, have manifestly been designed to try and cope with the Muralitharan 'problem'.

 

[C_C]

That's your view.

I'll stick with Goochy and AB

Goochy and AB are entitled to their opinions but it is not shared by rest of the world's players from that era- atleast that i've heard of. Actual instances in the games ( from what i've seen) does not corroborate Gooch/AB's versions either.

 

[Slow Love™]

And arguments about "the ICC" in the past are completely irrelevant as well - seeing as it's "previous incarnation", such as it was, was the MCC, a completely different organisation with a completely different constitution, with a very different remit.

I would have thought the reference was more alluding to the "Imperial Cricket Conference", which goes back to 1909. (Before they became the "International Cricket Conference" in the 60's, and later, the "International Cricket Council".)

 

[howardj]

Goochy and AB are entitled to their opinions but it is not shared by rest of the world's players from that era- atleast that i've heard of. Actual instances in the games ( from what i've seen) does not corroborate Gooch/AB's versions either.

Im not disputing that Aussie umpires may have been biased in the 1980's - they may or may not have been, I don't know. Im making the more general argument, that the dominant team tends to get the close calls in their favour, and citing the Windies in the 1980's, and Australia in the last 10 years, as examples. Im not defending Aussie umpires, or disagreeing with what Gavaskar and Holding had to say.

 

[greg]

I would have thought the reference was more alluding to the "Imperial Cricket Conference", which goes back to 1909. (Before they became the "International Cricket Conference" in the 60's, and later, the "International Cricket Council".)

I shouldn't have got involved in this conversation

However, if we are talking laws then it was the MCC which was the guardian pre modern ICC. The Imperial/International Cricket Conference had no official role until very recently.

 

[greg]

Anyway...

Akram comments ill-informed and offensive – ICC

Jon Long

December 11, 2005

ICC President, Ehsan Mani, today strongly attacked comments made by former Pakistan player Wasim Akram that alleged a bias by the ICC against Asian countries, labelling them as ill-informed and offensive.

"As a Pakistani I am honoured by the privilege given to me to lead the ICC in carrying out its responsibility to act without fear or favour to any nation. It is a great disappointment to see this former great player, particularly as he is from my own homeland, make such ill-informed, offensive and inaccurate comments," said Mr Mani

"The reality is that what Wasim has alleged is offensive not just to me but to everybody involved with the ICC - the directors, the umpires and referees, the staff and the many former great players from across the cricketing world, including many from Asia, who are involved with the ICC through its Cricket Committee," he said.

"His comments are not supported by any facts, are ill-informed and make no constructive contribution to the debate on moving cricket forward.

"With former Indian captain, Sunil Gavaskar, as Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee that includes four representatives from Asia; with former South African vice-captain, David Richardson, as General Manager - Cricket; and with former Sir Lankan captain, Ranjan Madugalle, and Sri Lankan player, Roshan Mahanama, amongst the Emirates Elite Panel of Referees we have access to some outstanding cricketing people to deal with cricket issues. In this process, the views of the Asian region are well represented.

"In reality the ICC today is a multi-cultural body that reflects and embraces the diversity of the cricket world. This is reflected at the Board table, at all levels of the administration and in the critical operational areas of the Cricket Committee, umpiring and refereeing and anti-corruption.

"In light of the reality of the modern ICC, these comments are a poor reflection on Wasim's ability to play a constructive role in debating cricketing issues and bring into question his ability to research, understand and make judgments on the way in which the ICC carries out its mandate from all members."

 

[Dasa]

Well...Wasim is an idiot for saying that. If he was referring to the ICC historically, then as others have said, he has a point. At any rate, it's just plain stupid to say something like "the ICC is run by whites" and I thought Wasim would've/should've known better.

 

[C_C]

The ICC is a completely different organisation to the MCC, in both constitution and remit. The MCC should not even be really considered it's predecessor. Your KKK argument is spurious because you talk of the same organisation re-organising itself. A better analogy (apt in the context) would be the South African Government pre-Mandela, and the South African government post-Mandela. You wouldn't suggest that Mandela's ANC government had to prove its anti-black credentials because of the actions under apartheid.

No, it isnt a completely different organisation to the MCC - the bulk of its constitutional framework is borrowed from the MCC and the personnel manning the ICC posts have largely come from MCC/ACB backgrounds.
My KKK analogy is valid, simply because it is applied to the same level of authority- the 'ultimate' authority in cricket. Doesnt matter if they operate under the name of MCC, ICC or XYZ - the point is, the governing body of world cricket has been clearly tilted to favour one race over another for the bulk of its existance. Therefore, the onus lies with ICC to showcase its (alleged) neutrality, not one that has to be assumed.
As per your RSA example, it is irrelevant, simply because RSA post apartheid has had a complete shakeup not only in constitution but personnel- unlike the ICC.

I'm pretty certain you've got mixed up on this. Padding up by batsmen had long been seen as a problem in cricket in the 30s and gained new life again after the famous May/Cowdrey partnership in 53(?). A campaign which finally culminated in the law change in 1970. I don't think batsmen have EVER been given out to balls pitching outside leg stump, but if they have I'm pretty sure it was changed long before Ramadhin and Valentine.

I only mentioned Bodyline as a direct response to your argument about bouncers and the Windies.

You have also conveniently overlooked the changes to the throwing regulations, which, whatever their justification, have manifestly been designed to try and cope with the Muralitharan 'problem'.

There was a law change regarding lbw decisions in the mid/late 50s. Before Ramadhin-Valentine duo, batsmen would be out for padding up if the ball is going on to hit the stumps- that was modified to batsmen judged out if the ball is going on to hit the stumps and is pitched in line with the stumps.

As per as the throwing regulations are concerned, i consider it absurd to even bring it up to back up your 'point'.
For one, Murali has been utterly vindicated by scientific research and he could have a legitimate case of unfair victimisation, based on the events. Also considering the fact that bowlers like Kyle Mills, Brett Lee, Flintoff, etc. were barely reported for chucking despite their actions being no smoother than Akhtar's says a lot about the so-called neutrality in the proceedings.