Wasim says ICC is run by whites

[FaaipDeOiad]

http://cricket.expressindia.com/full...ntent_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/full...ntent_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".)