I'd be mightly surprised, disappointed and angry if any board (well we know Zimbabwe's would) took action for a player for giving his own opinion, especially when it isn't whistleblowing sort of stuff.
What a joke!
The players should have a look at themselves.
They're the ones who served up a dud World Cup.
They are, but this survey wasn't purely about the Cup.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
I agree with Howardj, players should have a look at themselves first. Majority of players(at least those from India) are worried about themselves. Not that it is a bad thing but please stop blaming ICC for your inability to take a stand on some issue.
Member of the Newtown Cricket Club since January '06 - "Per commissum ad taberna"
Honorary Vice-President of the "Twenty20 Is Boring Society"
Agree with howardj and Sanz. And I don't think the survey really reflects anything else but the players who were surveyed because only 45 players were surveyed out of what? 240? Yeah not a very good survey.
Future Of Cricket
And the ICC's response
Some aspects of their excuses ring hollow, e.g. attitudes reflect tournament performance
I think they'll find that a no. of Australians were critical of the length and/or structure of the tournament
Also, turning stats around and saying that it's a positive that approx 85% were satisified with things like drug education is nonsense.
Most people and administrators adopt a no-excuse policy on drug use.
Likewise, there can be no excuse for a failure in the system that allows 15% to feel as though they're uninformed
Think the survey confirmed what everyone already knew - there's too much meaningless cricket, formats like the CT and the WC are duds at the moment, and that the ICC is too damned impotent against the money-counters in the national boards to actually exercise effective leadership.
As Social mentioned, the most strident criticism I heard of the WC format came from guys like Matt Hayden.
I see they're also claiming credit for a drug free WC, when they tested 2 players in 15 games out of over 40 games... Why isn't there random drug testing at every single match? Or why wasn't every player tested at least once - that would be a disincentive...
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
It's not a very good survey though only asking 45 out of 240 or something like that. Plus why does everyone blame everything on the ICC for? Like Zimbabwe blaming the ICC for letting Australia being racist against them etc. lol Without valid reasons people go at them all the time just because they are the governing body. The fact that there's too much meaning less cricket isn't cause of the ICC, if the respective boards choice and they are they ones organizing 7 odi's and stuff.
I don't get your criticism though, you give credit to the survey which did 45 players out of 240 but then you criticise the icc for not testing all the players...the drug test thing didn't change, it was the same as last time and are just random check ups on random games so I don't see the need for checking every player. I don't think even the fifa world cup check every player.
Well they had plenty of time during the WC to get around to every player - 16 x 15 = 240 drug tests to carry out over a nearly 8 week period - its really not that hard.
And the difference between a survey and a drug testing programme is that a survey, almost by definition, is meant to represent a snap-shot of opinion from a sample of the population. On the other hand, a drug-testing program is meant to ensure there are no drug cheats in the event. Now maybe universal drug testing is overkill, but only conducting 30 tests over the course of a tournament that was so long is a bit poor imo. I think it would have even been reasonable to say that a member of each team in every match was to be tested. The likelihood that you will be tested has to be so high that players simply aren't prepared to even begin thinking they'll get away with it.
On your broader point re: unfair criticism of the ICC, I agree that they're not the anti-christs that they are often made out to be, and have even done a lot of good over the years, but the fact is they are significantly underperforming is several areas of their stewardship of the game, and it does no-one any favours to try and pretend otherwise. The format of their show-piece tournaments is flawed, and their management of the WC was badly lacking in several respects. They've shown themselves to be essentially impotent on issues like Zimbabwe, and I'd say weak on match-fixing, and drugs. And, as I said, they've done nothing to protect the brand and the players from the ever increasing amount of scheduling - as custodians of the game it should fall to them to do something if all the other parties prove too partisan to do anything. Regardless of their achievements and performances in other areas, that's a rather significant list of things they're not doing well.
The fact that these issues were picked up in a survey of a sample of international players is not at all surprising, because everyone knows all of this. What's lacking is some leadership to change the status quo for the better.
re: ICC, well i don't think the format is bad, may be they can have it in two groups(super 8) but the current one is good too, but they did mess up on other aspects of handling the tournament. I don't think they are mishandling the Zimbabwe issue 'cause I don't think a sports governing body should go by what 3 political governments are saying. I know that it's bad in Zimbabwe now but I don't think politics and sports should mix and even though it does the main governing body doesn't have to get into that. The only aspect that I can see Zimbabwe getting demoted to associate status is their playing standard and things like that but even than it's as bad as people make it out to be. They are not worser than the top associates but it's just a huge contrast to when they used to be good. Anyways, point is I can see the ICC demoting/suspending Zimbabwe. Why? Because even though the ICC spent a whole lot of money in the USA project, after the USACA had all these infighting, they gave them time to fix it, they didn't, so the ICC extended the time, but when after that they couldn't, they suspended them. The ICC gave Zimbabwe till November to come back to test cricket but I don't think they can, so most likely the ICC will extend the time but after that we might see a suspension. On drugs and match fixing, I think they are ok because you can't really do much on match mixing other than what they are doing with the "Anti-corruption and security" thing. No harsher punishment other than life bans so nothing else to do really. And on too much cricket I think they already have a limit but it's the boards still and you can't just stop them because they have deals with sponsors etc that the boards have to fulfill too. It's up to the boards to come up with something that works for them like the rotation policy etc.
45 out of 240 is quite easily a big enough sample.
MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?
Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC
Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)