OK, So why are the Aussie going ahead with the Indian tour

[Xuhaib]

Have they suddenly became immune to bomb blasts?

Discuss.

 

[irfan]

Have they suddenly became immmune to bomb blasts?

Discuss.

Haha. Great Call. Don't underestimate the value of the dollar or Australia's fear of the BCCI. Hopefully this means Symonds will pull out of the tour with his usual " All these bombs going off" comments.

 

[nightprowler10]

Being discussed in the CT thread as we speak. As tragic as these incidents are, one must wonder if the same players who are refusing to tour Pakistan will back out of India as well.

 

[pasag]

Maybe they will pull out. Who said they are going ahead with it?

But you guys have to remember it's not about actual risk, it's about perceived risk and Pakistan will always be perceived as more risky than India because firstly players have been there often and they see it's safe and also I think there is a lot more Indian culture in Australia and a higher connection (similar to Aus and England) which brings down a level of the unknown which breeds the fear in the first place.

But again, we have no idea whether the players will go to the CT or whether they'll pull out of India, so all speculation at this stage.

 

[Xuhaib]

Cricket Australia rushes to defend decision to tour India

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24092308-5001505,00.html

 

[SJS]

Have they suddenly became immune to bomb blasts?

Discuss.

Lets first understand this is not about countries. I say this before the discussion moves in the direction of India and Pakistan and a comparison of which is safer.

It is a question of a player/s' perception of threat to life and limb. One needs to respect that fear irrespective of one's nationalistic leanings.

I would be very disappointed if someone refused to visit India because of the recent bombings but I will understand where they are coming from.

This is all we need to understand and same with our boards and other authorities.

I have been postponing a trip to South Africa because of what my wife fears as security issues in that country. She may be over reacting but one needs to respect her fears and concerns for my safety.

 

[SJS]

No board should pressurise another board or cricketers from its own country or from another to undertake a trip if they or their family members are apprehensive and deeply concerned. It is a personal decision and has to be understood as such. It is that cricketer's life which is at stake and not any board official's.

 

[honestbharani]

No board should pressurise another board or cricketers from its own country or from another to undertake a trip if they or their family members are apprehensive and deeply concerned. It is a personal decision and has to be understood as such. It is that cricketer's life which is at stake and not any board official's.

yes, SJS, obviously if certain players are not willing to go, then let them not go. But why is CA insisting on not touring Pakistan as some kind of a rule even when they are promised Z grade security while they don't do that way with India? Let them just pick whoever is willing to tour and go and play at least once.


As I keep saying, it all comes down to the fact that there is some stigma attached (rightly or wrongly) about tourning Pakistan and only a tour by Australia or some other team which has similarly concerned players can remove it to at least some extent.

 

[Dissector]

Terrorist attacks make a lot of news but frankly your chances of dying of a car accident in, say, the UK or Australia are far higher than of dying of a terrorist attack in India or Pakistan. Sure, humans aren't entirely rational about such things but I don't think professional sportsmen should be accomodated when they use vague fears as an excuse for dropping out of a tour. They are free to drop out if they wish but they must expect to pay a professional penalty in terms of possible future non-selection. The exception would be if there is a credible and specific threat against a cricket team or if security measures are clearly inadequate.

 

[SJS]

Terrorist attacks make a lot of news but frankly your chances of dying of a car accident in, say, the UK or Australia are far higher than of dying of a terrorist attack in India or Pakistan. Sure, humans aren't entirely rational about such things but I don't think professional sportsmen should be accomodated when they use vague fears as an excuse for dropping out of a tour. They are free to drop out if they wish but they must expect to pay a professional penalty in terms of possible future non-selection. The exception would be if there is a credible and specific threat against a cricket team or if security measures are clearly inadequate.

It is being very presumptuous to say that the players are using this as an excuse. How do you know they are not genuinely fearful?

There are corporations in the world that issue advisories to their staff who travel across the world, not to travel to certain countries in such times. I have been similarly advised by my board of Directors and stopped from traveling on very important business trips.

Lets nit just castigate sportsmen as if they are made of some special heroic clay. I know people who did not go to the US for quite some time after 9/11. Others who did not come to Bombay after the 93 blasts.

One may feel differently from another person's threat perception but one cant presume insincerity because of this difference in perception.

 

[Richard]

Hopefully this means Symonds will pull out of the tour with his usual " All these bombs going off" comments.

Jeeys, no, been looking forwards to him being cut down to size for ages, and this is one of the best chances.

Hopefully one good thing that'll come out of the referral system is his Umpiring let-offs will stop.

 

[Xuhaib]

yes, SJS, obviously if certain players are not willing to go, then let them not go. But why is CA insisting on not touring Pakistan as some kind of a rule even when they are promised Z grade security while they don't do that way with India? Let them just pick whoever is willing to tour and go and play at least once.


As I keep saying, it all comes down to the fact that there is some stigma attached (rightly or wrongly) about tourning Pakistan and only a tour by Australia or some other team which has similarly concerned players can remove it to at least some extent.

Agree with that and I believe that Pakistan's successfull holding of the Asia cup should have been taken as a positive signal by the non-asian bloc that the country is safe for cricket.

 

[Craig]

By rights if you take the same logic with Pakistan, no body should be going to Sri Lanka. Truth is, I could walk around Colombo for a week or two and notice anything or not be affected by anything.

 

[Richard]

Xub, you're sounding worryingly like Salamuddin Janissar here.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Jeeys, no, been looking forwards to him being cut down to size for ages, and this is one of the best chances.

Hopefully one good thing that'll come out of the referral system is his Umpiring let-offs will stop.

Do you actually hope success for any one or are you just as bitter to everything with a pulse?

 

[Richard]

I'm bitter to nothing. But yes, I do hate to see players get the outrageous amount of luck Symonds has in the last 6 months or so. I never, ever hope for success for anyone, regardless of anything, via such a route of outrageous fortune.

 

[GIMH]

Terrorist attacks make a lot of news but frankly your chances of dying of a car accident in, say, the UK or Australia are far higher than of dying of a terrorist attack in India or Pakistan. Sure, humans aren't entirely rational about such things but I don't think professional sportsmen should be accomodated when they use vague fears as an excuse for dropping out of a tour. They are free to drop out if they wish but they must expect to pay a professional penalty in terms of possible future non-selection. The exception would be if there is a credible and specific threat against a cricket team or if security measures are clearly inadequate.

A lot of people who smoke, when discussing the detrimental effect it has on their health say things like, "well I could get ran over crossing the road, so should I never do that?"

When discussing terrorism and its dangerous, it is a poor analogy IMO to say that there are more pressing dangers, of course there are. I could leave my back door open all night, chances are noone would ever notice and it would never make any difference to anything, it doesn't mean I should start leaving it open as it is an unncessary risk. If terrorism has been happening in a country then people are right to worry, if they perceive the risk as unnecessary (ie some players may think that it is worth it to play for your country) then they should not be maligned for not wishing to take that risk. Whereas refusing to cross the road would be a little silly really, as you wouldn't be able to go to many places. There is risk in everything we ever do, but most of the time it is minute.

 

[Son Of Coco]

yes, SJS, obviously if certain players are not willing to go, then let them not go. But why is CA insisting on not touring Pakistan as some kind of a rule even when they are promised Z grade security while they don't do that way with India? Let them just pick whoever is willing to tour and go and play at least once.


As I keep saying, it all comes down to the fact that there is some stigma attached (rightly or wrongly) about tourning Pakistan and only a tour by Australia or some other team which has similarly concerned players can remove it to at least some extent.

I'd say this is exactly the reason

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm bitter to nothing. But yes, I do hate to see players get the outrageous amount of luck Symonds has in the last 6 months or so. I never, ever hope for success for anyone, regardless of anything, via such a route of outrageous fortune.

Has it really been 'over the last 6 months or so'? Apart from Sydney I can't recall too many instances of things going his way all the time.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd say this is exactly the reason

So, people complain about security not being enough, so the hosts offer them presidential level security, and then those people complain that the need for such security means they shouldn't go.

I love this type of reasoning, it usually gets you a job in the Bush administration ASAP.