Read the article. Ahem.
To start off:
1. Can you give an example of a white player not picked in WI despite being good enough?
2. Untouchables not playing for India has very little with not being selected despite having the talents, and everything to do with the fact that their socioeconomic situations don't allow them to play cricket anywhere they'd be noticed in the first place.
3. It was the official policy in SA - surely that's a "practical and reasonable" difference that you ask for.
4. I really fail to grasp a larger point - are you saying people won't do as well at the Test level because they don't quite think of themselves as being the same nationality (a point i disagree with but let's assume that's true) - doesn't that fly in the face of all the other sports which aren't based on nationality but people try their best and give it their all in hopes of playing at the highest level, making the money, etc? Meaning, would Nasser Hussain have tried harder if he had played for India? I can't really see that.
Last edited by silentstriker; 04-04-2012 at 04:05 AM.
Basically, sometimes England are ****, sometimes we're great, sometimes somewhere in between. At all of those times we've had players who have not been, in the authors term, 'unequivocally English'. It's completely unrelated.
I have posted the article as I sent it to WCM, that is, unedited, in uk.sport.cricket with a subject heading of Cricket Web - Racial slur or misunderstanding?
Go to https://groups.google.com/group/uk.s...t/topics?hl=en
[QUOTE=zaremba;2823533]I haven't abused you. The article you wrote is unworthy of serious debate. It is drivel, pure and simple. If anyone's in doubt about that, they should read the original article and make their own minds up.
Still unable to distinguish between abuse and argument I see.....
"I have always considered myself to be 100 per cent English. Everything I do, everything I am, my accent, my upbringing, is totally English. I love the country and have always considered it home. But I've always been proud of my Indian roots."
- As featured in The Independent.
"Predictably, the ending of his international career did not end the argument about Pietersen's merits, as an army of informed commentators and Piers Morgan weighed in to defend or attack him."
- The Guardian's Andrew Anthony
The 1995 article did not include a single shred of evidence that those who are not "unequivocally English" did not give as much effort as those who are.
Also, the 1991 article, claiming that the then parlous state of English Test cricket could be blamed on the inclusion in the Test team of those of Asian, West Indian and South African descent and the set-up of the first-class game as regards overseas cricketers surely has been proved to be without merit in the intervening years with England's ascent to number one-ranked Test nation? Engand performed poorly in 1991 simply because they were inferior to the opposition, no more, no less.
I have not abused you. For all I know you're a smashing chap. I have described your article as drivel; and drivel is precisely what it is. That is not abuse of you, it is an appraisal of the merit of what you were (quite astonishingly) given a platform to broadcast to a wide audience.
Beyond that broad observation, and my encouragement to other members of the forum to read your article and form their own opinions about it, I am not going to engage with you about the article or your views in any detail, because experience shows that once that kind of debate starts, it is unlikely to end; and if it does end, it does not end well.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)