I understand their argument perfectly well, I'm just not prepared to deny him an equal career opportunity as anybody else at this stage just based on what we've learned so far, provided of course he's found not guilty.
Shame the blackcaps website has stopped updating all the scores after this. Would like to see whether Canterbury can close out CD, while Auckland are close to a win too and ND could still lose to Wellington if they collapse here.
Definitely a retrial of the same one, rather than a new trial. It seems Kuggs no longer has to worry about that second female accuser who featured in the earliest media stories we read.
You seemed to be disagreeing with people forming their own individual opinions on this, however if you're talking about it from the NZC perspective then of course the policy they choose is less clear-cut. They would generally be advised to stick to what the court finds (and any codes of conduct they have, though I doubt that comes into it), which may open the door for his selection. That doesn't stop it becoming a big PR issue for them if they do select him though. It would be a difficult predicament for whoever has to manage that.
Yeah noticed that. Need a big hundred from Raval next week in time for him to replace Guptill for the Pakistan series.
Oh the bright side, NZ cricket are well versed at dealing with PR issues.
The more time that passes, the more I think Guptill will survive being a NZ test opener for the next 2-3 years, even if he continues averaging in the 20s. At least while wet fish Gavin Larsen and Hesson have anything to do with it.
Jeet's modes of dismissal in the two games so far have gone a long way to booking Gup's summer. A horrendous wipe to be bowled by Jeetan and an injudicious poke off Bennett, then slip catching practice v Otago. All starts, all woeful.
Dark Ages stuff. This is plainly destructive and not promoting First Class domestic cricket in NZ . Restrictive broadcasting contract agreements with national sports bodies - " if we (eg: Sky) don't show it ( when we never broadcast it anyway) then nobody can watch it" have been frowned on and overturned by various Courts for a decade or more . Sports community interests ( i.e.: the public interest and the interests of the stakeholders - fans, players etc.) have been accorded precedence by the European courts .Not these dark restrictive covenants entered into and endorsed,in negotiations with financially driven broadcasters, by opportunistic sports administrators trying to protect and fund costly bloated staff lists and their salaries. The only line of defense ( checks and balances) to this nonsense is theoretically the Board of these national sports bodies but some Boards rubber stamp what their administrators get up to. Very frustrating and unsatisfactory.
