• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shame on the ICC

Status
Not open for further replies.

kasra

Cricket Spectator
The announcement of the World Test XI by the ICC displays two critical issues.
(1) They are not taking banned drug-taking seriouslly.
(2) Lack of integrity in the selection panel.


(1) As we all now know, for the 12 month period covered by this World Test 11 team selection, six of those months Shane Warne was serving his 12 month ban for taking a banned drug. Yet he was selected in the the World XI. Would this happen in any other sport? Didn't the 12 month ban mean anything to the ICC? When sporting bodies are fighting to keep drugs out of sport through vigorous detection methods and punishment, the ICC is rewarding a player for taking banned drugs. Shame on the ICC!

(2) It was made clear by Ian Botham and Michael Holding, members of the selection panel that selected the World Test XI and the World ODI XI that they did not consider Muralitharan for either team because of his bowling action. In other words, they selected the teams based on issues other than performance. Isn't that simply dishonest? If they were going to do that, they then should have excused themselves from the panel and let two others with integrity take their place. And the ICC let them get away with this clear lack of integrity.

To all you self-confessed Murali haters out there, this is not about Warne getting in ahead of Murali, (this link from Cricinfo clearly shows Murali was ahead on performance during the said period :
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/SEP/040518_AUS_08SEP2004.html
) but this about the dishonesty shown by 2 members of the selection panel in pretending to select the teams on performance but by their own admission, letting non-performance issues take over. Shame on the ICC for letting that happen.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
close this thread... close all of em like this!! who else is sick of the debate!?!
 

masterblaster

International Captain
I am Nnanden. People should just get over it!

Fox Sports Australia just televised the ceremony tonight at 7pm AEST, so I was happy to watch it!
 

Swervy

International Captain
Nnanden said:
close this thread... close all of em like this!! who else is sick of the debate!?!
i agree...this ICC team thing means jack **** really
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
i apologise kasra if that seemed a bit harsh... but seriously it has been talked about to death and beyond.
 

kasra

Cricket Spectator
Swervy said:
i agree...this ICC team thing means jack **** really
I agree the ICC team means nothing, but how can the ICC fight match-fixing and other serious issues when they can't show honesty in picking a world XI
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
How has this been talked about to death? I just watched the awards a couple of hours ago so hang on a second. No one is arguing who is the better overall player, no one is even arguing who is the better player right now. Logically, Murali had a better year simply because Warne barely played any of it. Hell he only played against one team! ONE TEAM!

Murali was nominated for the top 4 for the test player of the year, it makes no sense. The night was great, no doubt about it but this decision was just plain stupid. Warne may be the better player, but he wasn't the better player since August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004. I don't care how many wickets he got against Sri Lanka.

I also found it hilarious that they kept going on and on about the spirit of the game, yet they placed Warne in the top XI. :huh:
 
Last edited:

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Jono said:
How has this been talked about to death? I just watched the awards a couple of hours ago so hang on a second. No one is arguing who is the better overall player, no one is even arguing who is the better player right now. Logically, Murali had a better year simply because Warne barely played any of it. Hell he only played against one team! ONE TEAM!

Murali was nominated for the top 4 for the test player of the year, it makes no sense. The night was great, no doubt about it but this decision was just plain stupid. Warne may be the better player, but he wasn't the better player since August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004. I don't care how many wickets he got against Sri Lanka.

I also found it hilarious that they kept going on and on about the spirit of the game, yet they placed Warne in the top XI. :huh:
on this first cricket chat page there are FIVE threads dedicated to this crap... not to mention the interviews and articles everywhere.
 

anzac

International Debutant
here we go again..............

if you want to split hairs Warne's issue re the Drugs does not have an effect on the mechanics of what he does as a bowler - whereas the issues re Murali's action does...............perhaps this is the ICC's way of telling him he was a naughty boy to think he was bigger than the game..............

IMO selecting / awarding Murali would have been a worse decision than the poor one they did make - once your action is called into account IMO it makes no difference if a delivery was 'banned' for only 1 match or the entire season - to imply that it shouldn't have mattered because it wasn't reported previously is IMO showing the same sort of attitude exhibited by Murali & Co during Phase 1 of the reporting proceedure.......

bottom line for me I'd not given it to either of them because of their issues.............

:p
 

BigD

Cricket Spectator
anzac said:
here we go again..............

if you want to split hairs Warne's issue re the Drugs does not have an effect on the mechanics of what he does as a bowler - whereas the issues re Murali's action does...............perhaps this is the ICC's way of telling him he was a naughty boy to think he was bigger than the game..............

IMO selecting / awarding Murali would have been a worse decision than the poor one they did make - once your action is called into account IMO it makes no difference if a delivery was 'banned' for only 1 match or the entire season - to imply that it shouldn't have mattered because it wasn't reported previously is IMO showing the same sort of attitude exhibited by Murali & Co during Phase 1 of the reporting proceedure.......

bottom line for me I'd not given it to either of them because of their issues.............

:p
Yes, here we go again.

The ICC is behaving like a bunch of pampered brats. First the Wasim Bari reprimand and now this shameless display of partisanship in selecting the ICC X1 which is for all purposes a hollow gesture of misplaced importance.

One would think the Mafia or Al-Queda is running the ICC. Trying to strong-arm somebody to keep their mouth shut or to marginalize a bowler who is clearly head and shoulders above the rest is pathetic and sad. Get over it guys, Murali is the best and Warne will never come close to his calibre in a hundred lifetimes.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
BigD said:
Yes, here we go again.

The ICC is behaving like a bunch of pampered brats. First the Wasim Bari reprimand and now this shameless display of partisanship in selecting the ICC X1 which is for all purposes a hollow gesture of misplaced importance.

One would think the Mafia or Al-Queda is running the ICC. Trying to strong-arm somebody to keep their mouth shut or to marginalize a bowler who is clearly head and shoulders above the rest is pathetic and sad. Get over it guys, Murali is the best and Warne will never come close to his calibre in a hundred lifetimes.
Get over it man. The TEST XI was picked by Ex-Cricketers who came from India, WI, Aus, SA and Eng. It's not like Malcom Speed picked this team. Murali and his fans have the right to feel dissapointed, I myself wanted to see him in the team ahead of Warne but to accuse ICC of 'white bias' or behaving like 'pampered brats' etc is simply stupid.

As for Bari's reprimand, I fully agree with ICC. If Bari wants to criticize Umpires, he should quit the PCB post and do it. As long as he holds a position with an member board of ICC, he should act responsibly. Umpiring mistakes are not new, they are going on since the day game was started.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top