Wasim Akram: The most sKiLlFuL bowler in history!
Mcgrath said he is fond of the genius "Akram would power through the crease and do whatever he wanted with the old and new ball"
Allan Border "If I ever get a chance to be reborn as a cricketer, I would want to be Wasim"
Richards, Tendulkar and Waugh described Akram as the most dangerous bowler they had ever faced.
> > > Wasims Magic Delivery. Late Swing. Hatrick. < < <
Sorry, I take the opposite view. This is piss poor by ICC (not the first time). Has ICC ever disagreed with BCCI ever since their rise in dollar value?
As soon as BCCI said they support Pakistan, ICC panicked and changed their views despite the dodgy reports. The same reports that were sent to Cricket Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand who all have their concerns about the fact that "security is not guaranteed to the players' safety."
I personally have nothing against sending teams there, but when reports are as volatile as that, and given ICC's track record, this is hard to take.
Now we will see a Champions' Trophy compromised and could very well be as farcical (and dangerous) as the WOrld Cup.
The Vettori brain massage session:
@#!@#@#$#@$ !@#@!#!@~ YEA EAT THAT!! !@#~!@!@#!@#
I am continually frustrated by this reasoning. The track record of the ICC and the PCB is 100% stellar when it comes to assessing terrorist threats. No player has ever been hurt or targeted by a terrorist in the history of the game! So when the PCB (or ICC if you prefer to blame them) says ďitís safe to tourĒ, they have a pretty good track record of backing up that statement.
Life just doesn't work like that. Safety is never guaranteed. It's always a percentage, which is never 0 and never 100.
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.
Very Happy with the decision. Those who feel secure can go, those who do not, well, I can certainly understand.
The last thing they want is a torumanment that is not full-strength. As Leslie said, it was a BCCI decision based, like Australia v India. Australia, NZ, SA & England not to send full-strength side. WTF happens if a player dies?
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.
Let's put pros and cons in perspective. Forget who's right and whats wrong.
If Champions Trophy had gone to Sri Lanka (which is being prepared as the backup)... you get full participation from all 8 countries, no questions asked.
Now that you compromised by putting this 'fear' out there (BCCI, ICC politics aside) in sending teams to Pakistan instead knowing full well that there will be farcical under-strength teams turning your 2nd biggest tournament into a joke,
which is the more sensible option here? (edit: sensible in the sense that you get a better sporting spectacle with full strength sides)
A better question is, which countries are more likely to NOT send their full strength teams if the decision went either way? Is BCCI going to go as far as to say, we won't send our team to Sri Lanka (ironic they are there now), because ICC (you) opted out of Pakistan as the venue?
After all the bombed off NZ tours in Sri Lanka, with all due respect to them I'd be more worried about Sri Lanka than Pakistan.
I'm not fully aware of the current level of terror activity or dangerous activity in general in Pakistan but I guess if the report and the descision to go are at odds with each other then I can understand players being nervous about going, especially with the media spotlight in troubles in the Middle East these days. I understand the concerns of the withdrawing players because if I'd had a bunch of negative reports shoved under my nose I'd definitely be thinking twice about going.
Its disappointing the tournament will be a bit of a joke with under-strength teams being sent along. The positives though is that perhaps a few excellent players will be discovered and have their chance to shine. It would certainly save the tournament some face.
[QUOTE=morgieb;1634262]The last thing they want is a torumanment that is not full-strength. As Leslie said, it was a BCCI decision based, like Australia v India. Australia, NZ, SA & England not to send full-strength side. WTF happens if a player dies?[/QUOTE]
To state the obvious, all hell would break loose at the next ICC meeting and the affected team would definitely withdraw from the tournament. Unlikely they would go back for a while as well. However, from the sound of it players dying will be highly unlikely and I hope the situation does not arise.
As for a player dying? That could happen anywhere in any number of circumstances.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)