Championless Trophy? - stop the bs and go

[Richard]

Is it?

I'd have thought it'd be the other way around TBH.

You're far more likely to be able to defend yourself if you know you're a target than if you don't.

[four_or_six]

Is it?

I'd have thought it'd be the other way around TBH.

You're far more likely to be able to defend yourself if you know you're a target than if you don't.

I don't agree. You could put the argument that if terrorists are specifically targetting Australians then you are much more at risk than if the are exploding bombs at a market, for example. In that case, if you are concerned you can just stay in your hotel and are unlikely to be affected.

For example, as a Brit, I would feel significantly more at risk stood outside a British Embassy in Pakistan than I would in Sri Lanka.

[WhatisRight]

I don't agree. You could put the argument that if terrorists are specifically targetting Australians then you are much more at risk than if the are exploding bombs at a market, for example. In that case, if you are concerned you can just stay in your hotel and are unlikely to be affected.

For example, as a Brit, I would feel significantly more at risk stood outside a British Embassy in Pakistan than I would in Sri Lanka.

Whatever. That still doesnt convince me, if safety is the number one priority (which certainly is) then they should play at a place which is much safer then countries in the sub-continent. I agree sri lanka is safer than pakistan when it comes to foreigners but still its far from a safe country. Even though pakistan is abit more "dangerous" still they are providing that much more security than other countries so it really balances everything out.

[James]

Well Australia and New Zealand have basically ruled themselves out of going to the Champions Trophy in any form

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...rom=public_rss

England and South Africa to probably follow their lead and pull out completely as well I would think.

Dear oh dear

[brockley]

In cricinfo icc said it had not ruled out the trophy going to srilanka,seems that is very much on the cards now.
Better than having west indiies,3 asian teams,bangladesh zimbabwe and 2 minnows anyway.

[James]

This is very interesting from CricInfo - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/iccc...ry/365156.html.

So Australia and New Zealand would be replaced by Bangladesh and Ireland. England and South Africa pull out too, then we'd have Zimbabwe and Scotland would we

The ICC will meet players from England and South Africa next week and much could depend on their reaction. Were only one country to decline to send a side, then the ICC would in all likelihood replace them with Bangladesh, ranked ninth in the ODI rankings at the time of the qualification cut-off date in March. Were two to back out then in theory Ireland, ranked tenth, would be invited.

[brockley]

I gather so unless they move the toruanament.
The icc is so badly organised.
lame the asian bloc for this 1,we all knew no one would play in pakistan.

[Precambrian]

I gather so unless they move the toruanament.
The icc is so badly organised.
lame the asian bloc for this 1,we all knew no one would play in pakistan.

WTF? Only the NZ and Aus won't play. And WTF blame the ASin bloc for NZ players not going there?

[Precambrian]

South Africa could tour the country for a whole test series just some time back. India, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka all toured there for a cup just a month back. And yet these black c(r)aps cant tour.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

c(r)aps

[Perm]

And yet these black c(r)aps cant tour.

New Zealand are more hesitant to go for a large number of reasons, and given what has happened in the past when we've toured Pakistan I don't blame them.

[WhatisRight]

New Zealand are more hesitant to go for a large number of reasons, and given what has happened in the past when we've toured Pakistan I don't blame them.

They toured one year after the blast took place near their rooms. So that really cant be the reason. You really have to be clear about this and for me this is simple, the only reason they are not touring is because australia took a stand first and then teams like NZ, SA and Eng are going along with this stand even though security will be immense. the place isnt ideal for these teams since they cant really enjoy over there and will probably get stuck in their rooms. If security was such a big issue then why would india tour when probably thats the worst enemy?

[Richard]

[four_or_six]

I really think this should be sorted out one way or another by now, and to be honest I'm starting to not care less what the decision is... I think there is a lot of damage being done to cricket right now with this argueing that could take ages to sort out. The continuing dithering cannot be helpful to anyone:

- unhelpful to Pakistan cricket, once they know what the situation is, whatever it is, they can get on with best organising the tournament
- unhelpful to the broadcasters as they can't build up to the tournament
- unhelpful to players families... weeks of media conjecture about whether their loved ones are going to 'get blown up' must be upsetting
- unhelpful to the ICC as the longer it goes on the most incompetent they look
- unhelpful to the fans, by now we'd normally be starting to debate teams and outcomes of games.

And now I see on cricinfo that Zimbabwe cricket has decided not to ratify the decision to skip the T20 world cup next year, so now we're going to have to go through that whole palava again.

ARGH!

[pup11]

TBH, with so much instability in Pakistan currently, i don't think its fair to force any team to come and play cricket there, i mean if SA, AUS, NZ and ENG don't take part in this series than what's the point of holding such a tournament, when so many teams have a problem touring Pakistan, then i don't think ICC should be so stubborn on holding the tournament only in Pakistan.