It does stink and the ICC should advise that racial discrimination in selection won't be tolerated.Interesting the report mentions Tahir as one of "three players of colour".
He's undoubtedly non-white, but I'm pretty sure I've read articles before that've said he doesn't count as a fornerly disadvantaged player because he didn't grow up in RSA.
Anyway, it stinks, doesn't it? The quotas are completely arbitrary (if they were a real reflection of SA's demographics the team would have to include at least 8 or 9 black Africans in the 11) and if there's ever a case for special dispensation it has to be a WC semi.
Oh, how badly the poor oppressed white person must have it!It does stink and the ICC should advise that racial discrimination in selection won't be tolerated.
Na this is a bridge too far.Oh, how badly the poor oppressed white person must have it!
In all seriousness, let's have something other than a knee-jerk response to this confirmation of an existence of a guideline. Look, they're ungainly and annoying and easy to criticise but I for one support any move they make to attempt to give chances to players who were formerly disadvantaged. Sure, they **** up from time to time (Ontong > Rudolph and Philander > Abbott being the two main examples), but overall the selectors accept that it isn't a hard-and-fast rule -- it's a guideline telling them to consider selecting players of colour (and, let's face it, there are enough decent players of colour who make the teams on merit, and plenty more who would come into selection calculations).
I completely agree that the pre-2007 policy (4 players of colour being forced into the XI irrespective of merit) was pretty poor, but this one really isn't that bad when you actually think about it. They've ****ed up here and deserve to be held to account -- assuming the selection of Philander was purely race-motivated -- but overcoming past disadvantage by putting a target in place is hardly evil.
Saying "ideally we'd like to have 4 players of colour in our XI and as such we'll look closely at the development of players of colour to see if they're viable options" is completely different to a hard-and-fast quota that shoehorns absolute shunts into the XI ahead of good players. It isn't even like the selection of Philander was that ridiculous; sure, Abbott had the form, but there's certainly a logic to showing loyalty to the incumbent player who has historically performed well for the country. Hardly like an underserving shunt took the place of Bradman-incarnate.
Think of it this way, how many genuinely underserving selections of players of colour have there been since 2007? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the continued persistence with Tsotsobe, and being obsessed with quick left arm seamers even if they aren't quite good enough has been pretty universal as of late. Not exactly down to his skin tone.
It's not a knee-jerk response. It's easy to criticise because it is morally wrong to treat people differently on the basis of race. It simply subjects new individuals to racial discrimination.Oh, how badly the poor oppressed white person must have it!
In all seriousness, let's have something other than a knee-jerk response to this confirmation of an existence of a guideline. Look, they're ungainly and annoying and easy to criticise but I for one support any move they make to attempt to give chances to players who were formerly disadvantaged. Sure, they **** up from time to time (Ontong > Rudolph and Philander > Abbott being the two main examples), but overall the selectors accept that it isn't a hard-and-fast rule -- it's a guideline telling them to consider selecting players of colour (and, let's face it, there are enough decent players of colour who make the teams on merit, and plenty more who would come into selection calculations).
I completely agree that the pre-2007 policy (4 players of colour being forced into the XI irrespective of merit) was pretty poor, but this one really isn't that bad when you actually think about it. They've ****ed up here and deserve to be held to account -- assuming the selection of Philander was purely race-motivated -- but overcoming past disadvantage by putting a target in place is hardly evil.
Saying "ideally we'd like to have 4 players of colour in our XI and as such we'll look closely at the development of players of colour to see if they're viable options" is completely different to a hard-and-fast quota that shoehorns absolute shunts into the XI ahead of good players. It isn't even like the selection of Philander was that ridiculous; sure, Abbott had the form, but there's certainly a logic to showing loyalty to the incumbent player who has historically performed well for the country. Hardly like an underserving shunt took the place of Bradman-incarnate.
Think of it this way, how many genuinely underserving selections of players of colour have there been since 2007? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the continued persistence with Tsotsobe, and being obsessed with quick left arm seamers even if they aren't quite good enough has been pretty universal as of late. Not exactly down to his skin tone.
You couldn't have made your post any more trash any more quickly. Literally the cliche response this thread was waiting for.Oh, how badly the poor oppressed white person must have it!
I agree with you but Athlai was obviously joking there. He said so in the very next sentence.You couldn't have made your post any more trash any more quickly. Literally the cliche response this thread was waiting for.
Do I look a person with reading comprehension to you? Let alone someone who actually reads anything longer than two sentences.I agree with you but Athlai was obviously joking there. He said so in the very next sentence.
Dan is Australian.One of those little NZers. cbf.
.Dan is a filthy turncoat.