Miandad gets it spot on

[EnglishRose]

You what?

I don't remember Ken Livingstone saying that there'd be a bloodbath at the recent London Mayoral elections?

It's not an arrogant British attitude, it's common sense.

Common sense to base your whole argument on what one politician says......

If that's common sense to you, I can only wonder.

 

[marc71178]

The risk is huge in any city and if a cricket team is to be targetted it can be any where.

No, the risk is not huge in any city, it is relatively speaking tiny.

So stopping international cricket based on this by cancelling tours, specific venues is not the way to go.

Who's cancelling a tour? Nobody.

Not going to a venue (that others have also not gone to but not had this furoure) when there are plenty of others available is perfectly legitimate.

 

[marc71178]

Common sense to base your whole argument on what one politician says......

If that's common sense to you, I can only wonder.

Common sense in that one city has an extreme history of trouble, the other has had one isolated incident.

 

[Pratters]

so what is your''re punishment if the terrorist attack happens then Pratyush, what does this taking 'responsibility' entail?

A terrorist attack can occur any where and the best any country can do is to take all precautions which can be taken. The one dayers in England are not stopping just because of the terrorist attacks have just taken place. The tubes in London resumed the next day although there obiously were lesser people who commuted.

The question is would the Pakistan Cricket Board, given that it faced such a huge financial crunch before India toured in 2004 because of no team wanting to tour there, take a risk and invite a team like India (which is more prone to attacks than other countries given the India-Pakistan secnario) to play tests and odis there and then invite England too?

If they feel its safe for international cricket there, despite the circumstances in the city, intl cricket should take there. I repeat, players may opt out. That is perfectly okay.

You cant take responsibility of what happens if there is an attack. But you can take responsibility of ensuring maximum security and state its conducive for cricket in a specific city.

 

[Pratters]

No, the risk is not huge in any city, it is relatively speaking tiny.

If the terrorists target the risks increases be it any city. It is target specific and not entirely city specific.

Who's cancelling a tour? Nobody.

Not going to a venue (that others have also not gone to but not had this furoure) when there are plenty of others available is perfectly legitimate.

I mentioned 'tours, specific venues. So cancelling a tour or a specific venue. In this case specific venue. I hope it is crystal clear now.

 

[superkingdave]

A terrorist attack can occur any where and the best any country can do is to take all precautions which can be taken. The one dayers in England are not stopping just because of the terrorist attacks have just taken place. The tubes in London resumed the next day although there obiously were lesser people who commuted.

The question is would the Pakistan Cricket Board, given that it faced such a huge financial crunch before India toured in 2004 because of no team wanting to tour there, take a risk and invite a team like India (which is more prone to attacks than other countries given the India-Pakistan secnario) to play tests and odis there and then invite England too?

If they feel its safe for international cricket there, despite the circumstances in the city, intl cricket should take there. I repeat, players may opt out. That is perfectly okay.

You cant take responsibility of what happens if there is an attack. But you can take responsibility of ensuring maximum security and state its conducive for cricket in a specific city.

so now you're saying they won't take responsibility, okay...

 

[superkingdave]

what im saying is that as clearly no one can garuantee security and no host team are going to take complete responsibility for the possibility of a terrorist attack, then it is down to the touring team to decide if they think it is safe enough

 

[Pratters]

so now you're saying they won't take responsibility, okay...

umm can any team, or country take responsibility because of a terrorist attack. Its an international problem and not city specific.

 

[superkingdave]

umm can any team, or country take responsibility because of a terrorist attack. Its an international problem and not city specific.

exactly therefore the onus falls on the touring team to decide

 

[Pratters]

what im saying is that as clearly no one can garuantee security and no host team are going to take complete responsibility for the possibility of a terrorist attack, then it is down to the touring team to decide if they think it is safe enough

Okay so if Australia suddenly decide to not play the one dayers or the Ashes because they feel there might be a terrorist attack, or if any country any where feels, without even isolaed incidents, that they dont want to play in a specific country/city they wont will it not lead to utter chaos.

This is exactly why Saimuddin also specfied Pakistan could have stretched the matter further.

A team should not refuse to play according to me but specific players might. The way New Zealand played one dayers in Pakistan with a depleted side is the perfect example of this.

 

[superkingdave]

way to preserve the integrity of test cricket Pratyush


Australia won't decide not to play the one dayers or the ashes because they don't see London as being enough of a risk, England see staying in Karachi (note not playing they are playing the One Dayer they just want to minimise the risk by staying as short a time as possible) as enough of a risk not to take.

Life is like this, its a balancing of risks

 

[Pratters]

Life is like this, its a balancing of risks

Ya Dave. And honestly according to me international teams should now give Karachi a chance after them hosting India properly for the one dayer last year.

Its no use just avoiding tests in a traditional test venue and for the perseverance of integrty of tests as you said - in Karachi as in London.

You will not understand this phenomena as much because England have not faced sucha situation of tests avoided like this. India havent but I can relate to the subcontinent here.

Take for example the case in Sri Lanka in 96 when Windies and Australia refused to play there. India and Pakistan played a peace match to show every thing was okay. The LTTE announced they wont target the players. Still the matches didnt occur.

We have different views on this but thats the way it goes I guess.

 

[marc71178]

If the terrorists target the risks increases be it any city. It is target specific and not entirely city specific.

The not wanting to play there is nothing to do with thinking they'll be attacked, but because the actual city is a danger.

 

[parttimer]

I find it pretty disgraceful that pple are straight on here just hours after 50 pple were killed and hundreds injured and use it as a chance to to further their own agendas. Shame.

 

[Sanz]

mmm..think about it...the New Zealand team almost got caught up in a bomb in Karacki a couple of years ago, and attack that left several 'Westerners' dead...the mayor of the city suggested that there would be a bloodbath at local elections

Swervy, NewZealand cancelled the entire tour. Even on the second tour most of the regular players didn't come. I am nit sugeesting that Players should be forced to play in Karachi, neither do I believe that crap that 'PCB can gaurantee players' security' but IMO Pakistan is a huge country and people actually live there in Lahore, Rawalpindi, Faislabad Multan etc. In the past we have seen countries refusing to even set foot in that country.

Believe it or not, there is some sort of hipocrisy among western counties when it comes touring Subcontinent countries.

 

[Sanz]

Its no use just avoiding tests in a traditional test venue and for the perseverance of integrty of tests as you said - in Karachi as in London.

You will not understand this phenomena as much because England have not faced sucha situation of tests avoided like this. India havent but I can relate to the subcontinent here.

Err I dont think Indians have the moral right to say that after our team refused to play a test in Karachi. Karachi is not safe and if the touring players dont feel safe in playing there how are they going to play and I dont know why they should be forced and no it can not be compared to London.

 

[Sanz]

A terrorist attack can occur any where and the best any country can do is to take all precautions which can be taken. The one dayers in England are not stopping just because of the terrorist attacks have just taken place. The tubes in London resumed the next day although there obiously were lesser people who commuted.

The question is would the Pakistan Cricket Board, given that it faced such a huge financial crunch before India toured in 2004 because of no team wanting to tour there, take a risk and invite a team like India (which is more prone to attacks than other countries given the India-Pakistan secnario) to play tests and odis there and then invite England too?

If they feel its safe for international cricket there, despite the circumstances in the city, intl cricket should take there. I repeat, players may opt out. That is perfectly okay.

You cant take responsibility of what happens if there is an attack. But you can take responsibility of ensuring maximum security and state its conducive for cricket in a specific city.

What are you on about ?? India didn't play a test in Karachi and you are totally wrong on how Indian are more at risk in pak. Pakistanis dont hate Indians in general and they like India and Indian players and it was evident during the tour.

And I dont believe PCB can be trusted on security issue.

 

[Sanz]

None. So if the home county is giving a security provision and taking responsibility, its all that can be done.

So why make an issue as England did.

Does PCB run Pakistan ?? Has Musharraf said that he is going to take responsibility ? I already said we dont have the right to say that England is doing exactly what India did. Indian team should have played a test in Karachi, because they had nothing to fear in there.

And yes Mark is right, you are contradicting yourself and posting nonsense.

 

[Pratters]

What are you on about ?? India didn't play a test in Karachi and you are totally wrong on how Indian are more at risk in pak. Pakistanis dont hate Indians in general and they like India and Indian players and it was evident during the tour.

And I dont believe PCB can be trusted on security issue.

India played an odi in Karachi and not test. Did I state otherwise? If yes

If PCB cant be trusted on security issue I dont think England would travel to Pakistan for a cricket tour first of all!

 

[Pratters]

The not wanting to play there is nothing to do with thinking they'll be attacked, but because the actual city is a danger.

The city being in danger means England may be attacked and thus the apprehension of going. From when has a city being in danger stopped England from touring? England id tour Zimbabwe - disrpted Zimbabwe - because they would else be fined. Please dont bring India up in this saying they also toured as I never said India is right or wrong.