TCMW:
my point is, the guy seems to have no loyalty to anyone but himself, if he does have the interests of indian cricket at heart, why isnt he doing something about it, rather than sitting back and taking potshots at people from his coloum. Since he's is the chairman of the ICC Cricket Commitee he should be doing something to improve the game, back up his talk so to speak. Unfortunately, all he's done is just talk.
What exactly is he supposed to do ? He is one out of several other members of the ICC Cricket Committee, a body which looks at the
technical aspects of the game and provides suggestions for changes to playing conditions or terms.
When bias is endemic throughout a system, it is not possible for one person to either change it or modify it or rectify it unless he /she happens to be in a position of power. Systemic prejudice pervades the ICC and half of its constituents.
In a case like this SMG has done exactly that for India which he should have. As an ex player, the only currency he has is his legacy as an all time great. He has used that to protest against the gross and blatant double standards and pointed out the inherent prejudices --whether Procters (no, he did not retract the comment --you need to research the details) or the ICC members who think that India at the helm would be a bad thing.
And worse, he's actually backstabbed his employers a number of times by shooting off radical statements that do more harm than good.
How has he backstabbbed his employers ? Again, it helps to get the facts correct -- he is not paid by the ICC, its an honorary post, which means other than discharging his honorary duties, he has no (neither should he have) particular subservient loyalty to the body. Which means he does not have to go about living the rest of his time as "glorified yes man".
Another point of correction for you -- SMG is not seeking out the ICC because the ICC can do nothing for him. Its the ICC which has sought him out for his expertise so that he can provide them with technical input.
So your argument about some supposed backstabbing falls flat.
Why is it that anything against the establishment is radical ? Thats a question for you.
Why is pointing out the fact that there was a miscarriage of justice in the HS case, especially by procter who believed one side over the other (an approach which was found to be severaly flawed by a judicial hearing of the same incident) such a radical thought ?
And
Why is it so radical to point out that a lobby of nations (led by 2 nations that had veto power over the ICC for over 80 years and had appointed same nationality dual power heads as recently as 4 years back) objecting to Indian leadership is hypocritical at best and indicative of deep prejudice at worst ?
Or is it radical that he tried to home in on the source of the travesty -- that a white person found more credence in the words of a few other white persons than a few non whites ? Or that white persons find more credence in the governing and administrative abilities of whites than of the "natives" / "erstwhile colonial subservients" ?
And if so, this would be radical because according to you, this has never happened before or because this does not happen anymore ?
Or is it your stance that the crime can be perpetrated under the proper guises as many times as possible / needed but calling it out is akin to the rocking the boat of an "established world order" and is therefore radical ? dont look now but if that is your argument, then you are doing exactly what the establishment wants you to do -- condemn the dissonant voice so that yours can be the voice of the "glorified yes man" for the establishment.
And as far as working for ESPN and his syndicated coloums, he is supposed to be a journalist, which means he cannot have a conflict of interest. By continuing to comment on the ICC he is just showing how opportuinistic and unethical he is.
He does not work for the ICC -- bad argument based on erroneous facts. he did not seek their favors, they sought his services based on his standing in the game.
Not sure what your definition of ethics are or why ethics should even be pertinent in this discussion other than your need to throw the kitchen sink at a built up straw man.
If he truely wanted to make a difference he could do one of two things:
1) Stop talking and start doing. Push for reforms in the ICC and force changes to be made.
Please be practical -- he cant do anything about that. Realize where he is in the organization, realize the enormity of attitudes embedded within powers than be and you will realize how near impossible it if for him or anyone else in his position to do anything.
2) Resign from the ICC in protest and ensure that the spotlight is fixed firmly on them.
This could be an option --he could resign in protest, although I remain skeptical of what that will acheive given that his observations about the issues are not based on information he is privy to as ICC Cricket chief, rather thay are based on public information available to one and all.
Unfortunately he choses to do neither, and prefers to bite the hand that feeds him.
Redundant -- ICC does not feed him, he cannot effect change from within given his position. He could resign as a symbolic gesture, which would change nothing, IMO.
And as for his criticism of the Indian team, again, it comes down to the fact that all he does is talk and offers no constructive criticism. How many times have we seen him do anything to help out young upcoming batsmen? If Wasim Akram, supposedly one of the Indian teams traditional foes, can take the time out to help our young bowlers, why can't Gavaskar help out young batsmen and help condition them for test cricket. Instead, he seems to take delight in ruining promising careers by deriding young players who are out of form and vunerable. He was appointed as head of the NCA and turned that into a spectacular failure.
Sorry, I dont agree. At various times he has helped people -- SRT, SG come to mind right away. And neither do I agree that he "takes delight in ruining promising careers by deriding them" -- assuming that a critical comment in a column is enough to shatter the youngsters (pretty far fetched), you still need to provide a lot more justification and evidence when you level such serious allegations.
As far as NCA, its well known how he was asked to step out by Dungarpur - enough said.
To return to my original point, I cannot have anything but disrespect for a man who only looks out for himself at the cost of all others and uses every opportuinity to earn a quick buck and 15 minutes of fame.
Please point out / establish how he only looks out for himself to the detriment of others (
in a way worse from the rest of us including you). Please point out / establish how he
is so much worse than the rest of us including you in trying to size up a profitable opportunity. As far as 15 minutes of fame, do you really think he is dying for his 15 minutes of fame ? he has had a lifetime of it
This is redundant -- other than building up a suitable villain worthy of your angst and recriminations, there is not much of substance here. If you have other issues with SMG, take them up in appropriate threads, but to shoot the messenger because of peripheral issues and baggage as some on this thread are doing is just not on.
AuthorTopic: Gavaskar slams Anglo-Australian 'dinosaurs' (Read 2596 times)
July 14, 2006, 05:56:27 AM