From the Daily Telegraph - Twenty20: India block isolation of Zimbabwe
A motion has been tabled to discuss the Zimbabwe situation at next week's ICC meeting in Dubai but it is still unclear if the member countries will be asked to vote on removing their international status.
They are more likely to strip Zimbabwe of one-day status, which would solve the problem of their appearance at the World Twenty20 Championship. Under such an agreement, Zimbabwe would retain voting rights and funding from the ICC.
And from Cricinfo - India set to block Zimbabwe action...
Last night a senior source within the Indian board told The Daily Telegraph they were still behind Zimbabwe and would not support any motion to throw them out of the ICC.
The Indian board is set to oppose any attempt to have action taken against Zimbabwe at next week's ICC annual meeting in Dubai, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph.Now, English not being my first language, I may have difficulty comprehending the two articles. So help me out here - how does "not support any motion to throw them out of the ICC." and "and would oppose any moves to have them expelled. " translate to "India block isolation of Zimbabwe" and " India set to block Zimbabwe action"?
....
On Thursday, a senior BCCI official told the Daily Telegraph that his board were still behind Zimbabwe and would oppose any moves to have them expelled.
Furthermore, if "it is still unclear if the member countries will be asked to vote on removing their international status, why the presupposition that India will oppose any move against Zimbabwe?
Also, the whole "expel/throw them out " bit - is the ICC seriously considering banning Zimbabwe from ALL international cricket or is this just a trial balloon, floated first by the Daily Telegraph and now abetted by Cricinfo to gauge which way the Indians are leaning ?
Or is this a petty exercise in putting pressure on the Indians to influence their vote?
---
Also this bit in the Cricinfo piece
Three months earlier Malcolm Speed, the erstwhile ICC chief executive, refused to do just that after the ICC refused advice to act against Zimbabwe officials following an independent forensic audit. Within a month he had been forced from office, largely at India's instigation.
Here is the Cricinfo report dated April 25, 2008
Cricinfo has learnt that though Speed's ouster was largely due to serious differences he had with Ray Mali, the ICC president, and Norman Arendse, the president of Cricket South Africa, over the Zimbabwe crisis, the chief executive's recent comments on the unauthorized Indian Cricket League (ICL) had senior BCCI officials demanding that he leave the post.
Largely at India's instigation indeed!
10 comments:
So help me out here - how does "not support any motion to throw them out of the ICC." and "and would oppose any moves to have them expelled. " translate to "India block isolation of Zimbabwe" and " India set to block Zimbabwe action"?
This shouldn't be hard to follow. Even South Africa wants to get rid of Zimbabwe from the ICC. England, Australia, NZ, West Indies all want action against Zimbabwe. There is no sane cricketing reason why Zimbabwe should have full-member status in the ICC.
India will block any move to kick them out though, because Zimbabwe gives them a vote. The other Asian countries fall into line with India, so if it's clear that India won't budge, then there's no point bringing it to a vote.
India are stopping any serious action against Zimbabwe, and they are not even pretending that it isn't power politics.
This is why a lot of us don't want the BCCI running world cricket.
David,
"There is no sane cricketing reason why Zimbabwe should have full-member status in the ICC." - Precisely.
But does that mean that Zimbabwe is going to be precluded from the the 9 Test playing nations AND the 97 odd Associate member countries (as an Associate Member, Zimbabwe will still get ICC funding but no vote) ?
It is an issue of semantics here.
If the ICC wants to put Zimbabwe out to the pasture, I fully endorse India's stand.
If it is about voting rights, I am with you.
But until that is clear ( or clarified), headlines like those in the Telegraph and Cricinfo are more than a tad inflammatory methinks!
Cheers,
I guess this is that simple case of calling India the big bully of the present cricketing world.
I personally think that India's case most of the time is misrepresented in a large section of the media, but then since the board president is a politician, any publicity is good publicity.
allpaddedup,
Big bully is fine, but atleast the BCCI does not seek Government cover to not tour Zimbabwe ( and save themselves 2 million dollars in the process).
If that is the alternate leadership available, I would much rather go with the BCCI :)
Cheers
homer,
what i was saying was that BCCI is being called a bully, may be not in those many words, which is something in vogue.
as I said a large section of media, loves to hate BCCI.
i completely agree, i stand behind BCCI, too.
Pakistan is under a political turmoil being ruled by a dictator, or not being ruled at all.
SA has reservations for the colored and non-colored in the national team.
Along with Zimbabwe, ban these countries too, or I stand behind BCCI.
Didn't the BCCI recently cancel a series with Zimbabwe?
allpaddedup,
Hear hear!
Cheers,
Q,
Postponed to a mutually acceptable later date.
Cheers,
Good one... what is it they exactly want with zimbabwe is the question.
Scorpi,
indeed!
Cheers,
Post a Comment