ICC: modern day Neros
The cricket historians are going to love this, when they describe the ICC at the turn of the twenty-first century as the worst thing that ever happened to cricket.
First the ICC plays fiddle while Zimbabwe burns, and now they dare threaten Inzi with a eight match ban? I do hope they go through with it, though - that will give the other national cricket captains a chance to make a stand. Not that they ever would, of course, seeing as they have families to support and all, but it's nice to hope.
They will also scoff at the sheer ludicrousness of awarding the match to England instead of calling it off. Rules are supposed to help cricket, not drive it into oblivion faster than memories of tolerable Zimbabwean cricket.
Conspiracy Theory #245 says that the bookies, tiring of trying to bribe players, decided to focus their efforts on influencing officials instead. After all, it's hard to *play* cricket without a backbone, but administering it requires little more than the ability to sign signatures. Not even cerebral activity. Which is good, considering that the ICC is incapable of such.
Of course, Hair is just as much a victim as everyone else is. It's not his fault that the ICC didn't realize he was a outdated stick-in-the-mud who should have been gently nudged out of the way two years ago. Poor ickle Darry, he's just following the rules, like the uptight automaton he is.
Forcing the Aussie into early retirement will be too easy. Hairy scapegoats aside, isn't this why there are match referees and other ICC officials? To sweep up messes like this when rules clash with common sense? I guess they couldn't be bothered to take their broomsticks out of their arses to clean up. How come no-one's pointing even the littlest finger at Doctrove as well?
The ICC historians shouldn't have to wait long for the next debacle. Although I hear Ladbrokes has stopped taking bets on when that will be. They refuse to bet on certainties.
First the ICC plays fiddle while Zimbabwe burns, and now they dare threaten Inzi with a eight match ban? I do hope they go through with it, though - that will give the other national cricket captains a chance to make a stand. Not that they ever would, of course, seeing as they have families to support and all, but it's nice to hope.
They will also scoff at the sheer ludicrousness of awarding the match to England instead of calling it off. Rules are supposed to help cricket, not drive it into oblivion faster than memories of tolerable Zimbabwean cricket.
Conspiracy Theory #245 says that the bookies, tiring of trying to bribe players, decided to focus their efforts on influencing officials instead. After all, it's hard to *play* cricket without a backbone, but administering it requires little more than the ability to sign signatures. Not even cerebral activity. Which is good, considering that the ICC is incapable of such.
Of course, Hair is just as much a victim as everyone else is. It's not his fault that the ICC didn't realize he was a outdated stick-in-the-mud who should have been gently nudged out of the way two years ago. Poor ickle Darry, he's just following the rules, like the uptight automaton he is.
Forcing the Aussie into early retirement will be too easy. Hairy scapegoats aside, isn't this why there are match referees and other ICC officials? To sweep up messes like this when rules clash with common sense? I guess they couldn't be bothered to take their broomsticks out of their arses to clean up. How come no-one's pointing even the littlest finger at Doctrove as well?
The ICC historians shouldn't have to wait long for the next debacle. Although I hear Ladbrokes has stopped taking bets on when that will be. They refuse to bet on certainties.
posted by Dinoj | 11:07
|
0 comments
