Afghanistan Cricket / Taliban

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:22 pm

If I understand it correctly, CEO is not an elected position in any company or organization. For the CEO to be appointed, doesn't seem inappropriate. I believe the Chairman is an elected office, but the current chair has already served in that position before the Taliban takeover. Also the cricinfo article seems to suggest he was "replaced" after Afghanistan's last place finish at the 2019 World Cup. So he wasn't removed democratically, but ZCF didn't seem to have a problem with that.

There's a world of difference between the ZC - who waste, misuse, and embezzle ICC funds - and the ACB which at least puts the money to better use. Purely from a business standpoint - capitalism! - the ACB is several fold more valuable to the ICC than ZC.

Well, the point is the ICC haven't been consistent. ZC doesn't even want to make noise about it.

There is a difference though. It was pretty much ZC itself going to ICC and insisting that there was government interference and begging them to suspend us. So...

Thsi is where we need a globally recognised cricket media outlet to put pressure on corruption like this.

Someone like a Piers Morgan or Tucker Carlson to do a segment on it in front of a worldwide cricketing audience to expose the BS

It’s strange that there is no cricket tv shows that I know of. Nothing like ‘The Footy Show’ in Australia that has an NRL and AFL equivalent or NRL360 or the millions of NFL shows where you can discuss the controversies in the game.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:08 am

Thsi is where we need a globally recognised cricket media outlet to put pressure on corruption like this.

Someone like a Piers Morgan or Tucker Carlson to do a segment on it in front of a worldwide cricketing audience to expose the BS

It’s strange that there is no cricket tv shows that I know of. Nothing like ‘The Footy Show’ in Australia that has an NRL and AFL equivalent or NRL360 or the millions of NFL shows where you can discuss the controversies in the game.

If you're looking for a pundit who is actually not dishonest, who's already touched on the issue, Hasan Minhaj is the best option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DWJv1hiwM

slcricfan1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:00 am

How does the ICC benefit from delaying this?

I reckon it would cost the ICC a lot of money to alter the format and structure of the WC at such a late stage. Afghanistan are actually in the main draw. I am fairly certain that any changes made to the lineups will have adverse affects on sponsorships and broadcast deals which were long sold. The ICC would probably stand to lose a lot of money.

secretzimbo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:40 am

You’re right that there is a difference with the ZC case, in that it was the board and Mukuhlani themselves who flagged it to the ICC.

The USA and Nepal however (and numerous much tinier associates over the years) didn’t do that but have been suspended for less serious things than this.

I mean a group of Taliban (therefore, government) folk with AK’s storming into the office and demanding the CEO is replaced with their pick is pretty rad. You can be technical about a ceo being ‘appointed’ but I don’t think even the ICC can defend that.

I’m very confident they will be suspended in the interim. And then whenever that it settled and ‘investigated’ , they’ll find themselves as leading associates without test status again going forward.

Conveniently - and annoyingly - though it will probably all happen after the World Cup

Its not technical. A CEO is never elected, he's hired throughout whatever process that particular organization uses. The Chairman or Board President is an elected office, and in this case this particular chairman was removed by the board in 2019, and has merely been re-instated, albeit by a different regime.

None of the white countries will play Afghanistan, they might even forfeit their games at the WC, which would really be embarassing for the ICC. But I suspect all the non-white countries will have no issue playing against Afghanistan. The players aren't members of the Taliban afterall.

AFG under 19s just beat Bangladesh in a youth Test in BD. Not an easy feat. Would be a shame to strip them of status merely over politics.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:22 am

AFG under 19s just beat Bangladesh in a youth Test in BD. Not an easy feat. Would be a shame to strip them of status merely over politics.

They should never have got status in the first place if we are going by the official ICC criteria and rulebook.

Let'a hope they lose it soon.

I always knew handing Afghanistan test status was going to come back to bite them. Asking for trouble.

You would probably find posts from years ago saying it.

I’d steer clear of anything Afghanistan related in any discipline.

AFG losing Test status will drastically curtail the amount of Tests Zimbabwe will play.

AUS/ENG/IND - won't play ZIM at all under any circumstance

NZ/SA - will play ZIM maybe 2 Tests every 5 or 10 years...now that there is WTC + COVID might not play any

PAK/SL/WI - will play 1-2 Tests every 3 or 4 years

BD - will play 1 Test per year on average

Ireland can't afford to play Tests and ZIM can't afford to host them either. That only leaves Afghanistan who are both able and willing to play 4 Tests per year against Zimbabwe.

slcricfan1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:28 am

How is Afghanistan able to but not the Irish?

Yes, I have wondered about this too. Both AFG and IRL get pretty much the same allocation from the ICC and AFG seems more keen to play tests than IRL.

slcricfan1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:04 am

secretzimbo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:56 am

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:22 am

AFG under 19s just beat Bangladesh in a youth Test in BD. Not an easy feat. Would be a shame to strip them of status merely over politics.

They should never have got status in the first place if we are going by the official ICC criteria and rulebook.

Let'a hope they lose it soon.

Really?

What does it say in the criteria? And why do you hope Afg lose test status? Seems unhealthy for cricket overall while disregarding politics and Zimbabwe`s own chances

It says in the criteria that full members must enter both male and female teams in all ICC events (e.g. World Cup qualifyings etc). Afghanistan have not entered a women’s team into a single event since they become full members over four years ago and despite a few snazzy Press releases, very clearly never had any intention of doing so even before the Taliban turned up. There is however an exemption for associates to avoid women’s teams - so they could feasibly go back to being a successful associate member.

And now we can add political interference as well on top of that. Other members have been suspended for less.

I get the points above about Zimbabwe and that they are the only team that wants to play us. But to support Afghanistan’s current regime and longstanding ignorance of the membership criteria just because I’m Zimbabwean would be pretty selfish. Rules are rules. We can talk that the rules are ridiculous or that they should be changed etc. But whilst they are in place, there’s no way Afghanistan should remain as full members currently.

Also ZC got their asses kicked into gear earlier this year about women’s cricket and told in no uncertain terms by the ICC that they had to allocate a greater portion of funding from the budget towards the women’s teams. My friend Adam Chifo is doing a good job with the women at the moment but up until about six months he didn’t have a cent to work with.

If ZC is being forced (I say ‘forced’ - but it is of course a good thing) to fund women’s cricket then why aren’t Afghanistan?

secretzimbo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:15 pm

It says in the criteria that full members must enter both male and female teams in all ICC events (e.g. World Cup qualifyings etc). Afghanistan have not entered a women’s team into a single event since they become full members over four years ago and despite a few snazzy Press releases, very clearly never had any intention of doing so even before the Taliban turned up. There is however an exemption for associates to avoid women’s teams - so they could feasibly go back to being a successful associate member.

And now we can add political interference as well on top of that. Other members have been suspended for less.

I get the points above about Zimbabwe and that they are the only team that wants to play us. But to support Afghanistan’s current regime and longstanding ignorance of the membership criteria just because I’m Zimbabwean would be pretty selfish. Rules are rules. We can talk that the rules are ridiculous or that they should be changed etc. But whilst they are in place, there’s no way Afghanistan should remain as full members currently.

Rules were written to be broken, especially in international forums. There is precedent, the ACB could argue that the ICC has already granted them Test status as an exception, so why renege on that precedent? The ICC also wouldn't want to lose their one true Cinderalla team from rags to riches. The ACB can also argue that if they weren't barred from the World Cup, why would they be stripped of Test status. They also play relatively few Tests, so could argue what difference does it really make? A final argument would be, who benefits from the move, and if the answer is no one, than whats the point of so-called "rules"?

My gut feel is the ICC will allow the white teams to cancel their matches against Afghanistan - itself breaking legal "rules" and legal agreements which will result in financial losses to the ACB - but won't change their status.

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:34 pm

Rules were written to be broken, especially in international forums.

Every time any other country breaks those rules, they get suspended. Zimbabwe. Nepal. The USA. Countless smaller associate nations. A handful are actually suspended every single year. Look into it.

There is precedent, the ACB could argue that the ICC has already granted them Test status as an exception, so why renege on that precedent?

I have actually said this exact thing several times on this thread already, I think once or twice actually in reply to you. It's a complete joke that they were given Test status in the first place. Against the ICC's very own criteria. The ICC have very recently forced Zimbabwe to allocate significantly more of its funding to women's development, as I've said. The fact that anyone else has an 'exemption' is a joke and has been a joke for the past four years.

All the outraged Tim Paine's in the world banging on about the Taliban not letting women play should have been equally angered four years ago.

The ICC also wouldn't want to lose their one true Cinderalla team from rags to riches.

Hardly a cinderella team now with Terry Taliban and Tommy Terrorist running the show.

The ACB can also argue that if they weren't barred from the World Cup, why would they be stripped of Test status.

Because Associate members can play in World Cups. Indeed, several are. And there are clear exemptions that permit associate teams to avoid fielding womens teams. There is no such exemption for Full Members.

Although thats just the women's issue. The political interference issue is different. Political interference should, by the ICC's rules and longstanding implementation of those rules, result in total instant suspension.

They also play relatively few Tests, so could argue what difference does it really make?

I guess we can do the same on this basis, then? Why don't we just let f***ing Mnangagwa become director of cricket and let him shoot all our female players? Nahhh, no one will mind because we don't play many tests.

Lol wtf is this logic. 😂

Also, you are forgetting an absolutely crucial point. If you read into the ICC statutes and minutes and the way it operates, you'll be amazed. The ICC isn't some almighty independent body. It's about as independent as a hog on ice.

In almost every aspect it is totally controlled by the full members. How many full members will want to be seen to supporting the Taliban's major outlet for soft power and influence?

You can bet your bottom Zollar that India won't be wanting to support Pakistan's terrorist breeding ground.....

We will have a concrete idea of what happens when the ICC meets in November. Safe to say the Australia Test will be canceled.

secretzimbo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:56 pm

Also, you are forgetting an absolutely crucial point. If you read into the ICC statutes and minutes and the way it operates, you'll be amazed. The ICC isn't some almighty independent body. It's about as independent as a hog on ice.

In almost every aspect it is totally controlled by the full members. How many full members will want to be seen to supporting the Taliban's major outlet for soft power and influence?

You can bet your bottom Zollar that India won't be wanting to support Pakistan's terrorist breeding ground.....

I can’t say too much but I legit know of countries that faked having cricket to get funding.

Just in case you had any doubts that the ICC aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.

I lived in Hong Kong for a few years as a school teacher. There was a group of friendly Aussies running the HK cricket board - ended up drinking with them one night and they were bemoaning how associate funding is distributed on the basis of a ‘scorecard’ matrix that measured all sorts of various things. They told several stories of random dodgy countries in the Asia region making all their figures up and getting more funding, whilst HK’s internal very official and organised sports body and audits meant they had to be brutally honest and therefore missed out on a lot of deserved funding.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc- ... an-1289702

An update of sorts. Looks like the ICC is going to try to influence the Taliban position on women's sports via a close relationship with the ACB. Doesn't look like they will suspend ACB, at least not in the immediate future. Member boards of course will have the freedom to cancel bilateral engagements as the CA has done. Fair decision overall I think. Will hurt Afghan cricket, but AFG will likely survive, and may possibly thrive somehow.

I would imagine that only Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka will feel comfortable playing against the Afghans. I would imagine that ENG/AUS/NZ/SA/WI will probably boycott all bilaterals, but agree to play them in ICC events. Not sure what India will do, but I could see them going either way.

I love that an entirely male appointed ICC commission is going to 'investigate the state of the women's game in Afghanistan and its future'. 😂

Such a cop out. Cricket is surely the worst administered sport on the planet.