On Dec 2, 10:21=A0am, John Hall <nospam_no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
>
<7db3b5dd-bc54-4cbd-a0d8-f73e0afcf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,=A0ar=
ahim <arahim_ara...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> <big snip>
>
> >1990s is hell of a late cut, in England, wouldn't you say?
>
> Mike has already said that MCC was reactionary under Gubby Allen, as
> recently as 20-30 years ago. What he's saying is that it isn't
> reactionary /now/. If an institution has set its house in order, then
> that's all it can be expected to do. Yes, it was late in doing so, but
> the present leader****p of the club can't be blamed for that.
> --
When you interject John I have to think:) and I have. I will have to,
respectfully, demur. There are two things that have become entwined
here: MCC and Mike's claims. So I would like to disentangle the two. I
hope you will reflect on the following points ( I will combine my
answer to both your replies here).
1. Mike claims that he started to notice things getting better in 1995
and by 1998 the zenith was reached. So the question is has MCC really
reformed in the last ten years. I am not a cricket historian, not even
a cricket history buff let alone an MCC history follower. However, I
wanted to put the MCC in historical perspective before I started on
the last ten years. I will claim that the MCC did not reform but
clawed its knuckles into internatiol cricket until its knuckles were
white. International cricket was actually forced out of its grasp
leaving scars as the MCC kicked, clawed and whined to keep its grip.
It has been able to retain some remnants. That it was always a
reactionary institution when it was a choice between losing some of
its power or cricket (cricketers).
2. For decades the MCC was all powerful and held the supposed
"custodian****p" of the laws. No one complained. Where were the doyens
of MCC willingly giving up the laws to some other neutral body. Did
the sky fall down that the MCC held both? So suddenly now they are
these upholders of neutrality and ICC cannot be trusted with the
"laws". The rules of the game should be up to its governing body.
MCC's role in it must be terminated. Of course as a private club they
can express their opinion but it should hold no more sway at the ICC
than anyother opinion coming from bodies outside the ICC. They can
play "their" game according to whatever rules they want in place and
the children playing in the gully's of Lahore can play with whatever
rules they want. That is each governing body is free to do what they
wish. If a league outside the ICC forms they can do whatever they
please to the rules independent of the ICC and MCC. This claim to
rules that the MCC has is spurious. Cricket and its rules existed
before the MCC. One claim that is often made is that all MCC wants to
do is that no one will benefit financially from the rules of cricket.
This is downright asinine. No one, in their right minds, will pay for
them. Their are hundreds of s****ts, probably, around with no one in
such custodian****p and things workout allright. Nor is it true that
MCC has no or little financial involvement. Its overtures to IPL,
blackballing of Stanford (the usage of the ground, the black bats
issue - in the end finances and laws do become entwined), and hosting
a county are I would think substantial financial involvement not to
mention its say in the ECB.
3. As to Mike's other claims such as that every non-english speaking
country's cricket was paid for by the MCC and other such prepostorous
claims I have already spoken and infact not much further clarification
is needed.
> John Hall
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so
=
little useless
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 information."
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Oscar
=
Wilde (1854-1900)
|
