On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:41:14 -0800 (PST), Southpaw <arbit00@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Compared to how reluctant teams have been in the past to touring
>various violence-ravaged places, I think England are being
>surprisingly eager. If you thought SL was dangerous in 1996 or
>Pakistan dangerous in the early 2000s, India right now is certainly up
>there. Times have changed. Heck, when England toured in late 2001 (a
>couple of months after 9/11), we ridiculed Caddick, Croft, et al for
>opting out on this "India is a dangerous country occupied by Muslims"
>theory. Well, there is no comparison between 2001 and 2008. If one
>thought India was dangerous in 2001, well, 2008 is way worse.
And so this time, there won't be any fingers of derision pointing at
any England player who decides that he won't tour even if the rest do.
As 9/11 recedes into the cultural background aura rather than being an
immediate tragedy, perhaps the realisation has dawned that nowhere can
be completely safe, so demands for complete safety mean the end of
international s****t. If we are to continue with international cricket,
we have to work on the basis of managing rather than eliminating risk.
Where and when the risk level is too high, cancellations and
postponements will be inevitable - though any attempt to define
exactly what "too high" means is bound to fail: every tour to every
country will take place in a very slightly different context to the
one before, and what may seem reasonable one day may not seem so the
next. Pragmatism is the main requirement, not bull**** about standing
up to terrorism.
Over a billion people will survive the next terrorist outrage in
India. All but a very limited area, a mere speck on most maps of a
huge country, will remain entirely unscathed. Even on maps of Britain
or Sri Lanka you would struggle to spot the extent of the next attacks
to take place there. For the vast majority, life will continue
normally, the only actual effect on their routines being the content
of the newspapers and TV news bulletins.
Well, OK, so they are going to be more intrusive checking you into
cricket grounds, which is a pain in the rear, but the same can be said
of many high-profile public events nowadays, so what of it?
This is not a better world, but it's the one we live in, and we'd best
make what we can of it.
Cheers,
Mike
--
|
