When Wasim Akram like any other sub-continental player (ex) voices his concerns regarding ICC affairs, official reprimand is immediately issued by no one else but the President of ICC. What does Jeff Thomson get for calling ICC a bunch of idiots? Nothing, not even a whimper. When journalist drew the ICC Presidents (Mani) attention toward Geoffery Boycotts statement which was in similar vein as that of Wasim Akram, the erstwhile President of ICC expressed his complete ignorance. Waseem Akram has said what everyone has been saying discreetly for this he deserves our respect and support and Mr Mani a good kick on the backside to remind him that he is what he is because of great players like Akram who have made this sport what it is today.
I know there is a thread which was started along the same lines but critical of ex-Paki players of their diatribes against ICC and others. We believe that approach is niether justified nor does it address the core issue and that is racial discrimination.
Article submitted as follows is a detailed document presenting a very strong case against ICC officials and their blatant discrimination against India and Pakistan.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html
Wasim Akram has voiced feelings of a majority of Asians
From Shahed Sadullah
Editor The News London
ICC president Ehsan Mani while lashing out at Wasim Akram has said that as a Pakistani he is honoured by the privilege given to him to lead the ICC. So indeed he should be, for his appointment was in breach of established practice.
ICC presidents are chosen from the heads of the cricket boards of the Test playing nations in rotation but when it came to Pakistan’s turn, the ICC let it be known “on the grapevine” that it would be less than overjoyed at the prospect of an army general becoming its head. At that time, Gen Tauqir Zia was the head of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and should have been the next president of the ICC.
While the ICC’s support for the democratic principle is to be appreciated, the organisation appears to have had no qualms about inviting the general to its meetings and functions and doing business with him during his tenure as PCB chief. The ICC’s democratic fervour only came to the fore when it came to the general becoming its president.
Even then, no Pakistan-based current or former official of the PCB was nominated by Pakistan. It was the London-based rep of the Pakistan Board, Mr Mani whose links with cricket in Pakistan are negligible.
Wasim’s lament is widely shared by most Asian followers of the game and their apprehensions are based on the following considerations:
-
During the past few years, any number of Asian bowlers have been hauled up for having unfair actions. The list includes Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmad, Shoaib Malik, Harbhajan Singh and Muttiah Muralitharan. Some of them have been repeatedly hauled up. How many English, Australia or New Zealanders can one recall having been similarly hauled up?
-
There are seven elite umpires at the moment out of whom there is just one Asian. The other six are all westerners. Australia, with a population of just around 20 million has three umpires on the panel while India with a population of 1.1 billion, 55 times that of Australia, has none. When the Rest of the World XI was announced, three of the six batsmen named in the squad were Indians — Sehwag, Tendulkar and Dravid; why is it that a country which can produce three of the top six batsmen in the world cannot produce a single one of the top seven umpires? Any takers for that one will also have to convince me that the ICC’s long running antagonism for Jagmohan Dalmiya, the head honcho of Indian cricket till a fortnight ago, was just a coincidence. They will further have to show that it was another coincidence that the former president of the ICC and the current and former chief executive have all been Australians. No chief executive of the ICC has ever been an Asian.
-
While two match referees are Asians, the fact of the matter is that if allocation is made on the basis of population, six out of the seven match referees should be Asians; if they are made on the basis of proportion of strength among the Test playing nations, Asia with four out of ten Test playing nations should have three out of seven match referees. Neither of these principles appear to have been followed. Again, the two match referees on the ICC panel are both Sri Lankans — not a single Pakistani or Indian. Why have two from the same country? Are we to understand that there are no suitable people from either India or Pakistan both of which, in cricketing terms, are much senior to Sri Lanka and therefore have a much larger pool of former Test players to draw from.
-
Even this highly skewered representation is not where the story stops. Each Test playing country has three umpires on the ICC’s international panel of umpires, as it is not physically possible for the seven elite umpires to cover every single Test match. The three Australians, Englishmen and New Zealanders on the panel have officiated in a combined number of 59 Tests and 256 One-day Internationals while the three from Pakistan and India have only done 28 Tests and 103 ODIs. It would be interesting to know how many of those Tests and ODIs have featured Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the minnows of international cricket.
-
With the heavy preponderance officials on the ICC’s panels, it is small wonder that the ICC is not in favour of relying more on technology than the vagaries of umpires. The aim of a sporting contest must be to obtain an outcome on the basis of sporting skill as far as possible. Umpires over the past few years have tilted the balance heavily on the side of western teams. Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer rightly pointed out that during the Australian tour decisions had broken in favour of the home side by the absurd margin of 29-5.
-
After the England series, few would doubt that Inzamam should have been one of the first to be in that Rest of the World XI. His initial exclusion led to much drama and it was strange, to say the least, that under a Pakistani ICC President all major cricketing countries were represented on the selection panel for the Rest of the World side except Pakistan.
Again, on England’s current tour of Pakistan, the umpiring ‘mistakes’, especially by Australian umpire Darrell Hair, have hugely favoured England, a fact that even former England captain Bob Willis has accepted on British television. But most English commentators have tried to cover up by saying that the umpire gets only one look and does not have the facility of replays. Surely, he gets only one look at both sides.
How does that explain the fact that the majority of errors go in favour of one side against the other? And some errors, like the run out of Inzamam at Faisalabad, were not split second decisions at all. If it is not acceptable — as it shouldn’t be — that an elite umpire may not know the rules, then there is nothing that can explain away such incidents.
Ehsan Mani’s tone and attitude while speaking of a former captain of Pakistan are deplorable. He should have realised that the man he was attacking was the greatest left arm bowler the world has ever seen, one of the greatest players in the history of the game and above all, a former captain of Pakistan.
His (WA) cricketing credentials are a thousand times that of any cricketing official, the head of the ICC included. If your cricketing ethics are moored where they should be, you should realise that the greatest cricketing honour that can come your way is not to be the head of a cricketing body, but to wear your nation’s cap and lead your side out into the field.
If Mani wrote his statement himself, that is regrettable; if he simply read out a statement written by someone else without having the courage or good sense to change it, that is even more regrettable.
This is not the first time that Mani’s priorities as the representative of Pakistan heading the ICC has caused confusion. There are two former captains of Pakistan and three other former Pakistani Test cricketers who live in the UK, all of whom have represented their country with distinction. In his tenure of almost two and a half years as head of the ICC, not even once has he invited any of them to the ICC President’s box at Lord’s.
Shortly after the demise of former Pakistan captain Fazal Mahmood, Shujauddin, one of the former Test cricketers based in London and a member of the 1954 Oval Test winning side, had arranged a memorial function here in London in honour of the departed Oval hero, one of Pakistan’s first sporting icons. Far from attending the function, Shujauddin says an invitation sent to the ICC president which was also delivered to him by another person through word of mouth, did not so much as draw a written response, if only to express regrets.
No system of administration or justice is worth anything if it cannot inspire confidence amongst those it serves. The overwhelming majority of Asians - not just Asian players — have no confidence in the ICC’s umpires and match referees; they feel that there is a huge bias against Asians and in expressing that feeling that permeates the Asian cricketing world, Wasim Akram has done Asian cricket a great service.