ICC and colonial work ethics

I was reading an article by Michel Holding on Cricinfo. In a nut shell the article summed up that there is a colonial work ethics built around ICC. I have to agree with Michel Holding. Ricky Ponting recently gave an interview that he would prefer best umpires for the [self proclaimed] world’s best cricket clash – Ashes. Ya! 6 out 10 times Ashes seems one sided to me. Ricky “the wanting” Ponting went on to name best umpires around the world, notably many were "Australians" including our friend who wanted half million dollars to walk away from the case he orchestrated.

In my opinion, I see a hidden Ponting agenda here. ICC does not permit local umpires and Ponting wants Australian umpires to stand in games involving Australia. Ok! I am just speculating, but tell me this; will "ICC" tolerate similar statements made by a player from India or Pakistan? I am sure ICC will reply rudely stating "it is ICC’s responsibility to nominate umpires hence others just shut the @#$@# up". But ICC officials ignored the brave "demand" from Ponting. It went unnoticed. If Ponting makes such demands it is treated as "command", but if a Dravid or Inzi makes such statements it is called undue or excessive or uncalled for, more over ICC will collect fines to buy a new water cooler. People, don’t you see the colonial attitude built around ICC? Just like Mr. Holding says, we have to live with it, and as I mentioned last week in my Blog, our cricket boards has to shred their submissive attitude until then ICC will not respect our opinions.

Ravi “the Slowchana” Shastri joins the bandwagon. I am quoting from PTI and the article at DNA India - Given the way the drama unfolded, I would have refused to carry on unless umpire Darrell Hair told me who the bowler was who had tampered with the ball. In my [Sastri’s] opinion, what happened is a travesty of the game. Going by the book is one thing, looking at the bigger picture and spirit of the game quite another. That is where umpire Darrell Hair's approach was flawed. He not only had to believe, but also had to show that the game was paramount bigger than the players, Inzamam-ul-Haq and himself. I'm afraid the big Aussie made a hash of it with his stand-offish approach. In this day and age when technology is available at the click of a mouse, I see no reason why Hair did not use it to his advantage. In fact, had he referred that matter to the third umpire or the match referee, the issue could have been settled within minutes for all that was needed was for somebody to check if any footage of ball-tampering was available. It was apparent that without any proof, Hair was skating on thin ice. Thereafter, his ego and stubborn personality took over, complicating the matter to a degree from where it became extremely difficult to come back. I like to know Navjot Siddhu’s take on this episode.

Mr. Darrel Hair apologized for the email he sent to ICC, "I wish to apologize for an ill-advised but entirely confidential e-mail that gave people opportunity to question my motives. Of course, world will talk about the motives, here is a person who yapped about principles yada yada yada suddenly nose dived asking for ½ million to get away from the case, dude, it does create a "fish" aroma. Also get this, Cricket is bigger than some umpire and his "personal" crusade