By Benjamin Conkey
September 17th 2008 @ 12:13pm
Loading ...Related coverage
To tour or not to tour? As long as it’s not Pakistan
Just imagine if Pakistan were scheduled to tour Australia for the triangular one-day series in 2005/06? Now just imagine how outraged we would be if they decided to boycott the summer because of the Cronulla riots?
From a distance Australia didn’t exactly look like the ideal location for a team of Middle Eastern players at the time. It would have been a logistical nightmare for Cricket Australia trying to find another team to replace Pakistan.
The kind of logistical nightmare Pakistan cricket has had for 10 years; 1998 was the last time Australia toured Pakistan when Mark Taylor was captain. Since then Pakistan has been forced to reschedule its cricket commitments when Australia has pulled out at the last minute due to security concerns. They have even accepted compromises to play “home” games at Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates.
Pakistan has every right to be angry at Cricket Australia. Apparently bomb blasts in India are “different” to bomb blasts in Pakistan, which is why Australia will tour India next month, despite five blasts in New Dehli claiming the lives of 20 people. There is even talk of Pakistan cricket sueing Australia for its double standards in not touring their country.
No one can criticise Cricket Australia for trying to look after its players, but the inconsistent decisions on this issue do raise serious questions about what criteria is used to determine security risks.
Australia was playing England in a one-day match when 52 people were killed in the London bombings of 2005. Three days later they saw no possible security threat in playing England again at the home of cricket.
The truth is if India can tour Pakistan, why can’t we?
As many have stated in the political world, terrorism can happen anytime, anywhere. What happened to the rhetoric of not letting the terrorists win?
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(9)
dasilva said | September 17th 2008 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
If india can tour pakistan with no problems then what justification does Australia has for not wanting to tour. Is someone going to argue that Australia are a bigger target for attacks in Pakistan then India?
Michael C said | September 17th 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
I’ve been bemused by the double standard so obviously exhibited in the wake of the London bombings – - on that basis, there really is very little justification – - given that at the time NO ONE new the extent of what was to (or not to) follow in London. The Australian team should have been on the first available flight home.
NickF said | September 17th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Basically it spells out again that when India Cricket says “Jump”, Australian Cricket says “how high”.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 17th 2008 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
The basic premise is an interesting one. But we do need to balance it. Cronulla was a disorganised, drunk (in the case of The surfies), local rabble of hooligans seeking to take the law into their own hands. No bombs, no guns, just sticks, bricks. Both sides quickly embraced mediation and “peace talks.” Neither side was stupid enough to attack the hallowed territory of an Australian sporting team or sports individual! It would be the quickest way to lose the hearts and minds battle.
In the case of Pakistan, they are better organised, seeking world wide recognition and have a long term goal which they intend to achieve with bombs and terrorist tactics. They have attempted to bomb Antipodean (and much less contraversial) cricket teams previously.
Further, I would feel safer with the Aust constabulary than the Pakistani equivalent.
There is a difference.
Having said that, the cricketers didn’t want to take any risks, and they get paid anyway.
The reality is that a terrorist type risk exists in many of the cricket playing countries.
dasilva said | September 17th 2008 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
“The reality is that a terrorist type risk exists in many of the cricket playing countries.”
Perhaps but there was a bomb in india, bomb in England and Australian keep touring. What is this uncomfortable feeling people get come from. From actual threats or fear of a country that is culturally more foreign. If australia decides to pull out in the middle of the Ashes due to terrorism then perhaps they would have more sympathy. Why in one case it is we should stay and not let the terrorist win and in the other case is don’t risk your life? It is because England (and India) is a more comfortable and culturally similar country then Pakistan and that what make people feel more safe and secure despite terrorist attacks.
The terrorist has never targeted Cricket team before (that bomb near NZ cricket team was not targeted toward the NZ cricket team). if India tours pakistan then it makes a complete mockery of Australia decision not to tour. No one can argue that india isn’t a bigger terrorist target than Australia is in Pakistan.
In this day of age any professional sportsman has to realise that they are potential terrorist target no mater what country they go to (even in Australia). Either they accept that or retire.
The Cougar said | September 17th 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner – “…Neither side was stupid enough to attack the hallowed territory of an Australian sporting team or sports individual! It would be the quickest way to lose the hearts and minds battle.”
Interesting point. I see that the terror trial in Melbourne that has just finished heard evidence that the so-called terrorist cell were going to target the 2005 AFL Grand Final. In terms of what you call the “hearts and minds battle”, if they had – perish the thought – proceeded and been successful with this, then a monumental backlash (for want of a better word) would’ve followed.
Justin said | September 17th 2008 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Occasional v Consistent is the debate. Its like comparing apples with footballs. Its like saying you could run into a drunk in Saudi Arabia v Irleand or Australia on a visit. The chances are far greater in Ireland or AUS just as the chances are far greater of bombs going off in Pakistan. Thats a fact (although my analogy might be a poor one
)
dasilva said | September 17th 2008 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Ok Justin
You are talking about relative risk
The chance of dying from lung cancer from smoking is 5 times more than non=smoker. However absolute risk of lung cancer for a smoker is still like 2%.
Lets say in PAkistan you are 10 times more likely to get killed then in England or Australia. (although I doubt it is 10 times)
THe absolute risk is still very low and it is very unlikely for an Australian player to get killed in Pakistan (probably a fraction orf a fraction of a fraction of a percent). Other western side has toured there with no problem (there was the incident with New Zealand. Then again that wasn’t targeting New Zealand Cricket team). India has toured their with no problem (IMO they are 10 times as likely to die in terrorist attacks then Australian cricketers).
I accept there is a greater chance of bomb going off in Pakistan. Great enough for Australian to cancel their tour. NO
westy said | September 18th 2008 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
dasilva ……rightly or wrongly and I have some sympathy with your view (although a racially motivated drunken riot in Cronulla seems a far cry from the anti Chinese riots when I was in Indonesia over 200 killed.) It is up to the players to decide. That is who we are.