Bally...note that the sequence here!
Kanhai himself took a break after Oz in 1968 claiming exhaustion. he returned in 1971 against India with 158 no at Sabina to save westindies.
next 1972...ear Kanhai is not in the westindies side against NZ! this is the period during which Kanhais Rhodesia issue must have blown up.
yet in 1973 at home Kanhai is westindies captain! and he was captain for the remainder of his career!
so how critical could have been his Rhodesia issue?
and if Kanhai went to Rhodesia and the people and governments reacted negatively so what?
the people and governments reacted negatively when Sobers went..when the Rebels went..and they all were banned for life.
the westindian people loved Kanhai but who the fcuk is Kanhai that so that no body must get vex with him?
thats the problem with racists yuy see...they are above comment and criticism by their so-inferred inferiors...they believe themselves superior and that when blac people in social authority..or ordinary blac people...get vex with them, criticise them, point out their faults, call them to justice, ban dem,jail dem...then these people are sinful, racist, commit a crime against god by telling god-Indian he rass bottom blac.
that is the general Indian response when blac man criticise Indians, justified or not, its as if a blac man commit a sin against god when he criticise Indian. yet Indian people are no diffefrent from nobody else....do all the same shit, are fucked up, skuntish, stupid, somtimes smart...like EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD!
again who the fact is Kanhai not to be criticised and banned for going to Rhodesia?
many people were..lots of them, so why not Kanhai, who despite being a westindian hero is still a human being, flesh and blood...not facting god for being Indian?
let me see what and if anything, Michael Manley said about Kanhai and Rhodesia....
Why Windians accepted the Panamanian but not the Aussie?
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
by 1972-73 Sobers had been captgain for 8 years! it was clear his road had been travelled and we werent going any further witrh him in the lead.Googley, thanks for the info... I did a lil googling and found this by Prof. Chrissy Cummings... She made it sounds like Kanhai was rewarded the WI captaincy for his trip to Rhodesia. is there any truth to this and under what circumstances Kanhai became cappo?
if Sobers and Kanhai by then are in the westindies side and the one isnt captain, the other must be..regardless.
it was as simple as that.
LLoyds time was up the road, when these 2 men were done!
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
simple......by abandoning westindies for gold Krugers the blac/brown players breached a racial/nationalist question the world had organised to end by total boycott.Why the packers bwoys didn't get same punishment for abandoning the WI for money? LLoyd, Gibbs, Holding, Viv, et al..
south african nationalist racism was an affront to the world! the world said no and it was untenable, a sin and desecration, for westindian players, blac and brown of all people to circumvent and break that boycott.
the actions of Sobers and Kanhai were truly serious, questions of great emotional concern to the westindies. by the time of Rowe and his bunch it was sufficient to throw the book at them! we could stand their loss. we could not stand the loss of kanhai and Sobers.
it was that simple!
Packer on the other hand is an erruption of the class struggle..plain and simple! it was an opportunity to not only to earn more money but to advance the cause of workers against management...ironically with management - Packer...on the other side stirring up that pot!
Packer precipiated long simmerig issues between players and their national boards, that resulted in the end in better pay and conditions for all cricketers.
Packers was a class labour issue that threatened the control of the national boards and they fought back as best they could to hold on to their patrimony
Packer had no intetion at all to eliminate the boards, just advance his business claims in cricket by scaring the bejeezus out of them by taking away the best players in the game.
it is crucial to note that as soon as Packer got what he wanted from the Oz cricket authorities, he killed World Series Cricket, and the players were left to negotiate a resolution with their various boards.
-
Googley
- Posts: 5465
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:05 pm
Googley, thanks for the info... I did a lil googling and found this by Prof. Chrissy Cummings... She made it sounds like Kanhai was rewarded the WI captaincy for his trip to Rhodesia. is there any truth to this and under what circumstances Kanhai became cappo?
Why the packers bwoys didn't get same punishment for abandoning the WI for money? LLoyd, Gibbs, Holding, Viv, et al..
You expect the prof to say anything negative about her god fadda, Bannam????
Kanhai was given the cappoship not as a reward but people were getting disgusted with Sobers! They had no choice. so don't let dem racist skunts paint that Kanhai was rewarded with being named captained...they simply had no choice. Sobers was a bad captain!
The Packer boys were rewarded and the man who stayed because of contractual obligations got shafted! if he was not brown, he would have remained at the helm of WI cricket!
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
there comes a time when all things must be taken in stride. if they are not then they destroy current reality and full futures.
originally traumatic the trauma must be resolved and if not there is progress into fullblown insanity!
if Burnham banned Kanhai in Guyana he was at least consistent. he banned everybody who came by guyana who had contravened the Apartheid issue.
it seems obvious Burnham was playing politics with his banning but we have no proof it! in fact if Burnham was sincere about anything at all his support of the struggle against apartheid was was demonstraboy so...sincere!
the apartheid question instead WAS A REAL INTERNATIONAL ISSUE OF THE DAY AND NO BAN THAT BURNHAM EXERCISED CONTRAVENED GUYANESE, REGIONAL OR INTERNATION LAW AND REQUIRMENT IN THE SITUATION!
NO MATTER WHAT WE SUSPECT (ED) AND THOUGHT OF BURNHAMS ACTIONS AND INTENT THESE ARE THE FACTS. AND IN THE END THAT IS ALL THAT IS SOLID, PROVABLE, THAT ONE CAN WALK WITH AND TAKE TO THE BANK!
if Kanhai got banned because he went to Rhodesia the ban was not and is not a sin. it was normal reaction and par for the course for such action internationally.
so what does the poster want...that becuase he IS Kanhai he is above the law and general common practice and expectation on the day?
in fact because he was kanhai he should have been punished harder than most for he knew and he still went...for he was a hero of the people and he had to have known the hurt and harm he would cause the westindian people who loved him no end, because HE kanhai and not another was the issue.
it is the heights of irresponsibility to call Burnham on this one. even if Burnhams intent was political and not above board...an issue we can prove neither way... what does googley want Burnhan to have done then...ignore kanhais transgression of the law common practice and expection of such a person as he...when he Burnham had never done so with anyone else?
what made kanhai special in that issue..his Indianess? that is what it seems to googly
SO WHAT WOULD GOOLY HIMSELF HAVE DONE BACK IN 1972 WERE HE IN BURNHAMS SHOES....IGNORE KANHAIS TRANSGRESSION JUST BECAUSE HE IS INDIAN, A WESTINDIAN HERO...IN THE FACE OF IREGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DISGUST AND DISAGREEMENT?
incredible!
yu see that is the racism I am talking about. that Kanhai went to Rhodesia displayed a contempt for blac people in the westindies and in Africa..the same contempt displayed here buy googly, googly in all he says here, does not care that Kanhai went to Rhodesia, in the face of international agreement that such as he would boycott that whole area. Googly dont care about blac people and so he doh see no reason at all why Kanhai should be held up for going agasinst blac interests globally.
look man! I appreciate Kanhai as a great crickketer with a truly original westindian flair. but I am not fooled by Kanhai and his clear outlook on the world which is not in identification with blac issues and interests in the whole world. I have read kanhais comments on Alvin Kalliecharran and the rebel tour in particular, and Kanhais outlook is clear from those comments and others I have seen over the years.
yet I would deny Kanhai nothing he has won over the years in the westindies...his breat cricket skills, his captaincy, forgiveness so that he could play for and lead the westindies. although I see kanhai for who he is I can take him in stride and deny him nothing, hold nothing against him. but at the same time I can be truthful to myself about Kanhai.
no matter what, we have the clear international issue of apartheird south africa, the gleneagles agreement and other treaties and accordances by which the world came to deal with south africa and the real commitment it created in countries of people of colour to support the international movement in full, to produce what it has produced...an end to the nefarious system and and a re-integration of a whole South Africa into world activities.
and what has happend should bear me out..Burnham too... for RSA has indeed been successfully re-integrated in world activities by the very same mechanism of total boycott....which proves that people Like Kanhai and Sobers, the rebels, jimmy cliff, all... were terribly wrong, stupid and greedy, looking for all manner of reason to justify their crass, totally selfish and shortsighted behaviour. they were fools and traitors, saboteus of a perfectly correct and legitimate world effort to change a nation, cleanse it of its supression of majority, of its racist ways... into a more acceptable treament of the its constituent ethnic demography.
and this is what googley comes here to defend...his complete idiocy and exposure of his own racism for by his comments here he still defends apartheid and the indefensible and traitorous and most shortsighted and incompetent behaviour of kanhai and kalliecharran..and by extention if not intent that of sobers and the other rebels.
in fact it is only becausse of the psychological and emotional impossibility of losing kanhai and sobers..so much they ment to the region...they werent banned outright by the westindies. we were a young nation and these were the two brightest stars in our pantheon, who embodied for us, all that was the westindies trying to be born. we could not afford to lose them so when..in the case of Sobers... a compromise came about Sobers and the westindies gratefully grabbed it.
I dont know Kanhais case having by then left the westindiesd...but some compromise must have been made to resolve that issue.
but googly is most certainly a poster with emotional difficulties in this issue..the way he talks about it, his anger at Burnham...and not a jot or tittle of concern about Kanhais most eggergious behaviour..and the fact that in the whole situation, in guyana, in the westindies and in the whole world...kanhai does not have a leg to stand on and Burnham does in the issue.
and that the further away we get from the issue in time and years, the worse, the more foolish, greedy and shortsighted etc., Kanhai and all the traitors look... and the better does Burnham re..south african apartheid and the banning of those who sabotaged the international movement to rid the world of that social abomination!
originally traumatic the trauma must be resolved and if not there is progress into fullblown insanity!
if Burnham banned Kanhai in Guyana he was at least consistent. he banned everybody who came by guyana who had contravened the Apartheid issue.
it seems obvious Burnham was playing politics with his banning but we have no proof it! in fact if Burnham was sincere about anything at all his support of the struggle against apartheid was was demonstraboy so...sincere!
the apartheid question instead WAS A REAL INTERNATIONAL ISSUE OF THE DAY AND NO BAN THAT BURNHAM EXERCISED CONTRAVENED GUYANESE, REGIONAL OR INTERNATION LAW AND REQUIRMENT IN THE SITUATION!
NO MATTER WHAT WE SUSPECT (ED) AND THOUGHT OF BURNHAMS ACTIONS AND INTENT THESE ARE THE FACTS. AND IN THE END THAT IS ALL THAT IS SOLID, PROVABLE, THAT ONE CAN WALK WITH AND TAKE TO THE BANK!
if Kanhai got banned because he went to Rhodesia the ban was not and is not a sin. it was normal reaction and par for the course for such action internationally.
so what does the poster want...that becuase he IS Kanhai he is above the law and general common practice and expectation on the day?
in fact because he was kanhai he should have been punished harder than most for he knew and he still went...for he was a hero of the people and he had to have known the hurt and harm he would cause the westindian people who loved him no end, because HE kanhai and not another was the issue.
it is the heights of irresponsibility to call Burnham on this one. even if Burnhams intent was political and not above board...an issue we can prove neither way... what does googley want Burnhan to have done then...ignore kanhais transgression of the law common practice and expection of such a person as he...when he Burnham had never done so with anyone else?
what made kanhai special in that issue..his Indianess? that is what it seems to googly
SO WHAT WOULD GOOLY HIMSELF HAVE DONE BACK IN 1972 WERE HE IN BURNHAMS SHOES....IGNORE KANHAIS TRANSGRESSION JUST BECAUSE HE IS INDIAN, A WESTINDIAN HERO...IN THE FACE OF IREGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DISGUST AND DISAGREEMENT?
incredible!
yu see that is the racism I am talking about. that Kanhai went to Rhodesia displayed a contempt for blac people in the westindies and in Africa..the same contempt displayed here buy googly, googly in all he says here, does not care that Kanhai went to Rhodesia, in the face of international agreement that such as he would boycott that whole area. Googly dont care about blac people and so he doh see no reason at all why Kanhai should be held up for going agasinst blac interests globally.
look man! I appreciate Kanhai as a great crickketer with a truly original westindian flair. but I am not fooled by Kanhai and his clear outlook on the world which is not in identification with blac issues and interests in the whole world. I have read kanhais comments on Alvin Kalliecharran and the rebel tour in particular, and Kanhais outlook is clear from those comments and others I have seen over the years.
yet I would deny Kanhai nothing he has won over the years in the westindies...his breat cricket skills, his captaincy, forgiveness so that he could play for and lead the westindies. although I see kanhai for who he is I can take him in stride and deny him nothing, hold nothing against him. but at the same time I can be truthful to myself about Kanhai.
no matter what, we have the clear international issue of apartheird south africa, the gleneagles agreement and other treaties and accordances by which the world came to deal with south africa and the real commitment it created in countries of people of colour to support the international movement in full, to produce what it has produced...an end to the nefarious system and and a re-integration of a whole South Africa into world activities.
and what has happend should bear me out..Burnham too... for RSA has indeed been successfully re-integrated in world activities by the very same mechanism of total boycott....which proves that people Like Kanhai and Sobers, the rebels, jimmy cliff, all... were terribly wrong, stupid and greedy, looking for all manner of reason to justify their crass, totally selfish and shortsighted behaviour. they were fools and traitors, saboteus of a perfectly correct and legitimate world effort to change a nation, cleanse it of its supression of majority, of its racist ways... into a more acceptable treament of the its constituent ethnic demography.
and this is what googley comes here to defend...his complete idiocy and exposure of his own racism for by his comments here he still defends apartheid and the indefensible and traitorous and most shortsighted and incompetent behaviour of kanhai and kalliecharran..and by extention if not intent that of sobers and the other rebels.
in fact it is only becausse of the psychological and emotional impossibility of losing kanhai and sobers..so much they ment to the region...they werent banned outright by the westindies. we were a young nation and these were the two brightest stars in our pantheon, who embodied for us, all that was the westindies trying to be born. we could not afford to lose them so when..in the case of Sobers... a compromise came about Sobers and the westindies gratefully grabbed it.
I dont know Kanhais case having by then left the westindiesd...but some compromise must have been made to resolve that issue.
but googly is most certainly a poster with emotional difficulties in this issue..the way he talks about it, his anger at Burnham...and not a jot or tittle of concern about Kanhais most eggergious behaviour..and the fact that in the whole situation, in guyana, in the westindies and in the whole world...kanhai does not have a leg to stand on and Burnham does in the issue.
and that the further away we get from the issue in time and years, the worse, the more foolish, greedy and shortsighted etc., Kanhai and all the traitors look... and the better does Burnham re..south african apartheid and the banning of those who sabotaged the international movement to rid the world of that social abomination!
Last edited by mapoui on Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
BallOil
- Posts: 19409
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:12 pm
ah did a lil search and found this ...
interesting to see Kanhai was the third on his list of recommendation. I wonder if there was some rift between Sobers and Kanhai.. why would Sober recommend a player that is not even in team ahead of Kanhai?
link1973
Sobers declared himself unavailable as a player on being asked by the West Indies Cricket Board of Control to prove his fitness, so he was replaced as captain by Rohan Kanhai for the 1973 home series against Australia. Sobers had "… led a strong side effectively but not shown the capacity to lift a weak or ageing side" (Manley)
"Cecil Marley, president of the West Indies Cricket Board, asked me who I would recommend as my successor," wrote Sobers. "I opted initially for David Holford but I didn't think he would be accepted as my nomination because he was my relative. I offered Clive Lloyd as an alternative choice but Clive had not even been invited to join the squad, so my third choice would be Rohan Kanhai." [16]
Kanhai retained the captaincy for the 1973 tour of England, which West Indies won 2-0. "Kanhai is credited with restoring both discipline and morale to the side" (Manley).
interesting to see Kanhai was the third on his list of recommendation. I wonder if there was some rift between Sobers and Kanhai.. why would Sober recommend a player that is not even in team ahead of Kanhai?
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
Kanhai was given the cappoship not as a reward but people were getting disgusted with Sobers! They had no choice. so don't let dem racist skunts paint that Kanhai was rewarded with being named captained...they simply had no choice. Sobers was a bad captain!
The Packer boys were rewarded and the man who stayed because of contractual obligations got shafted! if he was not brown, he would have remained at the helm of WI cricket!
people take their chances in life! you win some you lose some! we must take that in stride.
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
BallOil wrote:ah did a lil search and found this ...
link1973
Sobers declared himself unavailable as a player on being asked by the West Indies Cricket Board of Control to prove his fitness, so he was replaced as captain by Rohan Kanhai for the 1973 home series against Australia. Sobers had "… led a strong side effectively but not shown the capacity to lift a weak or ageing side" (Manley)
"Cecil Marley, president of the West Indies Cricket Board, asked me who I would recommend as my successor," wrote Sobers. "I opted initially for David Holford but I didn't think he would be accepted as my nomination because he was my relative. I offered Clive Lloyd as an alternative choice but Clive had not even been invited to join the squad, so my third choice would be Rohan Kanhai." [16]
Kanhai retained the captaincy for the 1973 tour of England, which West Indies won 2-0. "Kanhai is credited with restoring both discipline and morale to the side" (Manley).
interesting to see Kanhai was the third on his list of recommendation. I wonder if there was some rift between Sobers and Kanhai.. why would Sober recommend a player that is not even in team ahead of Kanhai?
is that from Michael Manley?
if it is it is credbile reporting! I dont see any rift necessary for such reasoning by Sobers. thats seems like the way Sobers thinks to me.
that is the same kind of mentality that resulted in him thinking he could go to Rhodeisa, embrace Ian Smioth and that it would be ok!
Last edited by mapoui on Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.