Daryl Hair - The Moral High Ground? Really?

[mittheimp]

John Reid says Asia runs the ICC because quote.....

"there are ten test playing countries and seven of them are basically asian"

So Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh

emmmmm...... who else exactly West Indies? South Africa? Zimbabwe? England? Australia? New Zealand?

come on clearly you can see the bias in this, its like watching Fox News. And the comment about Pakistan not wanting anything to do Mike proctor because he is white is totally unsubstantiated and basically untrue!

Well actually, they mean the "brown vote" or "non-white vote" for all the PC people.most people know that asia holds the power in cricket.

That's a pretty bold claim calling John Ried a liar.He is probably the most respected person in NZ cricket.Ex NZ Caption and ex Test Match official.BTW, he happens to know mike Procter quite well.

Does the BBC always go to cheats like Imran for comments?

"The TimesOnline":

Quote:

Inzamam was punished four times by the ICC last year after adverse reports by umpires.

As things stand he still faces charges of being responsible, as captain, for alleged illegal tampering with the ball

The BBC may ask Imran for an opinion but the interviewer is trained to challange his opinions to give a balanced perspective. That clearly doesnt happen in that radio programme with the presenter championing a pretty extreme view.

Asia has a lot of power in world cricket - and not surprisingly as they are by far and away the biggest market for it - economic fact! - would you prefer to go back to the past when England and Australia had the right to veto any decision? Do you really think west indies and south africa support some Asian motions because of their colour - as this is what you and seemingly John Reid are implying - that to me seems as paranoid and frankly as ridiculous as calling Daryl Hair a racist! I have to say after checking various Australian and New Zealand media coverage of this issue and comparing it to British coverage - British coverage seems way more balanced with much depth and perspective - and i'm not just talking about the BBC but all the broadshhets as well (guardian/times/telgraph/independent)!

[Siam_superfly]

John Reid says Asia runs the ICC because quote.....

- would you prefer to go back to the past when England and Australia had the right to veto any decision?

YES ...

[chuchok]

The BBC may ask Imran for an opinion but the interviewer is trained to challange his opinions to give a balanced perspective. That clearly doesnt happen in that radio programme with the presenter championing a pretty extreme view.

Asia has a lot of power in world cricket - and not surprisingly as they are by far and away the biggest market for it - economic fact! - would you prefer to go back to the past when England and Australia had the right to veto any decision? Do you really think west indies and south africa support some Asian motions because of their colour - as this is what you and seemingly John Reid are implying - that to me seems as paranoid and frankly as ridiculous as calling Daryl Hair a racist! I have to say after checking various Australian and New Zealand media coverage of this issue and comparing it to British coverage - British coverage seems way more balanced with much depth and perspective - and i'm not just talking about the BBC but all the broadshhets as well (guardian/times/telgraph/independent)!

oh dear...yep,I do realise where the largest market is.

I do think that those nations will stick togeather like <deleted> to a blanket.It's happened to NZ before.Our country didn't want to tour to Zim last year.Apart from the 3 million fine we would have incured, the boss of NZ cricket said that we would also only be able to play Aussie and the UK in the future.All others would vote against us and put us in the Cricketing wilderness.that's a fact mate.

John Ried does not tell porkies asaik.You must know him quite well to make your conclusions.

Some Pakistan players and managment are all too quick to play the race card....

[mittheimp]

The BBC may ask Imran for an opinion but the interviewer is trained to challange his opinions to give a balanced perspective. That clearly doesnt happen in that radio programme with the presenter championing a pretty extreme view.

Asia has a lot of power in world cricket - and not surprisingly as they are by far and away the biggest market for it - economic fact! - would you prefer to go back to the past when England and Australia had the right to veto any decision? Do you really think west indies and south africa support some Asian motions because of their colour - as this is what you and seemingly John Reid are implying - that to me seems as paranoid and frankly as ridiculous as calling Daryl Hair a racist! I have to say after checking various Australian and New Zealand media coverage of this issue and comparing it to British coverage - British coverage seems way more balanced with much depth and perspective - and i'm not just talking about the BBC but all the broadshhets as well (guardian/times/telgraph/independent)!

oh dear...yep,I do realise where the largest market is.

I do think that those nations will stick togeather like <deleted> to a blanket.It's happened to NZ before.Our country didn't want to tour to Zim last year.Apart from the 3 million fine we would have incured, the boss of NZ cricket said that we would also only be able to play Aussie and the UK in the future.All others would vote against us and put us in the Cricketing wilderness.that's a fact mate.

John Ried does not tell porkies asaik.You must know him quite well to make your conclusions.

Some Pakistan players and managment are all too quick to play the race card....

Please re-read my posts then you will discover that i didn't say John Reid was a liar, i just pointed out the nonsense of his quote that says 7 of the ten test playing teams are basically Asian (3 of them are dis-honorary Asian teams because they don't agree with NZ???). The other comments i made referred to the presenter of the programme, who yes i do believe was guilty of very sloppy journalism at best, and blatant lying at worst!

[chuchok]

Please re-read my posts then you will discover that i didn't say John Reid was a liar, i just pointed out the nonsense of his quote that says 7 of the ten test playing teams are basically Asian (3 of them are dis-honorary Asian teams because they don't agree with NZ???). The other comments i made referred to the presenter of the programme, who yes i do believe was guilty of very sloppy journalism at best, and blatant lying at worst!

You don't believe that that all the other 7 nations will ALWAYS vote with the Asians?..money,money,money......

It is there turn (forever!!) at controlling the game and probably a bit of pay back from the past.NZ, as small as we are, were hung out to dry by those pricks.They supported a ruthless dictator, who happens to be the President of Zim, as well as the Hon boss of their cricket association.

So who has acted worse? A cricket team that refused to come onto a cricket pitch for 30 minutes because they were sulking about being branded as cheats -

or

The umpire at the centre of the row who attempted to profit by the whole disagreement to the tune of $500,000!!!!!!

So those that claim Daryl Hair is the bastian of fair play and has the moral high ground - as all those that responded to the previous thread on this topic -

please explain how this sits with your previous comments!

Well, that must have been some great reporting from the English press,because dear old Daryl came out with this...

Cricket: Umpire Hair says ICC encouraged his offer

1.00pm Monday August 28, 2006

Australian Darrell Hair said he was encouraged by the ICC to make an offer to quit as an umpire following the Pakistan ball-tampering furore at the Oval last week.

Hair has been heavily criticised since the International Cricket Council (ICC) revealed details of an email he sent to officials requesting a US$500,000 ($798,084) one-off payment in return for quitting their elite panel of umpires after the row.

In a statement released by his lawyers last night (NZ time), Hair said: "I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on 25 August 2006.

"During an extended conversation on 21 August 2006 with Mr (Doug) Cowie, the Umpires' Manager for ICC, I was invited to make a written offer.

"The opening words of my first email to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening.' I note that Mr Cowie replied on the same date: 'Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management'......

so I would have to say that it sits well with my previous comments.

I still can't understand you guys calling on Imran.What did the reporter say to him..."Imran,even though you were a cheat yourself and of course you are a Pakistani, what do you think, is it fair" pffft

[mittheimp]

The point you make about Zimbabwe is a fair one but I believe that the rules state at the moment that teams cannot pull out of tours unless safety of the players are in jeopardy. Currently Zimbabwe are not banned from playing any international sport - if they had qualified for the football world cup there wouldn't have been any fuss made at all as Muagabe's record doesn't look to bad when compared to the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Toga etc. So should only cricket isolate a nation for political reasons? A dangerous precedent to make especially as Pakistan is also currently ruled by a military dictatorship, who also happens to be president of the cricket association - same in Sri Lanka's too! - should they be banned as well?

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ. However unlike the case in South Africa there is currently no international political leadership on this issue - the UN/commenwealth/EU not agreeing to a boycott - the British government were definitely weak on this issue during the last world cup and a dare say the NZ government may have been too (i don't know I'm guessing!).

But actually if your concern is the state in Zimbabwe the fact that these tours still go ahead forces the media to get interested in the topic and putting it higher up the political agenda - paradoxically to isolate them would mean silence from the media once again - and unlike in South Africa, cricket is not that popular in Zimbabwe so a boycott of cricket by the rest of the world is unlikely to have much of an impact on anything.

But i agree it is a difficult situation!

Why do they interview Imran? Well I suppose as Pakistan's most famous ever cricketer and now a politician it is likely he is going to have a strong view on the subject. The fact that he usually talks rubbish is a bonus - but his views are ussually presented in a way that weakens Pakistan's case!

[soi lurker]

The ship has sunk in this thread.... Mitt may have read my avatar quote... keep going son, no matter how wrong you are

Edited August 29, 2006 by soi lurker

[mittheimp]

The ship has sunk in this thread.... Mitt may have read my avatar quote... keep going son, no matter how wrong you are

At least chuchock tried to justify his position by arguing his case - something you completely failed to do mr soi lurker!

[chuchok]

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ. However unlike the case in South Africa there is currently no international political leadership on this issue - the UN/commenwealth/EU not agreeing to a boycott - the British government were definitely weak on this issue during the last world cup and a dare say the NZ government may have been too (i don't know I'm guessing!).

I think that if you lived in NZ in the 80's, you would realise that this is not true IMO.

As for the NZ Govt, while they did not stop the Kiwi team from travelling to Zimbabwe, they denided the Zims visas for the return leg.

[marshbags]

An article taken from todays Telegraph co.uk with a couple of interesting observations not previously highlighted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...MC-spo_30082006

Did first-innings tricks alert Hair?

By Derek Pringle (Filed: 30/08/2006)

First ODI: Live ball-by-ball commentary

In pics: Pakistan cruise to Twenty20 win

Your View: Oval row

In pics: Oval Test erupts | Timeline of row

Simon Hughes: Officials scratching heads

One of the main unexplained mysteries of Hairgate is why the burly umpire picked the moment he did, at the end of the 56th over, to change the ball in England's second innings.

After all, he had been able to inspect it at the fall of Alastair Cook's wicket 20 minutes earlier, which doesn't leave a huge amount of time to abrade a cricket ball with fingernails alone.

One answer that has come to light, via the usual information creep, is that the ball Pakistan used in England's first innings displayed such obvious signs of tampering (much more than the ball the umpires eventually changed) that Hair, at least in his own mind, needed only slender evidence in the second innings to pounce.

A ball prepared for reverse-swing on the Thursday of the Oval Test, whether legally or illegally, would certainly explain many things, not least why Pakistan bowlers Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul suddenly began to swing a ball 45 overs old around corners later that day.

It would also explain why Hair plunged in on the Sunday afternoon without the slightest thought that he might be being a bit hasty, and why he cited the whole team (the reason captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is facing the rap) rather than any single individual. It is as if the umpires never saw any one moment or person to pin it on, but that the end product was beyond doubt.

Asif, considered to be something of a swing genius by his team-mates at Leicestershire, finished with four for 56 in England's first innings. While three of those wickets were taken early on, when the ball moved off seam, it was an over to Steve Harmison in the afternoon, which saw the ball swing both ways, that aroused suspicion in the England camp.

The clincher though was probably the beauty from Gul that uprooted Monty Panesar's stumps first ball. That swung into the left-hander very late, something Gul replicated to a lesser degree when he had Cook lbw in the second innings.

Suspicion is not hard evidence though, which is why several England players were seen using binoculars to see if they could spot the methods being used once England's second innings was under way after tea on the Saturday.

Of chief interest to the spotters would have been Asif's methods of polishing the ball, which he does with both hands on both thighs, though not at the same time. The mystery though is that a red stripe (the usual sign that a ball is being polished) appears only on his left thigh and not his right.

An eagle-eyed Daily Telegraph reader, who had watched TV pictures closely, e-mailed to say that Asif appeared to have a square patch sewn on to his right thigh. However, a closer inspection of photographs taken during the Test showed it to be nothing more sinister than a plaster covering up a sponsor's logo, something that most bowlers have.

Hard evidence of what goes on between members of the fielding side between balls is sketchy and Sky Sports, despite having 25 cameras at the ground during Test matches, claim to have no "interesting" footage to speak of.

That is plausible, especially as footage not used in the main broadcast does not tend to get saved. Also, modern coverage tends to offer replays, graphics, as well as adoring vignettes of the commentary team, rather than lingering shots on bowlers walking back to their mark, as used to be the case.

Proof seems to be what Pakistan want though the International Cricket Council claim that the judgment of cricket experts will suffice, which is why their match referees are all former Test players who have been around the block.

If that is the case, Mike Procter, the man in that particular hot seat at the Oval, could still play a significant role, though the moment he should have acted was on that Sunday evening before the Test was officially forfeited by Pakistan.

If the ball used in England's first innings does show the tell-tale signs of tampering, it would probably not be called at Inzamam's hearing, scheduled for late September.

His lawyers would want to know, for instance, why the umpires did not report it at the time, a lack of disclosure sure to prejudice the ICC's case.

That likelihood may explain why Hair, lacking strong evidence save for a ball obviously tinkered with during England's first innings, made the moves he did in asking the ICC for $500,000 severance pay. It also suggests that he went out in the second innings to fit Pakistan up for a "crime" committed earlier in the Test match.

At this juncture I must confess that I do not see ball tampering as the evil that batsmen and other moralisers do. Provided outside agents such as bottle tops and knives are not used to alter the condition of the ball, I am with the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, in liberalising the laws on ball tampering.

Unfortunately, those running the game, and most of its stakeholders, prefer to see bat dominate ball, so common sense isn't like to prevail any time soon.

www.telegraph.co.uk/pringle

Fair comment in my humble opinion.

marshbags

[mittheimp]

An article taken from todays Telegraph co.uk with a couple of interesting observations not previously highlighted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...MC-spo_30082006

Did first-innings tricks alert Hair?

By Derek Pringle (Filed: 30/08/2006)

First ODI: Live ball-by-ball commentary

In pics: Pakistan cruise to Twenty20 win

Your View: Oval row

In pics: Oval Test erupts | Timeline of row

Simon Hughes: Officials scratching heads

One of the main unexplained mysteries of Hairgate is why the burly umpire picked the moment he did, at the end of the 56th over, to change the ball in England's second innings.

After all, he had been able to inspect it at the fall of Alastair Cook's wicket 20 minutes earlier, which doesn't leave a huge amount of time to abrade a cricket ball with fingernails alone.

One answer that has come to light, via the usual information creep, is that the ball Pakistan used in England's first innings displayed such obvious signs of tampering (much more than the ball the umpires eventually changed) that Hair, at least in his own mind, needed only slender evidence in the second innings to pounce.

A ball prepared for reverse-swing on the Thursday of the Oval Test, whether legally or illegally, would certainly explain many things, not least why Pakistan bowlers Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul suddenly began to swing a ball 45 overs old around corners later that day.

It would also explain why Hair plunged in on the Sunday afternoon without the slightest thought that he might be being a bit hasty, and why he cited the whole team (the reason captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is facing the rap) rather than any single individual. It is as if the umpires never saw any one moment or person to pin it on, but that the end product was beyond doubt.

Asif, considered to be something of a swing genius by his team-mates at Leicestershire, finished with four for 56 in England's first innings. While three of those wickets were taken early on, when the ball moved off seam, it was an over to Steve Harmison in the afternoon, which saw the ball swing both ways, that aroused suspicion in the England camp.

The clincher though was probably the beauty from Gul that uprooted Monty Panesar's stumps first ball. That swung into the left-hander very late, something Gul replicated to a lesser degree when he had Cook lbw in the second innings.

Suspicion is not hard evidence though, which is why several England players were seen using binoculars to see if they could spot the methods being used once England's second innings was under way after tea on the Saturday.

Of chief interest to the spotters would have been Asif's methods of polishing the ball, which he does with both hands on both thighs, though not at the same time. The mystery though is that a red stripe (the usual sign that a ball is being polished) appears only on his left thigh and not his right.

An eagle-eyed Daily Telegraph reader, who had watched TV pictures closely, e-mailed to say that Asif appeared to have a square patch sewn on to his right thigh. However, a closer inspection of photographs taken during the Test showed it to be nothing more sinister than a plaster covering up a sponsor's logo, something that most bowlers have.

Hard evidence of what goes on between members of the fielding side between balls is sketchy and Sky Sports, despite having 25 cameras at the ground during Test matches, claim to have no "interesting" footage to speak of.

That is plausible, especially as footage not used in the main broadcast does not tend to get saved. Also, modern coverage tends to offer replays, graphics, as well as adoring vignettes of the commentary team, rather than lingering shots on bowlers walking back to their mark, as used to be the case.

Proof seems to be what Pakistan want though the International Cricket Council claim that the judgment of cricket experts will suffice, which is why their match referees are all former Test players who have been around the block.

If that is the case, Mike Procter, the man in that particular hot seat at the Oval, could still play a significant role, though the moment he should have acted was on that Sunday evening before the Test was officially forfeited by Pakistan.

If the ball used in England's first innings does show the tell-tale signs of tampering, it would probably not be called at Inzamam's hearing, scheduled for late September.

His lawyers would want to know, for instance, why the umpires did not report it at the time, a lack of disclosure sure to prejudice the ICC's case.

That likelihood may explain why Hair, lacking strong evidence save for a ball obviously tinkered with during England's first innings, made the moves he did in asking the ICC for $500,000 severance pay. It also suggests that he went out in the second innings to fit Pakistan up for a "crime" committed earlier in the Test match.

At this juncture I must confess that I do not see ball tampering as the evil that batsmen and other moralisers do. Provided outside agents such as bottle tops and knives are not used to alter the condition of the ball, I am with the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, in liberalising the laws on ball tampering.

Unfortunately, those running the game, and most of its stakeholders, prefer to see bat dominate ball, so common sense isn't like to prevail any time soon.

www.telegraph.co.uk/pringle

Fair comment in my humble opinion.

marshbags

Well if Hair is responding to what happened in the first innings he is not acting according to procedure - which appeared to be his only defence previously!

[soi lurker]

The ship has sunk in this thread.... Mitt may have read my avatar quote... keep going son, no matter how wrong you are

At least chuchock tried to justify his position by arguing his case - something you completely failed to do mr soi lurker!

Dont feel like arguing this one Mitt, im not going back into the archives and researching who said what or when, its your opinion, i respect that. In my opinion its wrong, and upon first reading (and I realise ive said this before to another member) and your probably going to tell me im wrong, but i felt there was an Anti- Australian sentiment involved. Its not just me when i tell you, when certain members get a hold of a topic that may pertain to someone thats Aussie, you can tell that it runs deeper, and you really like sticking it in. Thats fair enough, were a thick skinned bunch, we can roll with the punches.... but make no mistake, were a bunch of fighters and ###### good sportsmen. So i justify myself by telling you this is my opinion, its right, and your wrong!!!!

Edited August 31, 2006 by soi lurker

[soi lurker]

Peace Out

[mittheimp]

Anti-Australian?

Who, me?

What posssible reason could anyone have for being anti-Australian where cricket is concerned?

A team that has graced the cricket grounds of this world displaying a level of sportsmanship and humility far beond the call af duty!

Peace out too!

[steveromagnino]

Anti-Australian?

Who, me?

What posssible reason could anyone have for being anti-Australian where cricket is concerned?

A team that has graced the cricket grounds of this world displaying a level of sportsmanship and humility far beond the call af duty!

Peace out too!

Australian cricket?

Under arm bowlers?

Yep, when you guys were pushed, you definitely showed that you were great sportsmen :-)

[funfunfun]

Daryl Hair has brought the game into disrepute, corrupt officials are not needed in cricket whatever nationality!

cant see why some people are3 defending him!

[chuchok]

Daryl Hair has brought the game into disrepute, corrupt officials are not needed in cricket whatever nationality!

cant see why some people are3 defending him!

Nice troll.

[soi lurker]

Anti-Australian?

Who, me?

What posssible reason could anyone have for being anti-Australian where cricket is concerned?

A team that has graced the cricket grounds of this world displaying a level of sportsmanship and humility far beond the call af duty!

Peace out too!

Australian cricket?

Under arm bowlers?

Yep, when you guys were pushed, you definitely showed that you were great sportsmen :-)

Cant argue with that one, however, the actions of a few, doesn't represent the beleifs of many. Dammn Chappells...

[bendix]

The problem with debates like this is that they polarise people. People are either all on one side or the other, and there is no common ground.

I think the real truth is a bit greyer.

I have little doubt that the Pakistan team did engage in a bit of ball-tampering. They - just like other teams, including England - have been caught scuffing balls before and any team will do what they can to get advantage, if they can get away with it. They got caught this time, good and simple. It's a fair cop.

Hair, I think, over-reacted by strictly going by the letter of the law and awarding five runs. Given the cricketing world's impressions (rightly or wrongly) of his attitudes towards asian cricketing nations, he should have handled it more professionally, by taking Inzy to one side and warning them.

Big error of judgement in my view.

And, sadly, he lost whatever credibility he had with the emails. I mean, what was the man thinking? It's almost like he was having a mental breakdown.

[mittheimp]

Daryl Hair has brought the game into disrepute, corrupt officials are not needed in cricket whatever nationality!

cant see why some people are3 defending him!

Nice troll.

because he disagrees with you?

very well put bendix.

[chuchok]

Daryl Hair has brought the game into disrepute, corrupt officials are not needed in cricket whatever nationality!

cant see why some people are3 defending him!

Nice troll.

because he disagrees with you?

Nope,because only a halfwit would:-

A)Thinks that Daryl Hair is corrupt

and

B)Cannot not come up with any argument

Even when he made some ludicrous decisions against NZ a few years ago, we didn't think he was bent.He probably backs himself 100%.his manner might not be great and he might be a stickler for the rules, but I don't believe for a min that he is crooked.

[mittheimp]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

[chuchok]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

Nope.

I'd still like to know where you got this idea from though..

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ

[mittheimp]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

Nope.

I'd still like to know where you got this idea from though..

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ

The first or second part of this statement?

[chuchok]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

Nope.

I'd still like to know where you got this idea from though..

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ

The first or second part of this statement?

Second Part...re NZ...

[soi lurker]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

No argumennt eh? Go back and have a read of my initial post , and see if common sense prevaials

This kind of stopped going somewhere around about page 1. Maybe it was just me or didnt you get the overwhelming feeling that theres a majority conclusion that Daryl Hair was acting properly and in accordance with ICC protocols?... "post bendix's avatar here"

Edited September 2, 2006 by soi lurker

[mittheimp]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

No argumennt eh? Go back and have a read of my initial post , and see if common sense prevaials

This kind of stopped going somewhere around about page 1. Maybe it was just me or didnt you get the overwhelming feeling that theres a majority conclusion that Daryl Hair was acting properly and in accordance with ICC protocols?... "post bendix's avatar here"

it wasn't just you, but such an opinion is by no means the majority, certainly in England.

[chuchok]

So the definition of a troll is someone that thinks Hair is corrupt? or doesnt present an argument?

In which case is Soi Lurker a troll too?

Nope.

I'd still like to know where you got this idea from though..

Having said this it should also be noted the contribution a sporting boycott made to bringing down apartheid - something the 'Asian block' of countries backed far stronger than England / Australia and NZ

The first or second part of this statement?

Second Part...re NZ...

Cat Got your Tongue?

[chuchok]

Hmmmm.....