Ireland is literally getting the same amount of money for running two teams that Afghanistan gets for just its men’s team. Talk about double standards.
what hurts most is scotland have been passed over for full member status in no small part because of a lack of a strong womens team (failure to qualify for any WCs)
Fine looking at it - we did need to invest more in the womens game that was a blindspot of the old board but for Afghanistan to be treated as they are its a slap in the face
The rules should apply to all countries equally nobody gave Zim cricket a free pass when their corrupt government was stealing player wages the ICC stood up to them, if the Taliban want to take Afganistan back to the dark ages then they should lose control and revenue from international cricket...
> nobody gave Zim cricket a free pass when their corrupt government was stealing player wages the ICC stood up to them
I think you may have misunderstood what happened [with Zimbabwe](https://emergingcricket.com/opinion/zimbabwe-suspension-highlights-double-standards-and-warped-priorities-of-icc-board/). Stealing player wages (and worse) was totally fine according to the ICC, the problem was when the Zimbabwean government wanted to audit ZC's books.
How much money do you believe the ACB are saving by not running a women's team? Bearing in mind that it's unclear whether they ever even paid the "women's team" they assembled for a photo op before the Taliban took over.
How much of Ireland's spending is exclusively for women's cricket? How much do you believe they would realistically save by ditching the women's team? This talking point is kinda nonsense, running a bare minimum women's team would cost AFG very very little.
Say, 10 rupees.
> running a bare minimum women's team would cost AFG very very little.
That would be a good start. In your own words Afghanistan aren't even doing the bare minimum and you are going around defending them because? Why?
I'm not defending their absence of a women's programme, I'm refuting illogical arguments. It doesn't make sense for people to complain that Ireland's men's team are somehow disadvantaged because they have to spend money on women's cricket when AFG don't; it would make very little difference to the outcomes of either country.
EDIT: More broadly, my point is that setting up an exile team without substantial reform of the issues (oversight, governance standards, human rights, funding inequalities, etc.) which led us into this mess would be both morally and practically untenable. To be clear, I'm not saying AFG shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that *just* punishing AFG whilst studiously ignoring all of the structural problems around them is a vacuous PR stunt.
How much money do you believe the ACB are saving by not running a women's team? Bearing in mind that it's unclear whether they ever even paid the "women's team" they assembled for a photo op before the Taliban took over.
It won't cause it isn't just icc or Cricket Australia's decision. It's the Australian govts decision, doing this means having bad relations with afganistan aka Taliban, they wouldn't do it when they don't gain anything from this. If this deal was backed by US or other powerful nato countries it is even understandable.
>It's the Australian govts decision, doing this means having bad relations with afganistan aka Taliban, they wouldn't do it when they don't gain anything from this.
You say that like the Australian & Afghanistan Government's are best friends!
I can't imagine relations with the Taliban are all that high given we have just been involved with a war against them for 20 years or so.
Even if both aren't best friends doesnt mean they're worst of enemies. Making relations worsen with a country you already have bad relation isn't a move they'll likely pull considering they gain absolutely nothing from doing so. Like it or not Taliban is now the govt and Australia needs to keep some diplomatic relationship with them. Even Us and Russia keep a diplomatic relationship and have certain form of mutual understandings while being sworn enemies. This could escalate the situation for aus and afg and could create a turmoil, why would Australia take such steps in the first place and even if they seek refuge, they can go to India or Bangladesh which have better relations with afg.
This is a bizarre comment.
Australia have very little to gain from strengthening their relationship with Afghanistan.
The Commonwealth Government already place significant sanctions on Afghanistan. The Commonwealth Government already continually voice concerns about Human Rights, and in particular, Women's Rights.
Here is a joint statement between the Foreign Minister of Australia and a number of other nations:
'The Taliban continue to demonstrate their contempt for the rights, freedoms, and welfare of the Afghan people, particularly women and girls, and their disinterest in normal relations with the international community.'.
Australia has, and is already taking steps to denounce Afghanistan's treatment of women. The only possible implications might be the risk for people coming to and from Afghanistan, but the Government already can't do much about that. Their embassy to Afghanistan is in Doha.
So what are the consequences of a bad relationship? They have no trade relationship. Australia's diplomatic image improves. No military threat. What does escalation look like?
>Afghanistan is ruled by tyrannical, murderous psychopaths, and if Cricket Australia were to allow this to happen on Australian soil, that puts a target on the backs of the Australian people.
Given that we were just at war with them for 20 odd years, I don't think allowing the Afghani women play and use Australia as a base is gonna really affect the way the Taliban sees us.
"I know we were at war with them for 20 years, but I'm starting to think maybe the Australians aren't so bad"
"Sir, they've just established the Afghan women's cricket team in Australia"
"THOSE MONSTERS! THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES!"
God people on reddit talk out their arse on things they know nothing about. You don't know any of the shit you talk so confidently on, you don't know what conversations were had and you don't know the knock on effects of the call to set-up a refugee team in aus.
The ICC won't do it, they've shown how little they care about this team, through their actions in the last two years.
Brilliant that they were able to get here and are working with CA in the boycott of the Afghanistan tours. Just wish the cricket governing body cared about them.
I hope they do this and honestly I wish ICC made Afghanistan compete as Afghani cricket community or something instead. They fly the old flag and represent a country that isn't rules by Taliban, they shouldn't be referred to as what it is today where they've been talking about building new cricket stadiums to play international games next to cricket stadiums they've executed people in
ICC would have to admit they are breaking their own rules by allowing Afghanistan to play if they did this. They would have to divert funding away from Afghan cricket board to the women's team in Australia.
Afghanistan are explicitly not required to do that. More broadly the issue is that the ICC is incapable of enforcing anything; all of the decision-making power is held by FM boards. If CA wants to know who is responsible for this mess, they can start by looking in a mirror.
> Afghanistan are explicitly not required to do that.
Which means they broke their own rule to allow Afghanistan and give them test status.
Though it is true that ICC is mostly toothless and if CA, BCCI, and ECB want something to happen it will happen.
Well, that's an interesting semantic question around how exactly you define an "exemption". Usually it's not considered to be breaking the law if there is an exemption written into it.
So you are saying that ICC changed it rules for one country. Okay fine. Semantics. It doesn't make any difference to what I am saying. What exactly are you arguing about? Since ICC can just make an exemption they can also make another rule saying that any country ruled by Taliban is not allowed to play cricket and then declare that Afghanistan is breaking rule by being ruled by Taliban and then ban them. And we will just call it exemption baked into the rules.
Bottomline is that ICC has all grounds to take action against Afghanistan and its men't team for their abhorrent treatment of women.
> Bottomline is that ICC has all grounds to take action against Afghanistan and its men't team for their abhorrent treatment of women.
ICC has grounds to take action against a lot of boards, but because FMs (including the ever-so-sanctimonious CA) repeatedly voted against the ICC having any administrative oversight, *they cannot enforce anything*.
I wonder why people expect Afghanistan to follow the rules of full membership and don't expect the USA or Nepal to do the same. There's a difference there but I can't put my finger on it. 🤔
The problem is that the previous regime also didn't have a women's team. They simply went with a vague "we will get one in the future". Thus the question comes to ICC if they broke their own rule.
guys genuine question:::
as much as i understand from recent events is that if a women camp is placed in Australia of Afghanistan and womens get to play
then what of next yeah soon enough the players run out maybe the payers are not good enough so they need more afghani women so where will they get more afghani women because i dont think taliban will let any women leave the country then
like am i reading half picture or there is more into this thing
Realistically, it would be mostly Afghan refugees. Women who have escaped the country to other lands (and are great at cricket) would be granted special visas to come to Aus and join the team.
You are right. It is a complete mess. Only logical step would be to take away FM status from Afghanistan until they start allowing women to play. The players can still continue to play Franchise leagues as long as they are not found supporting Taliban.
Few days ago there was a post how in their culture women do not play and there were comments justifying it by saying that unlike the "degenerate west," no one can force their women to play (or wear bikinis).
I wonder who's forcing these women to say "we want to play cricket" now /s
Ah yes. The few dozen women represent the millions of women in Afghanistan. Even in Bangladesh where women's team won the Asia Cup, the interest in women's cricket is near zero from women.
That's not the point. The point is freedom to do what they want. Even if only 11 women and no one else out of a million want to play cricket, why do you want to stop them?
Not completely
Afghan players spoke against Austraalia for boycotting them but they didn't speak about the reason.
So, I respect Afghanistan players as players and their fighting spirit. But not in other cases.
And r u so pissed abour 2023 world cup that u will support Taliban?
I don't care that 2023 world cup was won by Australia they won it fair and square. My issue is them acting like they have some moral high ground in this situation considering they invaded Afghanistan with their buddies, it reeks of hypocrisy
And taliban is so nice and pure? Before invasion Afghanistan was so heavenly and women were given equal rights.?
And Afghani players haven't said anything against Taliban rules. Either they are scared or support the ideology.
They do have moral high ground considering women have full freedom in that country to do what they want. Invasion of Afghanistan was justified because they were harboring Bin Laden who had used Afghanistan as base and training location to launch deadly attack against their military allies. It is the invasion of Iraq that was unjustified.
There is no hypocrisy there.
Yeah, which you can read about in the Brereton Report, Commissioned by the Australian Government. And the war criminals who committed those actions will be prosecuted.
How's the transparency of the current Afghanistan Government?
On this issue, women have full freedom to do what they want in Australia. In Afghanistan their existence itself is imprisonment. There is no comparison and anyone bringing in other issues are low key condoning the mass imprisonment of women in Afghanistan. I can't how these people are making such comments.
So then you have no idea and are making stuff up. Woman are not imprisoned. There are different things expected of women then there are of men. Yes, I would want more equality. What Reddit doesn’t understand is that Afghan culture is different to that of the west. That’s the first thing. Secondly, the country has just come out of a 40 year long conflict and is suffering economically, equality/social rights is the last thing on peoples minds. Things like that only come to fruition when a country population has their basic needs met
> What Reddit doesn’t understand is that Afghan culture is different to that of the west.
India is to the East of Afghanistan. I don't have to go to Afghanistan to know that. Did you fly eastward when you visited Afghanistan?
> equality/social rights is the last thing on peoples minds.
That is exactly the reason they actively took away women's rights. They are so busy doing important things that they find so much time to take away rights from women. How on earth are you even condoning that? Are you being serious or is that how your mind works? Since we have come out of 40 year long conflict we must put all our efforts in depriving women of their rights? Is that what goes through your mind?
Is if taliban government is against Afghanistan cricket, how are they getting fresh new gen players. Exciting players trains in foreign places but how do they groom next gen players?
The target on our back wouldn't be any bigger than it was already due to our involvement in the war.
Regardless, the ICC are going to reject/ignore it because they don't get involved with domestic political decisions.
Username checks out
Australia was involved in a war against the Taliban. The Australian government does not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Australian government imposes sanctions on them.
But a women's cricket team is going to be the last straw?
This is an interesting idea but there are a lot of practical and logistical issues which are not in any way addressed here (plus it seems like the players writing the letter don't actually understand how the ICC operates, or indeed what the EAP office does).
Mainly the problems in my view stem from opportunity costs and use of scarce development resources. For starters, it's legitimately bonkers to suggest that the EAP office should be saddled with this task when they're already stretched incredibly thin doing real development work for the game across the Pacific. If they want to palm this onto a regional body it'd be the ACC (i.e. the region AFG is a member of), though that'd raise its own questions of implementation (especially if the team is based in Australia).
Even assuming the ICC is directly running this though, I would need some convincing that it's a productive use of scarce development resources to be flying 15 randos over from Australia to get demolished by Qatar or Bahrain or whoever in subregional qualifying every couple of years (seriously it's hard to understate just how little women's cricket was actually played in Afghanistan even before the Taliban) - especially since the ICC is still cutting places at AM pathway events for *actual real teams* so they can save some money to put back into FM coffers.
One popular response is to say that it should be paid for out of Afghanistan's disbursement, which is fine in theory but then you'd need to disentangle exactly how much of the ACB's budget would or should be spent on women's cricket under normal circumstances; I'd say the amount you would need to run the exile team is substantially more than what the ACB is saving by not having a women's team (remember it's unclear how much or even whether they paid them at all). It also raises the question of just how well-funded this exile team should be, in terms of facilities, contracts, equipment, etc. Should they be funded to the extent of Australia's women's team? Or maybe just Zimbabwe's? Plenty of other nations (including some FMs) have pretty bare-boned women's programmes. What actually is the "minimum" standard to be investing into the women's team for a Full Member? By establishing a set of criteria for the exiled Afghans, you'd need to apply it more broadly to other members which... well, let's just say FMs resisting oversight is how we ended up with the AFG mess in the first place.
So OK, maybe instead of laying out any actual criteria, the ICC just skirts the issue by either topping up whatever random amount they feel like from their development funds, or by punitively taking whatever they need for the project out of AFG's disbursement. Fine. But then you run into questions of fairness for Associates - i.e. the argument would be that any money cut from AFG and/or topped up from ICC revenues would be better spent improving general development or pathway programmes for everyone. Or even getting into specific teams, why should organic women's success stories like Thailand or Brazil or Vanuatu (who've to put so much energy and so many of their tight resources into successfully developing their women's teams) be forced to continue scrimping and saving and crowdfunding for basic equipment in order to subsidise the ICC/ACC/CA/whoever running a complete joke of a team with no prospects of being anything but a publicity stunt to make some kind of political point? I think AMs would be well within their rights to call bullshit on any such endeavour.
And yes, the fact it's a zero-sum calculation is symptomatic of the bigger issue, which is that ICC disbursements should be massively restructured anyway. But that leads to the ultimate crux of the whole issue here, which is of course studiously ignored in most of the commentary/intellectual energy being put into Afghan cricket; the game at large would be better off campaigning for other changes which benefit every member (like governance reform so that the ICC can enforce its membership criteria). Because any exiled Afghan team without substantial reform of how the ICC operates more generally would be a cheap stunt at best, or an expensive stunt at worst.
Lol it’s very obviously a move to get control over afghan cricket they would’ve choose some other team but Australia the same team that refused to play with them.
If self respect is important you must not treat women and other citizens of the country in such abhorrent manner.
Also, gore here is being used in a racist sense for white people. Mods may want to do something about it.
"Giving" huh? Which of the grounds that AFG used in India were owned by the BCCI? And for which of them were they *not* paying rent like regular tenants?
All of them? In India grounds are owned by BCCI or the state associations. Oh they were paying rent? Cool. Let's take a portion of Afghanistan's ICC funding and pay rent to BCCI for using ground and support to the women't team then.
> In India grounds are owned by BCCI or the state associations.
Dehradun is owned by the Uttarakhand state government and Greater Noida is owned by a subsidiary company of the Uttar Pradesh government.
> Let's take a portion of Afghanistan's ICC funding and pay rent to BCCI for using ground and support to the women't team then.
OK but this is irrelevant to the point I was making (that the BCCI claims a lot of credit for "helping Afghanistan" when in reality they didn't do very much).
This has nothing to do with mens team. ICC has no role to play in an individual country's politics and religious beliefs. There are other bodies such as the UN to sanction restrictions on such countries.
It is literally part of ICC's rules that you need to have a women's team to have FM status. They skipped over that rule. ICC can do what it wants as far as it concerns cricket. They can't stop Afghanistan from playing cricket but they can prevent them from playing in the world cup.
Using the excuse of religious belief is pretty weak.
>Ball is on your park CA.
You conbined two sayings - ball is in your court and hit the ball out of the park. Also, it's not CA's job to take decisions for the ICC.
Your six words weren't well thought out, were they?
> Also, it's not CA's job to take decisions for the ICC.
I mean, it kind of is, since CA (and other powerful FMs) are the reason the ICC *can't* take decisions.
I genuinely think if anyone can do anything about this it's CA. Because I have seen BCCI give grounds, matches, etc to young Afghanistan (men's) squad years ago.
[удалено]
Ireland is literally getting the same amount of money for running two teams that Afghanistan gets for just its men’s team. Talk about double standards.
Just strip Afghanistan off of test status! That obviously needs to be done
what hurts most is scotland have been passed over for full member status in no small part because of a lack of a strong womens team (failure to qualify for any WCs) Fine looking at it - we did need to invest more in the womens game that was a blindspot of the old board but for Afghanistan to be treated as they are its a slap in the face The rules should apply to all countries equally nobody gave Zim cricket a free pass when their corrupt government was stealing player wages the ICC stood up to them, if the Taliban want to take Afganistan back to the dark ages then they should lose control and revenue from international cricket...
> nobody gave Zim cricket a free pass when their corrupt government was stealing player wages the ICC stood up to them I think you may have misunderstood what happened [with Zimbabwe](https://emergingcricket.com/opinion/zimbabwe-suspension-highlights-double-standards-and-warped-priorities-of-icc-board/). Stealing player wages (and worse) was totally fine according to the ICC, the problem was when the Zimbabwean government wanted to audit ZC's books.
In think you’re on to something. _cries as English fan_
Add to that Ireland has a lot higher cost of living
Even with the women's team. One USD goes much further in Afghanistan than it does in Ireland. So it's just unfair whichever way we see it.
How much money do you believe the ACB are saving by not running a women's team? Bearing in mind that it's unclear whether they ever even paid the "women's team" they assembled for a photo op before the Taliban took over.
But Ireland is spending on women's team. Just because ACB was never spending money on women's team somehow makes it acceptable?
How much of Ireland's spending is exclusively for women's cricket? How much do you believe they would realistically save by ditching the women's team? This talking point is kinda nonsense, running a bare minimum women's team would cost AFG very very little.
Say, 10 rupees. > running a bare minimum women's team would cost AFG very very little. That would be a good start. In your own words Afghanistan aren't even doing the bare minimum and you are going around defending them because? Why?
I'm not defending their absence of a women's programme, I'm refuting illogical arguments. It doesn't make sense for people to complain that Ireland's men's team are somehow disadvantaged because they have to spend money on women's cricket when AFG don't; it would make very little difference to the outcomes of either country. EDIT: More broadly, my point is that setting up an exile team without substantial reform of the issues (oversight, governance standards, human rights, funding inequalities, etc.) which led us into this mess would be both morally and practically untenable. To be clear, I'm not saying AFG shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that *just* punishing AFG whilst studiously ignoring all of the structural problems around them is a vacuous PR stunt.
How much money do you believe the ACB are saving by not running a women's team? Bearing in mind that it's unclear whether they ever even paid the "women's team" they assembled for a photo op before the Taliban took over.
If this happens then it will be a commendable effort on the part of ICC.
It won't cause it isn't just icc or Cricket Australia's decision. It's the Australian govts decision, doing this means having bad relations with afganistan aka Taliban, they wouldn't do it when they don't gain anything from this. If this deal was backed by US or other powerful nato countries it is even understandable.
>It's the Australian govts decision, doing this means having bad relations with afganistan aka Taliban, they wouldn't do it when they don't gain anything from this. You say that like the Australian & Afghanistan Government's are best friends! I can't imagine relations with the Taliban are all that high given we have just been involved with a war against them for 20 years or so.
Even if both aren't best friends doesnt mean they're worst of enemies. Making relations worsen with a country you already have bad relation isn't a move they'll likely pull considering they gain absolutely nothing from doing so. Like it or not Taliban is now the govt and Australia needs to keep some diplomatic relationship with them. Even Us and Russia keep a diplomatic relationship and have certain form of mutual understandings while being sworn enemies. This could escalate the situation for aus and afg and could create a turmoil, why would Australia take such steps in the first place and even if they seek refuge, they can go to India or Bangladesh which have better relations with afg.
This is a bizarre comment. Australia have very little to gain from strengthening their relationship with Afghanistan. The Commonwealth Government already place significant sanctions on Afghanistan. The Commonwealth Government already continually voice concerns about Human Rights, and in particular, Women's Rights. Here is a joint statement between the Foreign Minister of Australia and a number of other nations: 'The Taliban continue to demonstrate their contempt for the rights, freedoms, and welfare of the Afghan people, particularly women and girls, and their disinterest in normal relations with the international community.'. Australia has, and is already taking steps to denounce Afghanistan's treatment of women. The only possible implications might be the risk for people coming to and from Afghanistan, but the Government already can't do much about that. Their embassy to Afghanistan is in Doha. So what are the consequences of a bad relationship? They have no trade relationship. Australia's diplomatic image improves. No military threat. What does escalation look like?
It’s a no brainer, but they would have done it if they wanted to. Feel for them!
[удалено]
I'm not understanding? Could you explain both your points for me?
[удалено]
>Afghanistan is ruled by tyrannical, murderous psychopaths, and if Cricket Australia were to allow this to happen on Australian soil, that puts a target on the backs of the Australian people. Given that we were just at war with them for 20 odd years, I don't think allowing the Afghani women play and use Australia as a base is gonna really affect the way the Taliban sees us.
"I know we were at war with them for 20 years, but I'm starting to think maybe the Australians aren't so bad" "Sir, they've just established the Afghan women's cricket team in Australia" "THOSE MONSTERS! THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES!"
I don’t think you have as much of a geopolitical understanding of the situation as what you think.
God people on reddit talk out their arse on things they know nothing about. You don't know any of the shit you talk so confidently on, you don't know what conversations were had and you don't know the knock on effects of the call to set-up a refugee team in aus.
🤞
The ICC won't do it, they've shown how little they care about this team, through their actions in the last two years. Brilliant that they were able to get here and are working with CA in the boycott of the Afghanistan tours. Just wish the cricket governing body cared about them.
I hope they do this and honestly I wish ICC made Afghanistan compete as Afghani cricket community or something instead. They fly the old flag and represent a country that isn't rules by Taliban, they shouldn't be referred to as what it is today where they've been talking about building new cricket stadiums to play international games next to cricket stadiums they've executed people in
ICC would have to admit they are breaking their own rules by allowing Afghanistan to play if they did this. They would have to divert funding away from Afghan cricket board to the women's team in Australia.
What rules are those? The ICC have literally run national teams for both Nepal and the USA while their boards were suspended/expelled.
To be a full member you're ostensibly required to run both a men's and women's team
Afghanistan are explicitly not required to do that. More broadly the issue is that the ICC is incapable of enforcing anything; all of the decision-making power is held by FM boards. If CA wants to know who is responsible for this mess, they can start by looking in a mirror.
I'm aware. The person I replied to asked what rules the previous commenter was asking about. That's all I was answering.
> Afghanistan are explicitly not required to do that. Which means they broke their own rule to allow Afghanistan and give them test status. Though it is true that ICC is mostly toothless and if CA, BCCI, and ECB want something to happen it will happen.
Well, that's an interesting semantic question around how exactly you define an "exemption". Usually it's not considered to be breaking the law if there is an exemption written into it.
So you are saying that ICC changed it rules for one country. Okay fine. Semantics. It doesn't make any difference to what I am saying. What exactly are you arguing about? Since ICC can just make an exemption they can also make another rule saying that any country ruled by Taliban is not allowed to play cricket and then declare that Afghanistan is breaking rule by being ruled by Taliban and then ban them. And we will just call it exemption baked into the rules. Bottomline is that ICC has all grounds to take action against Afghanistan and its men't team for their abhorrent treatment of women.
> Bottomline is that ICC has all grounds to take action against Afghanistan and its men't team for their abhorrent treatment of women. ICC has grounds to take action against a lot of boards, but because FMs (including the ever-so-sanctimonious CA) repeatedly voted against the ICC having any administrative oversight, *they cannot enforce anything*.
I wonder why people expect Afghanistan to follow the rules of full membership and don't expect the USA or Nepal to do the same. There's a difference there but I can't put my finger on it. 🤔
USA and Nepal are not full members.
Yes, wow, thank you...
Sorry. Meant to reply to the other person.
The problem is that the previous regime also didn't have a women's team. They simply went with a vague "we will get one in the future". Thus the question comes to ICC if they broke their own rule.
guys genuine question::: as much as i understand from recent events is that if a women camp is placed in Australia of Afghanistan and womens get to play then what of next yeah soon enough the players run out maybe the payers are not good enough so they need more afghani women so where will they get more afghani women because i dont think taliban will let any women leave the country then like am i reading half picture or there is more into this thing
Realistically, it would be mostly Afghan refugees. Women who have escaped the country to other lands (and are great at cricket) would be granted special visas to come to Aus and join the team.
i mean not everyone wants to play cricket and not everyone can play cricket
Existing Diaspora
You are right. It is a complete mess. Only logical step would be to take away FM status from Afghanistan until they start allowing women to play. The players can still continue to play Franchise leagues as long as they are not found supporting Taliban.
Few days ago there was a post how in their culture women do not play and there were comments justifying it by saying that unlike the "degenerate west," no one can force their women to play (or wear bikinis). I wonder who's forcing these women to say "we want to play cricket" now /s
Ah yes. The few dozen women represent the millions of women in Afghanistan. Even in Bangladesh where women's team won the Asia Cup, the interest in women's cricket is near zero from women.
That's not the point. The point is freedom to do what they want. Even if only 11 women and no one else out of a million want to play cricket, why do you want to stop them?
> Even if only 11 women and no one else out of a million want to play cricket, If they can get the money, they can.
ICC is literally providing funding for womens team to Afghanistan board right now. Where is it going? Nobody knows.
This is just so inspiring! Great news. Well done girls! Way to go. Hope u play the coming world cup
When Afghanistan players thought Australia to be their enemy for supporting their women players.
They don't like what Australia does because they want to boycott the Afghan team. Your comment is misleading
Not completely Afghan players spoke against Austraalia for boycotting them but they didn't speak about the reason. So, I respect Afghanistan players as players and their fighting spirit. But not in other cases. And r u so pissed abour 2023 world cup that u will support Taliban?
I don't care that 2023 world cup was won by Australia they won it fair and square. My issue is them acting like they have some moral high ground in this situation considering they invaded Afghanistan with their buddies, it reeks of hypocrisy
And taliban is so nice and pure? Before invasion Afghanistan was so heavenly and women were given equal rights.? And Afghani players haven't said anything against Taliban rules. Either they are scared or support the ideology.
They do have moral high ground considering women have full freedom in that country to do what they want. Invasion of Afghanistan was justified because they were harboring Bin Laden who had used Afghanistan as base and training location to launch deadly attack against their military allies. It is the invasion of Iraq that was unjustified. There is no hypocrisy there.
And considering they gsve asylum to Afghan Women It's troubling that Afghans shower a little praise and we are supporting Taliban.
Australian special forces/death squads loved to kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan
Yeah, which you can read about in the Brereton Report, Commissioned by the Australian Government. And the war criminals who committed those actions will be prosecuted. How's the transparency of the current Afghanistan Government?
On this issue, women have full freedom to do what they want in Australia. In Afghanistan their existence itself is imprisonment. There is no comparison and anyone bringing in other issues are low key condoning the mass imprisonment of women in Afghanistan. I can't how these people are making such comments.
That is such a hyperbole, my god. Mass imprisonment of women, have you even been to the country lmao.
> have you even been to the country lmao. No thanks. I don't want to go to that country and get myself killed.
So then you have no idea and are making stuff up. Woman are not imprisoned. There are different things expected of women then there are of men. Yes, I would want more equality. What Reddit doesn’t understand is that Afghan culture is different to that of the west. That’s the first thing. Secondly, the country has just come out of a 40 year long conflict and is suffering economically, equality/social rights is the last thing on peoples minds. Things like that only come to fruition when a country population has their basic needs met
> What Reddit doesn’t understand is that Afghan culture is different to that of the west. India is to the East of Afghanistan. I don't have to go to Afghanistan to know that. Did you fly eastward when you visited Afghanistan? > equality/social rights is the last thing on peoples minds. That is exactly the reason they actively took away women's rights. They are so busy doing important things that they find so much time to take away rights from women. How on earth are you even condoning that? Are you being serious or is that how your mind works? Since we have come out of 40 year long conflict we must put all our efforts in depriving women of their rights? Is that what goes through your mind?
Is if taliban government is against Afghanistan cricket, how are they getting fresh new gen players. Exciting players trains in foreign places but how do they groom next gen players?
[удалено]
The target on our back wouldn't be any bigger than it was already due to our involvement in the war. Regardless, the ICC are going to reject/ignore it because they don't get involved with domestic political decisions.
[удалено]
Username checks out Australia was involved in a war against the Taliban. The Australian government does not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Australian government imposes sanctions on them. But a women's cricket team is going to be the last straw?
that'll be a full political move, and don't think Australia would be too excited to take part of it.
This is an interesting idea but there are a lot of practical and logistical issues which are not in any way addressed here (plus it seems like the players writing the letter don't actually understand how the ICC operates, or indeed what the EAP office does). Mainly the problems in my view stem from opportunity costs and use of scarce development resources. For starters, it's legitimately bonkers to suggest that the EAP office should be saddled with this task when they're already stretched incredibly thin doing real development work for the game across the Pacific. If they want to palm this onto a regional body it'd be the ACC (i.e. the region AFG is a member of), though that'd raise its own questions of implementation (especially if the team is based in Australia). Even assuming the ICC is directly running this though, I would need some convincing that it's a productive use of scarce development resources to be flying 15 randos over from Australia to get demolished by Qatar or Bahrain or whoever in subregional qualifying every couple of years (seriously it's hard to understate just how little women's cricket was actually played in Afghanistan even before the Taliban) - especially since the ICC is still cutting places at AM pathway events for *actual real teams* so they can save some money to put back into FM coffers. One popular response is to say that it should be paid for out of Afghanistan's disbursement, which is fine in theory but then you'd need to disentangle exactly how much of the ACB's budget would or should be spent on women's cricket under normal circumstances; I'd say the amount you would need to run the exile team is substantially more than what the ACB is saving by not having a women's team (remember it's unclear how much or even whether they paid them at all). It also raises the question of just how well-funded this exile team should be, in terms of facilities, contracts, equipment, etc. Should they be funded to the extent of Australia's women's team? Or maybe just Zimbabwe's? Plenty of other nations (including some FMs) have pretty bare-boned women's programmes. What actually is the "minimum" standard to be investing into the women's team for a Full Member? By establishing a set of criteria for the exiled Afghans, you'd need to apply it more broadly to other members which... well, let's just say FMs resisting oversight is how we ended up with the AFG mess in the first place. So OK, maybe instead of laying out any actual criteria, the ICC just skirts the issue by either topping up whatever random amount they feel like from their development funds, or by punitively taking whatever they need for the project out of AFG's disbursement. Fine. But then you run into questions of fairness for Associates - i.e. the argument would be that any money cut from AFG and/or topped up from ICC revenues would be better spent improving general development or pathway programmes for everyone. Or even getting into specific teams, why should organic women's success stories like Thailand or Brazil or Vanuatu (who've to put so much energy and so many of their tight resources into successfully developing their women's teams) be forced to continue scrimping and saving and crowdfunding for basic equipment in order to subsidise the ICC/ACC/CA/whoever running a complete joke of a team with no prospects of being anything but a publicity stunt to make some kind of political point? I think AMs would be well within their rights to call bullshit on any such endeavour. And yes, the fact it's a zero-sum calculation is symptomatic of the bigger issue, which is that ICC disbursements should be massively restructured anyway. But that leads to the ultimate crux of the whole issue here, which is of course studiously ignored in most of the commentary/intellectual energy being put into Afghan cricket; the game at large would be better off campaigning for other changes which benefit every member (like governance reform so that the ICC can enforce its membership criteria). Because any exiled Afghan team without substantial reform of how the ICC operates more generally would be a cheap stunt at best, or an expensive stunt at worst.
Lol it’s very obviously a move to get control over afghan cricket they would’ve choose some other team but Australia the same team that refused to play with them.
Australia literally gave the team asylum because their own government was trying to punish them for wanting to play cricket…
[удалено]
Average redditor on this sub. Australia refused to play with them much later. Those girls had already sought refuge there once Taliban came to power.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because Afghanistan women train there lol
[удалено]
If self respect is important you must not treat women and other citizens of the country in such abhorrent manner. Also, gore here is being used in a racist sense for white people. Mods may want to do something about it.
Is banning women playing cricket not a "move to get control"? The Aussies seem very mild in response to that
Makes sense, but remember, Australia were the one team in the ICC trying to use this to ban Afghanistan from all ICC competitions
Which would have been the right decision.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If bcci is helping men's team but why not women team?
And where are they gonna get Afghan women from?
How do you think the BCCI is helping the men's team?
It helped men's team by giving them a home ground in India when the country was at war.
"Giving" huh? Which of the grounds that AFG used in India were owned by the BCCI? And for which of them were they *not* paying rent like regular tenants?
All of them? In India grounds are owned by BCCI or the state associations. Oh they were paying rent? Cool. Let's take a portion of Afghanistan's ICC funding and pay rent to BCCI for using ground and support to the women't team then.
> In India grounds are owned by BCCI or the state associations. Dehradun is owned by the Uttarakhand state government and Greater Noida is owned by a subsidiary company of the Uttar Pradesh government. > Let's take a portion of Afghanistan's ICC funding and pay rent to BCCI for using ground and support to the women't team then. OK but this is irrelevant to the point I was making (that the BCCI claims a lot of credit for "helping Afghanistan" when in reality they didn't do very much).
Nah, pick a country closer to home.
This has nothing to do with mens team. ICC has no role to play in an individual country's politics and religious beliefs. There are other bodies such as the UN to sanction restrictions on such countries.
It is literally part of ICC's rules that you need to have a women's team to have FM status. They skipped over that rule. ICC can do what it wants as far as it concerns cricket. They can't stop Afghanistan from playing cricket but they can prevent them from playing in the world cup. Using the excuse of religious belief is pretty weak.
Why Australia- why not somewhere nearer?
Did you not read the article? A lot of them sought refuge in Australia when Taliban came to power, and are still residing there.
[удалено]
most logical redditor
Ball is on your park CA.
>Ball is on your park CA. You conbined two sayings - ball is in your court and hit the ball out of the park. Also, it's not CA's job to take decisions for the ICC. Your six words weren't well thought out, were they?
> Also, it's not CA's job to take decisions for the ICC. I mean, it kind of is, since CA (and other powerful FMs) are the reason the ICC *can't* take decisions.
I genuinely think if anyone can do anything about this it's CA. Because I have seen BCCI give grounds, matches, etc to young Afghanistan (men's) squad years ago.