Pakistan just beat new Zealand by 138 runs They can beat India anytime more powerful team with young players not old guns like sehvaag and sachin both are losers always play for their runs not for the nation
Re: Excuse you'LL
by Talisman on Nov 04, 2009 09:24 AM
Just so you know, India is ranked no. 2 in the world in one-dayers. India has done well in tests.
Pakistan has a decent captain. Buy junkies like you spoil the party.
Re: Excuse you'LL
by Pavan S on Nov 04, 2009 01:48 AM
LOL! Ronny beta... try your hand in the Laguhter challenge or some silly show like that... & take it from me, you will win hands down!
It has to come from no other team. It is possible that those players may never participate in a war front or in an army action for peaceful/rehabilitation processes. Their duty could be just to play for their team. They may not be jawans in the real sense. Still the decision, citing security reasons of all possible reasons, exposes the apathetic public mind. After realising the blunder, they say administrative slip up. We are in a country where majority of work/duty of leaders and top government official is damage control due to slip-ups of administration and leaders. And they give reasons for persons like Farooq Abdullah to pursue his political career for another few years.
Re: They serve whom?
by exoticbronze on Nov 03, 2009 11:41 PM
You obviously have no idea about Services team, and the way the services function.
Your statement about the services palyers "..those players may never participate in a war front or in an army action for peaceful/ rehabilitation processes. Their duty could be just to play for their team. They may not be jawans in the real sense. " is WRONG, and LAUGHABLE. Every jawan in the Services is a soldier first, and goes through all courses/training/postings as others. Exceptions are made and players bound for olympics/world equestrian events etc are deputed away from their UNITS for the events and preparations. HOWEVER they have to make up for lost training and postings thereafter.
Even the Aide-de-Camp (ADC an officer) to the Chief of the Army General Malik, was sent to Kashmir, and he was killed in action. When the ADC to the Army Chief, can be sent to battle, Jawans participating in sports will not be spared.
So stop imagining 'It is possible that those players may ...' statements, to support your pre-conceived conclusion.
LOL...u seem to think that Services Cricket, Hockey, Horse riding teams, consist of club players recruited straight from clubs across the country, who are soldiers only in name and other than wearing Army blazers and uniforms have nothing in common with regular jawans! Infact the reality is the other way round.
Re: Re: They serve whom?
by aslam khan on Nov 04, 2009 09:23 AM
well said Mr.Bronze, they are the real soldiers, but unfortunately they have to obey orders that's all. They wont cite security reasons for playing anywhere. It's a big shame on the administrators of services,whose decision had brought a bad name on the services and our country as well. these type of people who are there in the administration are not administrators but they should be called traitors of services.
Re: Re: They serve whom?
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Nov 04, 2009 12:53 AM
For a healthy discussion here, I would suggest not to just jump into conclusions without understanding the writings. And don't react to words. There are thousands of athletes outside Services who also go through tough training sessions. I just said these services athletes and sports persons could be no different. I did not expect this part of the sentence "a war front or in an army action for peaceful/rehabilitation processes" will miss anybody's eyes. True, I tried to use minimum words here. It was because what I emphasised was in the later part. Don't treat this as a group discussion to earn a career. I wonder why many here pick up the wrong threads and push heady arguments with LOUD words. In this case, at least don't expect that everybody will believe that all jawans participate in wars or peaceful/ rehabilitation processes (flood rescue actions and the like). There will be hundreds of examples in each Indian Panchayats for service personnel not participated in Action. Best wishes. Keep cool head. Regards.
Re: Re: Re: They serve whom?
by exoticbronze on Nov 04, 2009 01:04 AM
"There will be hundreds of examples in each Indian Panchayats for service personnel not participated in Action."
BRIALLIANT! Wow, hope you yourself can make sense of most of what you write!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They serve whom?
by exoticbronze on Nov 04, 2009 01:16 AM
Just curious, where did you complete your schooling from. I really like your logical reasoning and your way with words.
It has to come from no other team. It is possible that those players may never participate in a war front or in an army action for peaceful/rehabilitation processes. Their duty could be just to play for their team. They may not be jawans in the real sense. Still the decision, citing security reasons of all possible reasons, exposes the apathetic public mind. After realising the blunder, they say administrative slip up. We are in a country where majority of work/duty of leaders and top government official is damage control due to slip-ups of administration and leaders. And they give reasons for persons like Farooq Abdullah to pursue his political career for another few years.
IT IS SHAME THAT OF ALL THE TEAMS, A TEAM FROM THE SERVICES DID NOT FIND IT SAFE TO PLAY IN J&K ? THOSE OFFICERS CONCERNED IN TAKING THIS RIDICULOUS DECISION HAVE TO BE PUNISHED
WHAT MSG ARE WE TRYING TO SEND OT TO THE NATION ? DEFENCE SERVICES DO NOT FIND IT SAFE ENOUGH TO PLAY IN J&K ??
Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 03, 2009 10:04 PM
Interestingly to the right of this article, among the hyperlinked new headlines, is an article about 'Farooq Abdullah skips swearing in ceremony'...The article explains how Farooq decided not to show up for the Swearing in ceremony of the PM/Government, and instead decided to visit South Africa.
Ironic, that I found that article immediately after reading this one about how livid Farooq is about Services team skipping a cricket match!
Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 03, 2009 10:00 PM
If Services do not find J&K safe, I would go by their assessment. Their decision to play or not play is not a message to the nation.
When the services team plays cricket they do not go with tanks and bullet proof vest, they are on the field like ordinary players. However militants would not treat them like other teams, but as 'easy targets' in an open field.
Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Nov 03, 2009 11:22 PM
But they could have and should have played like players of any other team, who also will be in the field without tanks and bullet proof vests. Sure it is not a message to this nation. Do we listen to messages other than SMS?
Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 03, 2009 11:28 PM
You still did not get the point. Let me try once again.
Sure the other players would also be with bullet proof vests. But terrorists have not been fighting pitched battles in Kashmir with these other players. The terrorists have been fighting with Servicemen. But the cricket ground is the one place where the service men would be without their tanks and vests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Nov 04, 2009 12:34 AM
Keep cool head M. exoticbronze. Worry about own head. I mean don't make personalised remarks assuming you have the last word or bronze is the toughest material. How you missed the politic, strategic and diplomatic impacts of the poor cowardly decision? You may pooh-pooh politics, strategy and diplomacy because you are not trying to look things through the eyes of a common man. With due respect to service personnel, I would say looking things through such compartmentalised eyes will give you only a false vision.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 04, 2009 01:07 AM
Heres another gem from you..."I mean don't make personalised remarks assuming you have the last word or bronze is the toughest material."
Oops, I just realized that I had the last word. So you will feel compelled to write another 'convoluted' message:)
Re: Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 03, 2009 11:29 PM
typo...I meant to write "Sure the other players would also be withOUT bullet proof vests."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Nov 04, 2009 01:19 AM
(No reply box found in your last 'last word' message. So replying here.) Why picking up wrong threads always? At least see we have a common point on Farooq. I am averse to fierce arguments. But willing to go gently till the end. Keep cool. Regards.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SERVICES DISQUALIFIED
by exoticbronze on Nov 04, 2009 01:51 AM
That is the point I was making... When you yourself suffer from this 'I must have the last word' disease, dont you think you are the wrong person to be preaching others against having the 'last word'. LOL.
Anyway, for the record, I am done. Just one last request. Could you please reveal which part of the country you are from. (My guess, based on your convoluted sentences and diction, would be Tamil Nadu.)
