I don't understand why they called off the strike without actually agreeing any details of how the players' demands are to be met. Why did they even bother calling a strike? The India series is a big weapon in the cricketers' hands. If no details of the 11 demands are agreed until after the India series, then they lose that leverage. I don't understand the logic.
Our "journalists" have now had opportunities at multiple press conferences to ask the cricketers why they went for the threat of strike, rather than first approaching the BCB privately to make their demands. But on no occasion has anyone asked them point blank why they opted for a strike from the get go. Calling a strike certainly was effective, and the threat of boycotting the India series was particularly powerful, but why was that their very first move? Had the BCB previously told them to eff off with their demands?
Why did they decide to include the revenue sharing demand subsequent to the 11 original demands? Seems like too important a demand to have forgotten to include at the outset. It was almost included as an afterthought. So, are the players going to strike if revenue sharing is not agreed to?
Were the players asked why they did not approach Mashrafe to join their cause initially? Why did the media not question them about this?
Is Papoinna still going to hunt for the "instigator" of this "conspiracy"? Our "journalists" appear not to have asked.
What the hell was Obeid Nizam, management of Beximco/Dhaka Dynamites, doing at yesterday's meeting between the BCB and cricketers?
After reading Cricinfo, Dhaka Tribune, Daily Star, Prothom Alo and Samakal over the last three days, I have more questions than answers. This is a very confusing saga.
|