[quote author=Portly link=topic=28565.msg736846#msg736846 date=1227967581]
I don't see it that way, Hardcastle. Plenty of people will be going on business trips to India - maybe some of them will be a bit apprehensive, but they will go because that is their job. I doubt whether many people who have booked holidays to India will cancel because of the terrorist episode.
After 9/11 there wasn't a mass exodus of foreigners from the USA, nor from Britain after 7/7.
If there is some technical reason why cricketers are more vulnerable than anybody else, I will withdraw my remarks, but I would like to know what it is.
[/quote]
More vulnerable, playing in an open sports venue, with the media's eye constantly on them? I'd say that makes them vulnerable. If I were in their shoes, I'd not feel to happy about putting my personal safety at risk for a game of cricket of all things. RE 9/11 and 7/7, two events that took place in familiar, western, english speaking countries, not in foreign, perhaps less familiar states, i'd say there'd be a natural bias for any english men to feel less inclined to play there post terrorist activity than they would in the US/UK.
The fact the terrorists went out of their way to get westerners, is the crux of the argument for me. I agree there's a fine line between cowardice and doing the safe/right thing or whatever, but in this case I genuinely think they've done the right thing, regardless of whether they are all collectively breathing a sigh of relief at not getting a good smashing at cricket. Maybe it is a bit of a convenient excuse?