England prepare to scrap Zimbabwe tour

[Richard]

http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EpZVpyAyEpKaMSkMEn.shtml

Dateline Harare, February 2003 - England pull out of the 2003 ICC Cricket World Cup Group game against Zimbabwe, delivering a killer blow to their hopes of qualifying for the second phase. The reason? Safety Concerns.

Dateline London, May 2003 - England give Zimbabwe assurances that they will tour in October 2004 to ensure Zimbabwe's participation in the 2003 English summer series. Zimbabwe tour to protests and are summarily defeated.

Dateline London, January 2004 - England are on the brink of withdrawing from their scheduled tour of Zimbabwe (yes, the same one mentioned earlier) due to "moral concerns". Where's the consistency, I ask?

Fact - the Zimbabwean dictatorship of Mugabe is chock-full of human rights abuses, electoral vote-rigging and all manner of unpleasantries.

Fact - selection to the Zimbabwean national team has racial bias. The recent selections and treatment of players like Blessing Mahwire, Jordan Nicolle and Alester Maregwede are proof of this.

Fact - it was perfectly morally acceptable for Zimbabwe to tour England in May.

Fact - no International side has been the victim of any kind of threat to their safety in Zimbabwe in recent years.

So... when the situation decrees that the ECB benefits financially, moral concerns go out of the proverbial window. It is clear that the façade of safety concern has been shattered, yet now the ECB retreat behind a paper-thin veil of on-off morality.

There is no excuse for the ECB's stance in this situation - it smacks of cowardice and desire for money and kudos from New Labour (as ever reluctant to lean off the fence).

You either conduct relations with Zimbabwe or you do not. Trade is still completely permitted. Picking and choosing to suit the barometer of popularity is unacceptable. There can be no half measures in this kind of situation.

With regards to players not wishing to go - I'm sure that you can find 15 who are willing. If you're reading this, Graveney/Fletcher/Lamb, my e-mail address is at the bottom, I can bowl leg-breaks and googlies - and I'll play for free.

Whilst Zimbabwe - in my opinion - have no rights to a seat at the International table whilst the tyrant remains in power, the fact remains that they do, and whilst they do it is not for the ECB to twist the situation in order to extract money out of it.

There is no way The ECB can be construed as "benefiting financially" at any point. There are instances where do\don't lose-out financially comes into play but never can there be any financial gain.
Fact - any financial loss will hit all levels of the game hard. True that there are more important things than cricket, but also almost beyond question that cricket can do nothing to change the Zimbabwe situation.
Therefore it would do best to avoid damaging losses.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ignoring the morality of it all when Zimbabwe came here so they benefitted from gate receipts and TV rights, and now calling 'morality' when Vodafone threaten to withdraw the sponsorship.

It's got more than a little to do with it.

 

[Richard]

And can you blame The ECB for not wanting to lose money that, quite frankly, would be massively damaging to lose?
I can find no fault, unless there was genuine certainty that to refuse to play Zimbabwe would have an impact on Mugabe (and on the contrary, there is evidence that it won't).
The ECB are in a position of immense responsibility - the entire future of the English game is at stake.
Context is always as necessary as priorities.
It is a really a no-win situation - they lose money either way. Just that they get the sympathy of a load if ill-informed fools by withdrawing.
I have inestimable sympathy for The ECB at this point because they have no option but to take massive risks either way.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And can you blame The ECB for not wanting to lose money that, quite frankly, would be massively damaging to lose?
I can find no fault, unless there was genuine certainty

No, but they can at least come out and say it, rather than mincing around under cover of morality.

 

[Richard]

They know perfectly well that if they said that all the "cricket has no morals" rubbish would be spouted-out by those ill-informed fools yet again.
At least with this angle they avert that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Which opens them up to these allegations of double-standards. It's no win in the current climate.

Wonder if Australia's tour of Zimbabwe in May will be affected?

 

[Richard]

Quite. It's a lose-lose thing. Sadly, there's no small-loss, big-loss thing.
As for Australia judging by the comments of Taylor etc. on C9 the other Australia Day, the Australians have far less of a problem touring - they realise there won't be any effect on Mugabe by one team withdrawing.
And hence there is no point in them not playing cricket they should play.

 

[Craig]

I dont know what background Tony Blair has in the game but he still doesnt realise it wouldnt make one iota what happens.

Perhaps if John Major were PM it nmight have been different.

 

[Richard]

I still know who I'd prefer.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I dont know what background Tony Blair has in the game but he still doesnt realise it wouldnt make one iota what happens.

Perhaps if John Major were PM it nmight have been different.

The least assertive PM of our generation, you mean?

Neither of them have political philosophies that extend beyond self-self-self, however.