**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Scaly piscine]

Very good piece written by the Guardian today, in the 'Best of the Web' section on cricinfo.

 

[telsor]

yeah hopefully they won't go, Elahi is said to be 'sympathetic' but Olonga said he thinks England would be ostracised by the rest of the cricket world if they dont go.

The ICC 'rule' that applies to this was brought in at the insistance of Pakistan because they got annoyed at teams not going there...if a nation doesn't tour where otherwise able ( there is an exception if a government forbids it so Pak-India have a loophole when things are less friendly ), there are massive fines and the offending nation gets suspended.

The ICC can't make any exceptions without a vote of the member nations and, obviously enough, the ECB can't get the numbers to get this through, so they have to tour.

Don't blame the ICC, blame the boards that make it up! Unfortunately, you can't be sure who votes which way ( if the votes weren't secret, *some* morality might appear ).

Zim obviously wouldn't be in favor.
Pak and SL wont like exceptions as it might hurt them later on.
Ind and Ban will probably go along with Pak/SL ( subcontinent tends to vote as a block ) Ban also wont want Zim out as it widens the gap between them and the rest.
SA govt will pressure their board so as not to upset Mugabe.

Theres 6 votes 'against' letting the ECB off..All are speculative of course

One thing is fairly certain though...few countries will be making any new agreements to tour ( you can't be fined/suspended for not touring if you don't have an agreed tour ).

 

[Richard]

So did Ramprakash. And Hick. And Salisbury. And Ormond.

And Butcher, and Hussain, and Stewart, and Thorpe, and Atherton, and Knight, and Hick (in one-dayers), and countless other successful England players.

 

[Richard]

yeah hopefully they won't go, Elahi is said to be 'sympathetic' but Olonga said he thinks England would be ostracised by the rest of the cricket world if they dont go.

Which one? Salim, Manzoor, or someone else?
Mani, by any chance?

 

[Richard]

Probably a 'List A' game, Vaughan's average for those isn't too crash hot either.

The first game most certainly was not a List-A Limited-Overs game - it was a 12-a-sider. Only proper games (ie 11-a-side) matches get the proper title.
The second one was a proper game, whether it was a List-A Limited-Overs game I don't know that anyone is actually certain.
Why Namibia agreed to the first game being a 12-a-side affair I don't know; they said they wanted to do the thing properly. Then they gave in.
Can't stand these meaningless 12(+)-a-side games. Totally pointless.

 

[Richard]

Looks like another toothless bit of bowling from Gough & Wharf.

Yes, of course, he who can't understand the importance of bowling economically wouldn't understand that Gough actually bowled perfectly acceptibly. Can't remember Wharf's figures OTOMH, but it's not really surprising if he was poor - he's not exactly had the best of county careers, has he?

 

[Richard]

They're on borrowed time. But as for Giles, step aside Derek Underwood!

What, because he took 3 wickets at more than 5-an-over against a side not of international class (and possibly not of English domestic class, even)?
Sorry?
One of the larger overreactions of all-time, this post!

 

[Richard]

I hope England don't end up batting first too many more times this tour, if we're defending a score below 250 it could get a bit dodgy.

Yes, the mighty Zimbabwean batting are oh so likely to manage to score 250, aren't they?

 

[Richard]

The old dammed if you do and dammed if you don't rule.

If you get runs against weak opposition (ie Nambia, Zimbabwe etc.), its "how the opposition is weak so of course you should get runs", but if you don't get runs it is "he's (insert name) not good enough".

So one bad game and he is declared a no-hoper.

Give him a break.

The best thing to do with these games is totally ignore them.
Then you're not damned for a meaningless failure in a meaningless 12-a-side game, nor do you get credit for a meaningless performance.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Can't stand these meaningless 12(+)-a-side games. Totally pointless.

I totally agree, they seem a complete waste of time (bit like englands football friendlies). But the fact is in this day and age where tours are short and sharp with little to no build up, teams need to get as many players match practice in the conditions as they can. If that means playing 12-a-side games then so be it.

 

[Langeveldt]

The best thing to do with these games is totally ignore them.
Then you're not damned for a meaningless failure in a meaningless 12-a-side game, nor do you get credit for a meaningless performance.

Might have been a waste of time for England.. But it was the biggest day in their oppositions sporting history.. And they competed pretty well.. Those two matches have 10X more value than the pointless dross we are about to see in Zimbobwe..

 

[superkingdave]

The first game most certainly was not a List-A Limited-Overs game - it was a 12-a-sider. Only proper games (ie 11-a-side) matches get the proper title.
The second one was a proper game, whether it was a List-A Limited-Overs game I don't know that anyone is actually certain.
Why Namibia agreed to the first game being a 12-a-side affair I don't know; they said they wanted to do the thing properly. Then they gave in.
Can't stand these meaningless 12(+)-a-side games. Totally pointless.

Fact was the ground was in a poor state, the game wouldn't normaly have gone ahead but Namibia were desperate to play the game, so they acceeded to England's 12 man request as England were agreable of playing on a pretty unfit ptich.

 

[Richard]

Might have been a waste of time for England.. But it was the biggest day in their oppositions sporting history.. And they competed pretty well.. Those two matches have 10X more value than the pointless dross we are about to see in Zimbobwe..

The first one would've been a hell of a lot more valuable if it'd been a proper game.
The achievements of the achievers would actually have counted for something.

 

[Richard]

I totally agree, they seem a complete waste of time (bit like englands football friendlies). But the fact is in this day and age where tours are short and sharp with little to no build up, teams need to get as many players match practice in the conditions as they can. If that means playing 12-a-side games then so be it.

Just one of the many steps in the cheapening of the game at the level below international.
Damages the game IMO - they're all of equal importance. Imagine what would happen if games started getting stripped of ODI status because the teams had agreed to play 12\14-a-side.

 

[Richard]

I totally agree, they seem a complete waste of time (bit like englands football friendlies). But the fact is in this day and age where tours are short and sharp with little to no build up, teams need to get as many players match practice in the conditions as they can. If that means playing 12-a-side games then so be it.

Just one of the many steps in the cheapening of the game at the level below international.
Damages the game IMO - they're all of equal importance. Imagine what would happen if games started getting stripped of ODI or Test status because the teams had agreed to play 12\14-a-side.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The first one would've been a hell of a lot more valuable if it'd been a proper game.
The achievements of the achievers would actually have counted for something.

There wouldn't have been any difference in their approaches..

 

[Richard]

So?
There would have been difference in the status. And hence the validity of the individual achievements.
No individual achievement, or team result, counts for anything unless the game is a proper, 11-a-side, game of cricket.

 

[Richard]

Fact was the ground was in a poor state, the game wouldn't normaly have gone ahead but Namibia were desperate to play the game, so they acceeded to England's 12 man request as England were agreable of playing on a pretty unfit ptich.

Oh.
What a shame England are more worried about preparing for something they could sleep for a month before and still walk through than helping the development of the game at levels below themselves.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So?
There would have been difference in the status. And hence the validity of the individual achievements.
No individual achievement, or team result, counts for anything unless the game is a proper, 11-a-side, game of cricket.

Balls. The game was all about match practice, nowt more.

 

[Langeveldt]

Balls. The game was all about match practice, nowt more.

I think he meant the achievements of the Namibians..