That seems somewhat more feasible than the other way round!
I have to agree with everything that Neil so eloquently said in his essay. What I do wonder is, would South Africa been consigned to the wilderness - where it deserved to be because of the repugnant racist policy of apartheid - if the current ICC diktat had prevailed then? Can someone remind me whether or not there was a trade embargo in place - age befogs the memory!
Whether there was or not, politics were allowed to hold sway then. Now we have a regime that is every bit as nasty, perhaps more so and certainly a damn sight more brutal, and nobody who is in a position to do anything about it is doing so. Why? Are the politicians scared of the reaction from other African states? Why is the ICC acting like the three monkeys over this? If there was ever a rock-solid case for suspending a country then this is it. But try telling that to Mani and the rest of the ICC. As Des Wilson has said, they are totally amoral, as is anyone who supports the ICC line.
Zimbabwe must be suspended until that monster who is destroying that beautiful country is shaking hands with the Devil, Zanu-PF is destroyed and there is a respponsible government in place.
Sorry if this is so political - I hate it when politics and sport, especially cricket, collide - but what is going on in Zim, the poverty, rampant Aids, corruption, torture, you name it it's happening, puts sport very much in the shade.
Peter
Three cheers to Stuart MacGill - perhaps more players should put there heads above the parapet.