icc cals for suspension of zimbabwe in tests.

[BoyBrumby]

They weren't suspended by the ICC, they didn't play because of the Gleneangles Agreement and other countries refusing to play them. Why don't the Australian government etc do something like this instead of whining to the ICC.

That isn't what you said tho, you said "Doesn't matter if politics and sports mix, it's only a problem when the quality of the team is down" SA's clearly wasn't (they were arguably the strongest team in the world at the time of their suspension) & I'm sure they would argue that the selection of their team along racial lines was an internal issue & no one else's business.

 

[LA ICE-E]

There's no point in that. Zimbabwe is a case that doesn't require formalities to be followed.

It wouldn't. It very obviously requires more than that. But there are plenty of good reasons for cricketing isolation anyway.

It always requires formalities when its done officially and by the main governing body at that.

What are the reasons other than that the cricketing one which is quality of their game.

That's completely unimportant. The issues at stake were nothing to do with the game of cricket - while it'd have been nice for SA to have played WI, Ind and Pak, them not doing so was nothing to do with their suspension. It was due to broader issues. And it was undertaken by the 1970s equivalent of what is now I$C$C.

Yeah you're right because India did play Pakistan in the 2000s or somthing like that and that's not the issue but the reason they were suspended was because of the agreement and no one wanted to play them which is not the case with zimbabwe.

This is BS! Why should the people of Zimbabwe be stopped from watching/playing cricket because of the idiot who happens to run the country? I think it's so unfair but at the same time I understand why the ICC have done it. Instead of going to war with Iraq, the UK and USA should have gotten rid of him.

Seriously why did we go to war in the middle east that we can't win and not go to war with this guy...oh wait oil....

That isn't what you said tho, you said "Doesn't matter if politics and sports mix, it's only a problem when the quality of the team is down" SA's clearly wasn't (they were arguably the strongest team in the world at the time of their suspension) & I'm sure they would argue that the selection of their team along racial lines was an internal issue & no one else's business.

yeah it is and as far as I know there's racial selection going on in South African right now...
and you know what that ruined a lot of good cricketers carriers and not playing them didn't really change anything so yeah it shouldn't have been suspended but then again none of the countries wanted to play them while it's not the same case with Zimbabwe.

 

[Richard]

It always requires formalities when its done officially and by the main governing body at that.

No, it doesn't. ****loads of under-the-table stuff gets done - not that it'd be informal in any way to say "your country is a disgrace, and that includes your cricket team, we don't want you around here until things change".

What are the reasons other than that the cricketing one which is quality of their game.
Yeah you're right because India did play Pakistan in the 2000s or somthing like that and that's not the issue but the reason they were suspended was because of the agreement and no one wanted to play them which is not the case with zimbabwe.

There are few people who want to play Zimbawbe, if any. And the reasons are exactly the same as those why no-one wanted to play South Africa in the early 1970s. However, the difference this time is that there is more of a "head" organisation - in those days, England and Australia ruled the roost. Had that still been the case, Zimbabwe would have gone long ago.

yeah it is and as far as I know there's racial selection going on in South African right now...
and you know what that ruined a lot of good cricketers carriers and not playing them didn't really change anything so yeah it shouldn't have been suspended but then again none of the countries wanted to play them while it's not the same case with Zimbabwe.

Let's try again... the selection was not the problem. The reason South Africa were shunned was because of the general situation in the country, not because of the fact that one of the things affected was the cricket team.

 

[Chemosit]

Isolation through sport cannot be compared in the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe. With South Africa, sporting isolation hit the people who were responsible for the political situation. I'm not saying stopping SA from playing cricket or rugby brought about an end to apartheid, but at least it affected people who care about the sports involved.

Mugabe & co have proved time and time again that they have no care for cricket or those that play it. Not playing them would not make much difference other than to remove a possible soap box - a platform that would probably be ignored anyway.

From a purely cricketing point of view, I think this is actually a good step, but does not go far enough. It would have been the perfect opportunity to open the door to the top associates by saying that the winner of the next Intercontinental Cup would have a shot at Test status for a short period (say 2 years - the length of the next Intercontinental Cup). If this was repeated on a regular basis on a promotion-relegation model with the I.C winner playing off against the lowest ranked Test team, then only the top 11 teams in the World would ever be afforded full Test status. Sanctity of Test standards would be left intact, but the upcoming cricket countries would have a clear opportunity to bridge the gap to Test cricket.

It would need a bit of re jigging of schedules, but most countries seem to do plenty of that anyway. It would however mean that one of the current Test sides could face relegation in the future - that alone probably enough to stop them voting such a measure through unfortunately, however good for the game it would be.

 

[Richard]

Isolation through sport cannot be compared in the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe. With South Africa, sporting isolation hit the people who were responsible for the political situation. I'm not saying stopping SA from playing cricket or rugby brought about an end to apartheid, but at least it affected people who care about the sports involved.

Mugabe & co have proved time and time again that they have no care for cricket or those that play it. Not playing them would not make much difference other than to remove a possible soap box - a platform that would probably be ignored anyway.

Oh, quite. It's extremely unlikely to make any difference at all, as long as Mugabe retains support from his "brothers in Africa". But when there are no good reasons to continue to play them, you might as well get shot of them and give it a try.

 

[Craig]

This is a load of cobblers IMO, of course sports and politics mix, they go hand-in-hand.

I think one prime example being when Sir Garry Sobers had a meeting with the former leader of Rhodesia, Ian Smith and said what a nice guy he was and as a result caused a pretty big uproar in the West Indies and in Africa, to the point he was told he wasn't welcome in some islands unless he apologised, and as a result the India's tour of the West Indies was saved since India's PM wouldn't let them tour until he apologied for his comments. You can go and read Sobers autobiography if you don't believe me.

Others included the banning of South Africa, the Indian and Pakistani teams being banned from playing Tests against each other for much of the 90s, and then after 98/99 until again in 2004 over who really has the Kasmir region.

And you don't have to go to cricket, I can find plenty of sports with similar examples.