England should not let zimbabwe tour now

[Langeveldt]

I saw that posed to someone representing Zim on Dateline, he said people are starving to death they don't care about watching cricket. Touring or accepting a tour from Zim would however show the Zim people that the int. community IMO are not that serious about dealing with the problems. They'll look at the successful boycott against SAF and wonder why they are not getting the same support.

Just because apartheid finished after the sporting boycott of SA, doesn't mean that it had anything to do with it's downfall..

If I was Zimbabwean, I'd be more concerned about Mr.Mbeki sitting in his gravy train next door propping up the ZANU regime than I would with what a bunch of cricketers were doing with their off-season.. The worst culprits are, as usual, the idle politicians on my doorstep.. Hell, even my former university used to educate a load of the Zimbabwean ruling elite's kids.. These are the people with blood on their hands..

 

[MrHat]

Such a bunch of romantics in the cricketing media at the moment.. No way would a tour, home or away by Zim, make an iota of difference to anything in the political spectrum. However the consequences of ostracizing Zimbabwe, are too massive for the ECB to contemplate.. Maybe they could get Mr.Stanford to bail them out?

Hopefully Stanfords millions might give them the backbone they've lacked for so long. The boycott would be an close to an empty gesture though if the ICC just move it to accomodate them. Maybe Stanford can run the ICC too

 

[Langeveldt]

Hopefully Stanfords millions might give them the backbone they've lacked for so long. The boycott would be an close to an empty gesture though if the ICC just move it to accomodate them. Maybe Stanford can run the ICC too

Give it a few years and he will be.. Do you like test cricket? Hope not

 

[zaremba]

I love how the pious get off on telling athletes what they can and cant do for reasons completely unrelated to their profession.

Well "interference for reasons unrelated to one's profession" tends to happen to people from all trades - athletes or not - when sanctions are applied in respect of a particular country / regime.

Besides I don't think that there's been much appetite recently among English cricketers to play against Zimbabwe. On that occasion it was a question of no-one having the guts, or prepared to risk the financial consequences, to stop them going. It's not a question of the players being told what not to do by the "pious". Quite the reverse.

Agree with you however about the UK funding the regime. Recently the situation has been better but others (Mbeki in particular) need to examine their consciences.

 

[zaremba]

If I was Zimbabwean, I'd be more concerned about Mr.Mbeki sitting in his gravy train next door propping up the ZANU regime than I would with what a bunch of cricketers were doing with their off-season.. The worst culprits are, as usual, the idle politicians on my doorstep.. Hell, even my former university used to educate a load of the Zimbabwean ruling elite's kids.. These are the people with blood on their hands..

Agree entirely. But that's not a reason not to sever sporting links.

 

[zaremba]

haha, sensitive much?

Not especially, no. No need for name calling, that's all. Doesn't really elevate the discussion which (from my limited experience of this forum) generally tends otherwise to be of a pretty high quality.

 

[Goughy]

My issue is always with player freedom.

If the ICC bans Zim cricket for cricketing and corruption reasons then Im ok with that.

If the ICC (and govts) ban Zim cricket as part of a wider stragegy to deal with the regime as a whole, than that is out of order. There are far more legitimate methods to approach a regime change.

And even if that happened, the worst would be if players were punished for traveling to Zim to play the game.

Basically, I can agree with Zim National cricket team being banned for the right reasons, but I could never agree to players being punished for individually playing there.

Its people making decisions that dont hurt or impact them that isnt acceptable. Athletes are not the pawns of politicians to be ordered around on whims.

 

[fredfertang]

My issue is always with player freedom.

If the ICC bans Zim cricket for cricketing and corruption reasons then Im ok with that.

If the ICC (and govts) ban Zim cricket as part of a wider stragegy to deal with the regime as a whole, than that is out of order

So it is acceptable to stop Zimbabwe playing because they are not good enough cricketers to compete with the other test playing nations and/or because Mr Chingoka or others may misuse ICC funds (albeit not, no doubt, by the laws of their own country) yet not to stop them playing because the government itself is, arguably, the most evil regime ever to preside over any nation and which has consistently manipulated sport for its own ends?

Or am I wrong to say unpleasant things about Mr Mugabe?

 

[Goughy]

If the ICC suspends Zim due to government involvement in admin then ok. If it highlights the corruption, agendas and selection pressures from the regime then that is a decent reason to take steps.

However, the ICC has a joke record where government involvement in the sport takes place. Action was taken in the D'oliveira affair but other examples of foreign governments dictating who tourists can select (ie Indian Government in 1988 and Guyana in 1980-81) have been ignored.

The 1988 decision by the Indian government was not only meddling, but a farce and was a dangerous case of government policy telling touring teams who they could select (little different in principle to the D'oliveira affair apart from it was on a grander scale and went unpunished).

 

[Goughy]

Or am I wrong to say unpleasant things about Mr Mugabe?

By all means say unpleasant things about Mr. Mugabe. I do. However, that isnt relevant here.

So it is acceptable to stop Zimbabwe playing because they are not good enough cricketers to compete with the other test playing nations and/or because Mr Chingoka or others may misuse ICC funds (albeit not, no doubt, by the laws of their own country) yet not to stop them playing because the government itself is, arguably, the most evil regime ever to preside over any nation and which has consistently manipulated sport for its own ends?

Spot on. Im glad Ive made myself clear.

US cricket Admin is outcast due to its problems. It is judged outside the framework of the nation state and as an individual entity. It is punished because it is a joke and but it has no relevance to the country it is from.

Same with a 'bad' country. Cricket could be perfectly well run in an unfair country.

Cricket admin and the regime of a nation shouldnt be confused or treated as one or grouped together. There are certainly examples of that happening, but just to lump good with good and bad with bad is worrying.

Cricket administrations must be judged on their own merits (or lack of) rather than carrying guilt by association.

 

[zaremba]

Athletes are not the pawns of politicians to be ordered around on whims.

Cricinfo has reported today that South Africa has cut cricketing ties with Zimbabwe - due to player pressure. There are echoes here of the situation a few years ago when the England team didn't want to play against Zimbabwe either but neither the UK Government nor the ECB backed them up.

This is simply not a question of the players being "ordered around on whims" by politicians.

 

[Goughy]

Cricinfo has reported today that South Africa has cut cricketing ties with Zimbabwe - due to player pressure. There are echoes here of the situation a few years ago when the England team didn't want to play against Zimbabwe either but neither the UK Government nor the ECB backed them up.

This is simply not a question of the players being "ordered around on whims" by politicians.

And Ive nothing against that at all. It is how it should often be, ie players go with their conscience. It is all part of the player freedom I heartedly support. The only danger is that if players that didnt feel the same were punished for thinking different.

The 1980 Moscow Olympics was a triumph in this regard. Those British athletes that wanted to go could go and those that wanted to boycott could boycott. That is the freedom athletes and sportsmen should have and I hope this SA situation is the same. For people to be caged by the conscience of others is overbearing.

 

[zaremba]

The only danger is that if players that didnt feel the same were punished for thinking different.

I can see where you're coming from on this point. But decisions also need to be made on the different questions of whether official tours should proceed, and whether official matches should be played.

I suppose my basic point is that, regardless of questions of the efficacy of sporting sanctions (and I can see the arguments either way on that point) I simply don't want my national team playing against the Zimbabwean national team, nor the Zimbabwe national team playing in my country, nor my national team playing there.

They are a representative team and I don't like what they represent - a view shared by many leading Zimbabwean cricketers over the last few years, notably Andy Flower and Henry Olonga.

 

[SJS]

We may cut off sporting links with Zimbabwe but its doubtful if that abominable man is goint to fret about it. Our countries need to do so much more which they aren't doing enough of.

Whats happening is a matter for all of us to feel disgusted about and if it goes on without any help from the rest of the world, we will need to colectively hang our heads in shame.

One of my most despised politicians in the world in Mbeki. What a creep to follow Mandela.

I know this is about the cricket tour and sports versus politics and all that but it is so trivial compared to the nbig issue of whats happening ion Zimbabwe and so obviously nothing more than a futile inconsequential gesture that one doesn't care one way or the other.

 

[Langeveldt]

One of my most despised politicians in the world in Mbeki. What a creep to follow Mandela..

He really is an insult to those who fought so hard for him to be in a position to freely travel in South Africa, let alone be president of our country.. Our next guy, Zuma is a bit of a maverick, and many people, mainly whites, are apprehensive about him getting the next gig.. But I'm far more hopeful about him, he seems to be a man of action, with a political conscience.. He's come out and slammed Mugabe way before Mbeki had even said he was "worried" about the situation.. Props to him.. We have several national embarassments, such as high rates of crime and Eskom, but Mbeki is the worst of them all..

I've always slammed people who have brought up the 'safety' argument about Zim.. I've been there a few times, and have always found it to be safe and thoroughly pleasant place to travel.. But things have changed rapidly in the last few weeks as Mugabe tries to cling to power.. With armed mobs wondering through the suburbs, nobody is really safe at the moment, and I think that can be used as an argument for anyone faced with the situation of touring.. I certainly wouldn't go at the moment, and many of my Zim friends are staying put in SA for the winter holidays..