Should Zimbabwe be in the world cup?

[Goughy]

I'm surprised at you, TBH.

I'd expect someone like you to know that there is nothing which is not affected by politics. Regardless of the fact that cricket (and most other sports, and a host of other activities) is 100% more enjoyable with the least political interference, there are some things more important than the game of cricket.

As to the main point - as near enough everyone knows, if I$C$C were to come-out and say "Zimbabwe are not considered for any international cricket match because of the atrocious human-rights record of their Govornment" it'd make not one jot (sorry, Joanna) of difference to Zanu PF. Therefore, I don't think there should be any pressure on anyone in cricket to make a stance against them. This is in direct contrast to the Apartheid South Africa situation where there's substantial evidence that the GlenEagles Agreement did make a difference, and who knows, it might have been even better had not some players decided their own financial gain was more important.

Nonetheless, Zimbabwe are not fit in a cricketing sense to be at the top table - Zanu PF has destroyed everything about the country, including the cricket setup. Therefore, as a direct consequence of Zanu PF, Zimbabwe should be stripped of all Full Member rights as far as I'm concerned.

Of course everything is affected by politics, but I dont like the fact that sport is often hijacked (by people on all sides) as a vehicle for protest. There are legitimate channels for conflict and having power mad people and professional malcontents bash heads over an area completely unrelated to the key issues drives me crazy.

People from all sides drag sport into the mud and use it for their own issues and agendas. Its lazy and unnecessary.

People should leave sport alone and concentrate on legitimate channels of conflict resolution. Rather than ban a country for any reason from participating (though I guess even I might conceed there may be one or 2 reasons that I cant think of right now) I prefer the route of players chosing not to play against certain opponents (ie cricketers in Zim, GB athletes at 1980 Moscow Olympics etc) if they do not want to. I dislike blanket bans.

 

[Richard]

I hate it when sport's hijacked as a vehicle for protest too. Absolute crying shame for the players who are disadvantaged by it. I tend to see as a separate issue the denying of the Pollocks, Richardses, Procters etc. of a decent international career as a separate issue to the anti-Apartheid boycott. Right as it was, it doesn't for one minute change the fact that such players were desperately unfortunate, doubly so since their predecessors had been playing for the previous 2 decades without an iota of complaint from most places.

Single players, though - now that really is a fruitless gesture. How many people even remember, less than 3 years down the line, that Stuart MacGill refused to tour Zimbabwe? Who will give it more than a sentence's worth in any career short-profile? How many people remember that Harmison's reasons for not going to Zimbabwe were different to Trescothick's and Flintoff's?

There are legitimate channels for political dissention - but the simple fact of the matter is that it's sometimes unavoidable that these include sport. In the Zimbabwe case, they clearly don't - every half-expert on the situation knows why Mugabe has clung to power - support from his "brothers" in Africa.

It's better if things are done in a well-organised way rather than the botched manner of the South African isolation (was completely unofficial for as much as a decade, before Rebel tours were even conceived), obviously - sadly, such a thing is, as yet, unknown. This has led to the "power mad people and professional malcontents bashing heads over an area completely unrelated to the key issues" situations you quite correctly describe. The use of sport in political context has yet to be handled well - but that doesn't mean it has a right to be independent of the all-inclusive World of politics.