ICC finds some soap

dcsiva — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:12:00 GMT

The ICC has compromised again on the Zimbabwe question. In terms of the internal voting bloc logic the decision certainly makes sense. From the BCCI's point of view, that is. Here's Kevin Mitchell for the Guardian on the moral argument:

While cricket was never going to solve the political problems of Zimbabwe, nor were the International Cricket Council going to have the courage to take a wider moral stance, even in the face of atrocities, starvation and the daily spectacle of a nation cowed by a dictator. As an ICC spokesman said: 'We are not mandated to talk about politics.' Or death, it seems.

What matters to the ICC is they have been saved from making a judgment call (which they would have fudged by suspending Zimbabwe temporarily because 'they are not good enough'), and England don't lose their big-money gig. While England and South Africa suspended cricket relations with Zimbabwe last week, the ICC, their strings pulled by the Asian bloc, are adamant Zimbabwe will keep full membership and funding. All that has been saved is a tournament. Nothing else changes.

A Cricketing View attempts to separate out the moral and the sporting issues at stake:

If the ICC's consideration of the matter can be criticized, it is because they did Cricket a disservice in the arguments that they considered. In my view, Robert Mugabe's methods ought not to be discussed at an ICC meeting, any more than the issue of Kashmir should be discussed there. It is none of the ICC's business. If at all Zimbabwe was to be stripped of full member nation status, it should have been because they have a very weak cricket team which is clearly not good enough to be a Test team (much like Bangladesh). This would have been a discussion of cricketing interest.

Q has a blow by blow fly-on-the-wall account of the meeting. Meanwhile Michael Holding quits from the ICC's Cricket Committee because of their other big decision: making the England Pakistan game at the Oval into a draw. And lastly, but by no means least, Cricket Australia's James Sutherland fires off a shot at the whole idea of private ownership of cricket teams (but, then, what is the BCCI or the MCC anyway if not private?).

Oil and water in Dubai

dcsiva — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:41:00 GMT

The big ongoing story is of course the ICC's discussion of Zimbabwe. The British government's instructions are clear: no play. But what then happens to the Twenty20 World Cup? The Culture/Media/Sport Secretary of State says:

Like others, I have watched events unfold over the first half of this year, hoping against hope that the country would be about to enter a new era.

When it became clear that would not happen, I took the reluctant step last week of writing to the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to say that the UK Government would prevent next summer's tour from taking place.

It was not something the Government did lightly. Wherever possible, sport and politics should be kept separate. Our governing bodies should operate autonomously. Any direct intervention should be a last resort and only in the most exceptional circumstances.

But that, in my judgment, is what we are presented with here. Mugabe's patronage of Zimbabwe Cricket blurs the line between politics and sport. Cricketing relations in these circumstances bring a brutal regime uncomfortably close.

And here are John Traicos and Goolam Rajah taking opposite sides of the recurring sports and politics question—do they/don't they mix. Traicos focuses on the moral standing of cricket players in Zimbabwe and Rajah on the moral standing of foreign players, boards and governments:

Yes
John Traicos
Former South Africa and Zimbabwe Test cricketer

Suspending Zimbabwe from inter-national cricket will have little or no
political impact because there are greater issues at stake - Robert Mugabe may like cricket but power and position probably matter most. It is unrealistic to expect sanctions to effect political change by putting pressure on those in power if a sporting body is controlled by politicians and has to adhere to the laws of the country, regardless of whether or not it agrees with them. In any case, anyone upset by a sporting boycott can do nothing about it since the right to vote currently has no relevance in Zimbabwe.

...
No
Goolam Rajah
General manager of the South Africa cricket team

Frankly, I think it is crazy for anyone to say there is no place for sporting
boycotts, or that they are ineffectual. South Africa is living, breathing proof that they can have a profound and dramatic effect for the better.

Here's Homer's entirely financial explanation of this mess. And, finally, Q spots some shady reporting by the Guardian about the ICC's meeting.

(My apologies for the long absence from blogging!)

Cover Points : Zimbabwe

ICC finds some soap

Oil and water in Dubai