| Zimbabwe I've read a few articles over the weekend saying that if a national government bans its team from touring, then the ICC must accept that decision - it can't fine or ban the team in question. All rather obvious really - however the ICC behaves it doesn't have more authority than a national government, especially when the government in question is democratically elected.
It seems to me that both the government and the ECB are playing a game of brinkmanship over this. Neither side want to make a moral decision. The ECB don't want to risk being fined or banned from international cricket. The government don't want to create an "international situation", affect relations with other African countries, or indeed upset anyone ever anywhere. All this talk emanating from the ECB about being "certain to tour" and there being "no doubt" seems to me designed to force the government's hand. I don't think the ECB do want England to tour, they just realise that for the good of English cricket, they need to get the government to stop them from touring rather than making the decision unilaterally themselves. At least, I hope that is the case, as I really don't think we should tour Zimbabwe. And whilst this kind of realpoliticking may seem morally unsavoury, I'd prefer it to the alternative, which is that the ECB really does want to tour.
I'm sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, or if it sounds like complete rubbish, I just brought it up because no one in the media etc. seems to be saying anything like this. I'd be interested to know what you all think. I think the best outcome for English cricket would be if the government banned the team from touring. What should definitely not happen is what happened at the World Cup where it seemed as if all the responsibility was heaped on the players. |