No way am I blaming the ICC for the death of Bob Woolmer, however I hope they have learned some lessons from this tragic series.

I don't know if match fixing had anything to do with Bob Woolmers death, I do know that rumours have been going round about this long before the World Cup started.

I wonder why Bob Woolmer and for that manner all the top officials did not get protection as any visting VIP would in any country.
Fanatics could attack a player or a coach, just because their team lost.

I go back to the last World Cup, and remember England and New Zealand not wanting to go to Kenya and Zimbawe, in England case at least for fear of their lives, looking to their own safety - they were sanctioned.

Even if it means missing the next World Cup, there have to be changes in all aspects of the game, and that won't happen overnight.

__________________
Ern

Surely you can only provide security against known or reasonably foreseeable risks? Was it ever a reasonably foreseeable risk that a coach would be killed during the World Cup? I doubt it was any more foreseeable than it was that a group of terrorists would fly a pair of aircraft into a couple of buildings in New York City in September 2001. We can see the risks now, but I didn't see them last Sunday morning, and I doubt anyone did. So I don't think anyone can be blamed for not providing adequate security. (And in this respect, I differ from the opinion of one of the writers in the UK newspapers which I quoted earlier today.)

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

To your second point no! - hence for once I did not blame the ICC or anyone.

On your first point - both the UK and New Zealand knew there were rists in Zimbawe, and kenya.

The UK could have been right, New Zealand could have been right - the ICC should not in the future take risks with national fears - England would have played Zimbawe, had they thought they were safe.

Nothing is foreseeable, that's my point, the Uk and NZ knew something the ICC could not come terms with, look at what has happened in Zimbawe this week??.

__________________
Ern

Yes, I see the point, even though in my view the England team was looking for excuses when it dredged up a security concern in Zimbabwe. IMO the risks there are for the local population and perhaps for individual travellers who get into the wrong place - the regime would ensure that a high profile visit such as an international cricket tour went off without a hitch and would use all means at its disposal to suppress dissent and protest during the tour. In fact, some reports suggest that that is exactly what happened. There were other reasons for England to skip that tour and we gave them a pretty good airing at the time, so I won't repeat my position on that here.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I know what you are saying Ernest and that was my initial reaction too, but I think we have to be realistic here. Being a VIP is relative to whom that person is very important; in that context, Bob Woolmer was important to his family, the Pakistani team and perhaps rest of the cricketing establishment. But in all other ways, he was an ordinary individual like you and I and so entitled to some degree of freedom. If we start providing personal security to everybody who might be a potential target to some deranged fanatic, it would be practically impossible to lead a normal life. These days, the state of this world with its terrorists and religious fanatics means that all of us are potential victims and so who watches whom? So we have to take some common sense precautions and hope that there is still some sanity left in the world to see us through.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6492749.stm

Still exsists in the game according to the former Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shaharyar Khan.

"I think spot-fixing is very much prevalent and really something you cannot prevent. "This is opposed to match-fixing which requires the whole team."

Your views?

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

I suspect he's right, to be honest. As long as there is a willing buyer and a willing seller of anything, trade will occur. That applies whether it is me selling you apples, Ladbrokes selling me odds or a bent cricketer selling an illegal bookmaker information or an assurance that he will get out hit wicket in the fifth over.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I agree. I felt at the time that the England team should not have gone to zimbabwe or at thel east the matches should have been played in South Africa. I think the ICC are a disgrace and I wonder would they have gone in similar circumstances, the ECB however, are spineless and should have backed the players more.

Spot fixing is about corrupt individuals, I doubt that would have been grounds for Woolmer being killed, at such a low level spot fixing will never be eradicated, but neither does it pose much of a problem - small beer really.
Welcome to the board SJFO, and to your first point I agreed at the time, and I agree more than ever after the events of the last few days.
The ICC are a disgrace, but can't be blamed for Woolmer's death, although i hope lessons are learned over security in the future.

Not only was the ECB spineless, the UK government was also, if you remember they encouraged the England team not to play Zimbabwe, then would not even provide the cash for the fines.
I call that the 'British" mentality.

__________________
Ern