Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

So England aren't going to Zimbabwe..

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by bass87, Feb 11, 2003.


  1. So today Tim Lamb told the ICC that England arent going to play in Zimbabwe, and the ICC duly cancelled the game. After hearing that England players received death threats, I respect this decision. I dont think players safety should be comprimised for the sake of one match.

    This will however have ramifications for the ECB and Team England. There is a very small window for re-arrangement, and if England do not play the game at all they I think they are unlikely to proceed in the World Cup.

    There will undoubtebly be some sort of legal battle regarding compensation, as the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is set to lose a significant amount of money, especially if no one else decides to play. Now as the ECB did not cancel the match, but the ICC, this means the ECB are not likely to bear the brunt of financial sanctions.

    Now England have refused to play, will other teams follow suit? Will, Australia, having trounced everyone else, decide they dont need to play in Zimbabwe? If it gets to this stage if I think its a bit of a farce, but at the moment the situation has stabilised somehwhat IMO. What do other TBers think?
     
  2. Let's face it - if England did play the match they face little chance of progressing! :D

    Seriously though I don't think the decision should have been left to the players like it was. Either the government should have said from the start that they didn't want the match to go ahead and that they'd reimburse the ECB of costs incurred, or the ICC should have moved the match because of the death threats. Moreover it was a ludicrous decision of the ICC to have the world cup played over three large countries in the first place. South Africa is a massive country with easily enough resources to hold the tournament on its own.