ICC board meeting July 4, 2008

Playing the power game

For India, the Zimbabwe issue is less a moral one and more one of realpolitik
66


The Zimbabwe issue is viewed with detachment in Asia. There is also a deep-rooted suspicion about Western double standards © Getty Images
 

Chinua Achebe, one of Africa's greatest writers, once said of his country: "Nigeria is what it is because its leaders are not what they should be." After the ICC meeting in Dubai, anyone who is passionate about the game could be entitled to a similar view. Long before the great and good had assembled at the Westin Hotel, rumours had been rife that a compromise would be brokered and everyone sent home happy. And, like in a hackneyed movie script, the contrived ending was duly arrived at.

Some would say the discussions weren't really about Zimbabwe at all. The ECB, emboldened by support from the British government, wanted to make sure Zimbabwe wouldn't be party-poopers at the World Twenty20 in England next summer. With Twenty20 being cricket's current leitmotif, there was more than pride at stake. Almost every match is a guaranteed sell-out and the TV revenue alone will swell board coffers by millions. And even as they watch from thousands of miles away, Zimbabwe's black-sheep administration will still rake in the dollars.

For India it was about maintaining its power base at the ICC. After the meeting, Peter Chingoka made special mention of his Indian friends. How could he not? After all, Zimbabwe is the fifth vote, the buffer against cricket's old powers when Asia wants to get its way. The latest crisis came at a good time for the BCCI. With the Champions League, an offshoot of the IPL, pencilled in for late September, the issue of the "rebel" ICL players needs to be sorted out. Chingoka and friends might just have become convenient pawns in the pursuit of that agenda.

Cricket realpolitik aside, though, it's important to understand why the Zimbabwe issue is viewed differently in Asia. The outcome in Dubai is likely to evoke moral outrage in England and Australia, but in India it is most likely to be seen with more detachment as yet another compromise in the boardrooms of the ICC. This is because, apart from the fact that the atrocities in Zimbabwe don't occupy column inches in the Indian media, there is a deep-rooted suspicion about Western double standards.

Practically every cricket-playing country has blood on its hands. No one refused to play in Guyana during the 20 years that Forbes Burnham ruled, nor did they refuse to tour Pakistan during all the years that the country was under military rule. In Sri Lanka a violent conflict that has its roots in ethnic differences is now into its third decade. And Britain and Australia were staunch backers of the Bush administration that went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that only Donald Rumsfeld and his spy satellites could see.

Robert Mugabe was an honoured guest at the African Union summit in Egypt recently, and his host was Hosni Mubarak, who won the last election in 2005 with 88.6% of the vote after the main opposition was banned from taking part. Britain and the United States continue to trade and do business with Mubarak and Egypt. Human-rights violations worse than those committed by Zanu-PF's thugs have been reported from Darfur, Tibet and Guantanamo Bay. Yet, Gordon Brown and other guardians of human rights are hardly likely to start a campaign against the US or China.

Parallels have been drawn with South Africa in the 1960s, and India's role at the vanguard of the anti-Apartheid movement. Why the apathy now, some ask? The situation is entirely different. The struggle that Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Oliver Tambo led was for the huge majority that had been reduced to secondary-citizen status ever since Daniel Malan and the National Party came to power in 1948. The introduction of identity cards based on race in the 1950s made it worse, and Hendrik Verwoerd's apartheid state was an international pariah by the next decade.

Thrown out of the Olympic movement just before the Tokyo games in 1964, South Africa's subsequent sporting ties tended to be with the cricket and rugby teams of the Commonwealth - England, Australia and New Zealand in particular. In apartheid South Africa, racial discrimination was a state policy. Nothing similar exists across the border, where the story is of an ageing dictator and his apparent determination to run the country into the ground before he's interred in it. With only a few thousand whites left, it's the black majority that has suffered most at the hands of a man who was once seen as their saviour.

As of now, despite Mugabe's increasingly desperate and brutal methods to cling on to power, Zimbabwe has yet to be recognised as a rogue state by the international community. They will go to the Olympics in Beijing and be given the red-carpet treatment by another totalitarian regime that is one of its biggest backers. They will also play their part in the qualifying rounds for the football World Cup.

 
 
In apartheid South Africa, racial discrimination was a state policy. Nothing similar exists across the border, where the story is of an ageing dictator and his apparent determination to run the country into the ground before he's interred in it. With only a few thousand whites left, it's the black majority that has suffered most at the hands of a man who was once seen as their saviour.
 

Would a ban from the cricket field make the slightest difference to day-to-day life in Zimbabwe, where the sport still doesn't enjoy anything like the popularity that football does? Will it hasten Mugabe's exit, when the nation's cricket already resembles the building that was burnt to the ground by a former player not so long ago?

Despite all of this, as the trend-setters in the modern game, the BCCI could have led by example and heeded the words of Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, who believe that isolating Mugabe might at least initiate the movement towards normalcy. But there are no Mandelas in the BCCI.

What happened in Dubai was little more than a charade, an elaborately contrived game of cricket politics that ended with England (World Twenty20 championships), India (more leverage to twist ECB arms on the ICL-player situation), Pakistan (Oval forfeit reversal) and Zimbabwe (money) all getting their way.

Perhaps it's best to end with Achebe, who observed that "one of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised". If this week is any indicator, cricket has failed miserably.

Dileep Premachandran is an associate editor at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • sun2 on July 6, 2008, 17:55 GMT

    This article is an eye opener , So far i have been supporting ECB on the stance of Banning Zimbabwe from Cricket , but I don't see the logic anymore, Because this article made me ask ..why just cricket? What Gordon Brown has done for Darfur, or Tibet? This is just a political ploy and nothing else. But this does not mean that i support the atrocities of General Mugabe. Hope the Zimbabweans find peace soon .. and neither i am supporting the thugs of BCCI who have no morals, so to say it never made a difference, BCCI and ZC are just brothers from different mothers.

  • pun8max on July 6, 2008, 17:24 GMT

    zingzangspillip: I never claimed India is inherently superior, all I did was to point out the hypocrisy in the western media including ESPN-cricinfo. They want Indian money but western control, but when it comes to UN or World Bank, their stand is reversed. All international organizations are controlled by them because there the principle is "payer calls the tune". In theory all countries have equal voting power in general assembly but control over budget and security council vetos give them power beyond that envisaged. Thus, whole world can keep crying foul but they can go to war in Iraq, create and dethrone monsters as dictators at will, change governments, etc as and when it is convenient to them. It is not a consolation for the world to know that Bush and his cronies went to war against the wishes of their people and media. At best, it shows that democracy is non-existent even in the countries that project themselves as keepers of conscience and at worst their own complicity.

  • TwitterJitter on July 6, 2008, 11:25 GMT

    BCCI should look at playing tests and one-day games between the IPL franchises in addition to T20s. They should look at these franchises play each other for 5-6 months (hopefully 8 months in a few years from now) in an year (a proper mix of tests, one days, and T20s. They should commit to minimum international tours so as to maintain their international status. May be IPL will open franchises in SL, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Dubai and play these franchises much more than play international tours. I don't mind one bit watching these franchise games as opposed to international tours. Why provide 70% of the finances to the ICC and then get bad mouthed by this UN body all the time? Let ECB provide the ICC with 70% of their finances and run their politics. Frankly, I don't care what happens to ICC. After IPL, there are many people who are content with just watching domestic franchises play.

  • karthi52 on July 6, 2008, 9:59 GMT

    To all the cricket boards.If the boards continue to fight like this ,then how will the cricket develop in other countries. how others look at cricket. it useless in criticizing ICC. what i have got is that icc is just a organisation from all members.criticising icc is like criticising themselves.already we have seen enough fight in the india VS australia and in eng VS nz too. i accept that bcci is only for money.but they havent ruined the cricket. the fact is all the asian countries are properly paid by the bcci. asian countries are playing properly. have ECB given ateast given any single penny to european countries?are they touring any european countries?are they developing ireland or scotland?it is the responsibilityof all the boards to develop the cricket.icc cant do many things,since all the 8 test playing nations are playing bilateral cricket war with many fights for the full year.then there is no window for the cricket.Time to think for all the boards.especially BCCI,ECB,CA.

  • karthi52 on July 6, 2008, 7:37 GMT

    hai archprakash .great. very nice comment from you.i am very much happy about ur comments.if you go and see the threads from the bbc articles,all the comments will be against bcci and india and ipl.And they like stanford very much. what is more pathetic is that the whole bbc team as same as their people. in between the public comments,the moderator come and post a message in replying to others which is against.and bbc is more worst than their people

  • jedjfdp on July 6, 2008, 4:31 GMT

    Nice one with actual facts>>

    The problem with BCCI is having a politician at the top. He is in there for money, power and politics. He is not gone care for anything else. Moral issues ... what moral issues???

  • Ozcricketwriter on July 6, 2008, 2:00 GMT

    Part of the problem with dealing with the Zimbabwe issue is the fact that this isn't your normal "white minority abusing black majority" or even a "white majority abusing black minority". This is in fact a "black majority abusing white minority". Because we as an international community aren't used to this kind of behaviour, therefore we don't know how to deal with it. Any time that anyone tries to bring it up, Robert Mugabe claims that they are just racist against the blacks of Zimbabwe. The fact that it has gone beyond abusing whites (because they are all either dead or else have fled, with a scant few still remaining) is glossed over by Robert Mugabe's regime. He still plays the race card.

    This will be seen in history as a prime example of how racism is not just whites being bad to blacks. Racism is any discrimination. Here is an example of blacks abusing whites, and of blacks abusing blacks and pretending that it is okay because to say it is bad is racism.

  • DrunkenDuck on July 5, 2008, 23:52 GMT

    Zimbabwe Cricket has stolen tens of millions of dollars from the ICC - although this was never proven because the findings of an INDEPENDANT audit committee was never released. Even their own players (Andy Flower, Henry Olonga et al) believe that cricket in the nation has been destroyed. They can't field a competitive team in any form of cricket, so why should they retain full membership of the ICC and receive further millions in funding? Answer - because the nations aligned with INDIA will all bow to the pressure of the all-too powerful BCCI. The longer these pariahs like Chingoka stay in charge the richer they will become and the poorer cricket will be for it. The ICC should be ashamed.

  • ChinmayD on July 5, 2008, 21:21 GMT

    There is absolutely no case for Zimbabwe to be disqualified from playing in T20 Championships as long as they are allowed to participate in Olympics. Absolutely no case at all. Dileep rightly points out that in South Africa's case, SA were already thrown out of Olympics before they got banned from Cricket.

    There is case, however, for Zim's status as a full member to be revoked for playing very badly. In such a case, they should be reverted back to associate member status and allowed to play in Qualification tournaments for the T20 World Cup.

    However, this is the chief reason why this was a political and not a cricketing problem. Zimbabwe would have qualified for T20 WC as an associate member. Somehow, I can't see ECB liking that.

    As far as BCCI wanting to preserve their votebank goes, they didn't need to. They already have 5 votes (4 asian countries plus WI) to depend on in a 9 member ICC.

  • Irishfan on July 5, 2008, 19:52 GMT

    Banning Zimbabwe from sporting organizations will do nearly nothing to improve the situation in that country. Certainly, no one in that country is going to care if ICC or even FIFA ban them. A ban from the IOC might carry a little more weight, but face it, will Mugabe say "Oh, we are expelled from ICC. I better hand over the government to Tsangirai and the officials the people actually voted for." No. I say temporarily suspend them personally...but I only wish that such tough level of discussion was going on amongst the African Council or UN instead of a mere sporting body.

  • sun2 on July 6, 2008, 17:55 GMT

    This article is an eye opener , So far i have been supporting ECB on the stance of Banning Zimbabwe from Cricket , but I don't see the logic anymore, Because this article made me ask ..why just cricket? What Gordon Brown has done for Darfur, or Tibet? This is just a political ploy and nothing else. But this does not mean that i support the atrocities of General Mugabe. Hope the Zimbabweans find peace soon .. and neither i am supporting the thugs of BCCI who have no morals, so to say it never made a difference, BCCI and ZC are just brothers from different mothers.

  • pun8max on July 6, 2008, 17:24 GMT

    zingzangspillip: I never claimed India is inherently superior, all I did was to point out the hypocrisy in the western media including ESPN-cricinfo. They want Indian money but western control, but when it comes to UN or World Bank, their stand is reversed. All international organizations are controlled by them because there the principle is "payer calls the tune". In theory all countries have equal voting power in general assembly but control over budget and security council vetos give them power beyond that envisaged. Thus, whole world can keep crying foul but they can go to war in Iraq, create and dethrone monsters as dictators at will, change governments, etc as and when it is convenient to them. It is not a consolation for the world to know that Bush and his cronies went to war against the wishes of their people and media. At best, it shows that democracy is non-existent even in the countries that project themselves as keepers of conscience and at worst their own complicity.

  • TwitterJitter on July 6, 2008, 11:25 GMT

    BCCI should look at playing tests and one-day games between the IPL franchises in addition to T20s. They should look at these franchises play each other for 5-6 months (hopefully 8 months in a few years from now) in an year (a proper mix of tests, one days, and T20s. They should commit to minimum international tours so as to maintain their international status. May be IPL will open franchises in SL, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Dubai and play these franchises much more than play international tours. I don't mind one bit watching these franchise games as opposed to international tours. Why provide 70% of the finances to the ICC and then get bad mouthed by this UN body all the time? Let ECB provide the ICC with 70% of their finances and run their politics. Frankly, I don't care what happens to ICC. After IPL, there are many people who are content with just watching domestic franchises play.

  • karthi52 on July 6, 2008, 9:59 GMT

    To all the cricket boards.If the boards continue to fight like this ,then how will the cricket develop in other countries. how others look at cricket. it useless in criticizing ICC. what i have got is that icc is just a organisation from all members.criticising icc is like criticising themselves.already we have seen enough fight in the india VS australia and in eng VS nz too. i accept that bcci is only for money.but they havent ruined the cricket. the fact is all the asian countries are properly paid by the bcci. asian countries are playing properly. have ECB given ateast given any single penny to european countries?are they touring any european countries?are they developing ireland or scotland?it is the responsibilityof all the boards to develop the cricket.icc cant do many things,since all the 8 test playing nations are playing bilateral cricket war with many fights for the full year.then there is no window for the cricket.Time to think for all the boards.especially BCCI,ECB,CA.

  • karthi52 on July 6, 2008, 7:37 GMT

    hai archprakash .great. very nice comment from you.i am very much happy about ur comments.if you go and see the threads from the bbc articles,all the comments will be against bcci and india and ipl.And they like stanford very much. what is more pathetic is that the whole bbc team as same as their people. in between the public comments,the moderator come and post a message in replying to others which is against.and bbc is more worst than their people

  • jedjfdp on July 6, 2008, 4:31 GMT

    Nice one with actual facts>>

    The problem with BCCI is having a politician at the top. He is in there for money, power and politics. He is not gone care for anything else. Moral issues ... what moral issues???

  • Ozcricketwriter on July 6, 2008, 2:00 GMT

    Part of the problem with dealing with the Zimbabwe issue is the fact that this isn't your normal "white minority abusing black majority" or even a "white majority abusing black minority". This is in fact a "black majority abusing white minority". Because we as an international community aren't used to this kind of behaviour, therefore we don't know how to deal with it. Any time that anyone tries to bring it up, Robert Mugabe claims that they are just racist against the blacks of Zimbabwe. The fact that it has gone beyond abusing whites (because they are all either dead or else have fled, with a scant few still remaining) is glossed over by Robert Mugabe's regime. He still plays the race card.

    This will be seen in history as a prime example of how racism is not just whites being bad to blacks. Racism is any discrimination. Here is an example of blacks abusing whites, and of blacks abusing blacks and pretending that it is okay because to say it is bad is racism.

  • DrunkenDuck on July 5, 2008, 23:52 GMT

    Zimbabwe Cricket has stolen tens of millions of dollars from the ICC - although this was never proven because the findings of an INDEPENDANT audit committee was never released. Even their own players (Andy Flower, Henry Olonga et al) believe that cricket in the nation has been destroyed. They can't field a competitive team in any form of cricket, so why should they retain full membership of the ICC and receive further millions in funding? Answer - because the nations aligned with INDIA will all bow to the pressure of the all-too powerful BCCI. The longer these pariahs like Chingoka stay in charge the richer they will become and the poorer cricket will be for it. The ICC should be ashamed.

  • ChinmayD on July 5, 2008, 21:21 GMT

    There is absolutely no case for Zimbabwe to be disqualified from playing in T20 Championships as long as they are allowed to participate in Olympics. Absolutely no case at all. Dileep rightly points out that in South Africa's case, SA were already thrown out of Olympics before they got banned from Cricket.

    There is case, however, for Zim's status as a full member to be revoked for playing very badly. In such a case, they should be reverted back to associate member status and allowed to play in Qualification tournaments for the T20 World Cup.

    However, this is the chief reason why this was a political and not a cricketing problem. Zimbabwe would have qualified for T20 WC as an associate member. Somehow, I can't see ECB liking that.

    As far as BCCI wanting to preserve their votebank goes, they didn't need to. They already have 5 votes (4 asian countries plus WI) to depend on in a 9 member ICC.

  • Irishfan on July 5, 2008, 19:52 GMT

    Banning Zimbabwe from sporting organizations will do nearly nothing to improve the situation in that country. Certainly, no one in that country is going to care if ICC or even FIFA ban them. A ban from the IOC might carry a little more weight, but face it, will Mugabe say "Oh, we are expelled from ICC. I better hand over the government to Tsangirai and the officials the people actually voted for." No. I say temporarily suspend them personally...but I only wish that such tough level of discussion was going on amongst the African Council or UN instead of a mere sporting body.

  • Gazzypops on July 5, 2008, 19:18 GMT

    Reading through the comments below as well as in this article, I feel something should be said about England/Britain in this. When comparing the atrocities in Zimbabwe with the war in Iraq and English hypocrisy therein, people should realise that a significant section of the population, the media, and, heck, even the army spoke out AGAINST the Iraq war. It would be nice if the English knockers (of which there are a great many) would be a little less black and white.

  • Gareth_Griffis on July 5, 2008, 19:11 GMT

    Isn't it funny, how pretty much every comment here is just complaining about, and accusing the other full-member nations. How about this ... we just admit that we all love, and live for the same sport. If everyone would just think along those lines the international cricket scene would be a whole lot better. Aus and Eng wouldn't care that BCCI has the power (which would be a good start) and the BCCI would loosen up a bit and not worry about the ICL, because it is good for the game we all love.

    I guess it's a pity that the people who sit in the councils apparently don't love the sport like we do. As for Zimbabwe, the main issue for me is the fact that the money that the ICC gives to them, goes straight into the pockets of corrupt politicians. If we all love this sport, then we would all see that this is a problem and it hurts the sport.

    Come on people, stop attacking each other. I come from NZ and I support any land that lives for this sport, Asian, African or Colonial.

  • UnwedUnfed on July 5, 2008, 18:58 GMT

    The basic question here is "Why Zimbabwe?" Yes, it has a power-hungry dictator who will do anything to extend his rule. But that is the case for at least 20-25% of the countries on earth. I believe the ICC has it's headquarters in Dubai - is the UAE a democracy now? England had no problem in hosting Russia for the Euro 2008 qualifier - and lets not have any illusions about Putin's hold on power in that country. Can it have something to do with the fact that white, English settlers have been kicked out of their farms? The basic message emanating from England is: "We don't really care as long as the power-mad dictator screws his own people. But don't you dare screw with people who look and talk like us!"

  • Reg_Dyer on July 5, 2008, 18:44 GMT

    This may be the 'view' from India but each and every objection you brought up can be refuted out of hand. Atrocities in Guantanomo are as bad in Zimbabwe?! You're out of your mind! The truth is for 'Western double standards' read 'white people'. The BCCI (I reserve judgement for the country it represents) is racist. They may think its terribly clever to use their power to posture but at the end of day there's never a truer word spoken that says, 'it's only a game'. Meanwhile Zimbabwe suffers, the BCCI and Chingoka preen and Mugabe smiles. Shameful.

  • kavalier on July 5, 2008, 18:23 GMT

    Well a good article with a very balanced view on why India support Zimbabwe. Was getting tired of sanctimonious British and Australian views, who though have neither the courage to urge a boycott of the Olympics nor the goods and minerals that their cos. purge?? from Zimbabwe. I have read with increasing distate the vitriol that the Brits and Aussies pour out, with the reasoning and taste of jealousy reeking and flowing from every Word/ letter that is penned. Let us not forget that it is the universal view of all that sports and politics do not mix. Thus the British oath to all athlethes not to propagate and air and views against the Chinese. Why are they running scared there?? Especially when the Tibetan boycott happenned quite spectacularly during the run.

    To end my friends, it is all about the power and so with what the BCCI wields the end justifies the means.

  • Shaun_Corrigan on July 5, 2008, 17:47 GMT

    Why waste all this space ...say it like it is ... India only cares about INDIA and from what I can see that means money (for a few). Hopefully one day you guys will be able to produce a decent cricket side that can actually win crunch games! And maybe find some moral fiber as well... BAN ZIMBABWE!

  • kennyg on July 5, 2008, 17:20 GMT

    The BCCI stance and strategy on the Zimbabwe issue is so shamefully transparent.Its for their and their needs only they have twisted the ICC process, in the face of world wide, including all great Africian leaders, who have heaped condemnation on the horrible situation existing in Zimbabwe. BCCI do not shut your eyes to the situation in Zimbabwe, its people enslaved and starving, the economy in shambles, its people being killed on a daily basis, all for making Mugabe and his elite few richer each day. And, you BCCI want to maintain a sport. Shame on you.

  • corpusninja on July 5, 2008, 17:03 GMT

    "It's absolutely no secret that India's stand on Zimbabwe is to keep it's own power base intact and to snub England and Australia at every opportunity."

    Yes. And? Are you suggesting the ECB and ACB were too naive to do the same when they held the reins of cricket?

  • archprakash on July 5, 2008, 15:38 GMT

    First THANK YOU. Thank you very much for writing something more sensible. British prime minister should start realising he is only the prime minister of UK and not ICC. There was an article which was written about how Indian press runs BCCI and BCCI runs ICC. But now things are even worse now, Gordon Brown runs BBC and BBC runs ECB and ECB try's to run ICC which is rightly oppressed by BBCI.I have been reading articles on BBC and the way they went on and on about IPL and how cricket is being changed for the bad and now it is Stanford 20/20 in England and now the are butchering BCCI for not supporting them. This is probably the only time BBCI has done something which makes them truly the leaders. They are the only people who managed to stand out of politics and take a right decision. BCCI has managed to get justice to very one. I feel proud of BCCI for the first time.

  • Emjayed on July 5, 2008, 15:16 GMT

    Some great articles on Cricinfo of late on this topic. So much parochialism seems to clouding peoples views on this particular issue, and really that makes my blood boil. Look at the Zimbabwe issue in its own context and not have it judged on past or current happenings from any other political problems. The fact is the Zimbabwe cricket board is run by stooges of the Zanu-Pf and all the money it receives from the ICC does not go into cricket (like we would all love to blissfully believe) but to a dictatorship that uses this money to push its own political agenda and aid in killing and repressing the people in its own country. So look at this as a moral issue (for which it is) and the repercussions that come with supporting such people. Wouldn't it be great even just once that morality got the better of politics and someone out there could set a precedent.

  • KumarShyam on July 5, 2008, 15:11 GMT

    I quite agree with Suresh. If you take out the personal benefit of the BCCI, Sharad Pawar should be lauded for brokering the truce and getting on with it while the ICC wasted four days looking clueless and where to go. And if everyone is bothered about moral stands, why is not anyone standing upto the same BCCI's ploy to deny the ICL players a chance in the Champions League and infringing on their rights and of those clubs which employed them. It is straight monopoly, dictatorship and does not involve a country's government or its policies.

  • S_Sen on July 5, 2008, 14:46 GMT

    Frankly, if the Brits, Australians and New Zealanders would stop working themselves into a hysterical froth over Zimbabwe, it might become harder for the BCCI to continue in its present mode. Everybody understands that the Anglo-Australian outrage about Zimbabwe is really about the few thousand whites in that country having their farms taken away - otherwise they wouldn't give a damn.

  • TwitterJitter on July 5, 2008, 14:33 GMT

    The changing of the result for 2006 Oval game is cheap, whichever way you look at it. It sets a dangerous precedent for future games where captains can decide to forfeit games and still expect a draw. The ICC model of voting is not working. The ECB and CA used to have veto power in the ICC during the times when they were powerful and the Asian block felt they were run over. Now the power has shifted to the Asian block and they are doing the same to preserve their power. Yet, for all the whining about BCCI and Asian block, I am yet to hear a solution of what works better than the current model. In future, if Scotland and Ireland become full time members, ECB will regain their old power and they will be reluctant to let it go. This is where a private franchise model like NFL, NBA, and MLB are more efficient because unlike country vs country politics and power games, these leagues only worry about money. Hopefully, cricket goes that route making ICC vote bank politics irrelevant.

  • kingofspain on July 5, 2008, 14:21 GMT

    A rubbish article about a rubbish BCCI. Leaving politics aside, Zimbabwe can't field a team in any form of the game which could compete with the other full member countries. That alone is reason enough to strip them of full member status. Given the cricketing situation which exisits Zimbabwe should lose that status regardless of their government.

    The atrocities committed there just make it easier for those who care about human rights to vote them out. I guess we can't put India in that category. For them doing the right thing is less important than banning ICL players from their "champions league" which no one outside of India will even watch of care about.

  • American1 on July 5, 2008, 13:52 GMT

    I'll support a ban on Zimbabwe b/c of the sins of the Mugabe regime against his own people which no moral human should accept. However, I called for the banning of England and Australia as well for their ongiong crimes against humanity in Iraq

    That both these nations was part of the axis that destroyed a nation and continues to defend its actions is is a bigger crime that that awful Mugabe.

    That both these nations were big supporters of Aparthied in South Africa and play and traded with SA should not be lost i his debate.

    England is an outlaw nation that found its wealth by raping many countries and continues to do so today by its actions in Iraq.

    Australia on the other hand practiced and defended Ethnic cleansing against its own true Australians- the aborigines. That White-British immigrants continues to rule Australia with no right given to these native people is a crime against humanity.

    So lets be fair, banned Zimbabwe but also ban Australia and England for their crimes.

  • D.V.C. on July 5, 2008, 13:13 GMT

    Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't vote as blocks, but instead each determined what we thought right for Cricket (and in general), and then voted.

    If we ignore politics and morality there is still a problem. Zimbabwe Cricket is going backwards. At the same time that Zimbabwe is in decline we have some promising associates on the rise - one of them is rated above Zimbabwe on the ODI table. Zimbabwe has greater status in the game's administration and gets a larger slice of the money. For this situation to be justified then, at the least, surely serious steps need to be taken to revert Zimbabwe's slide. What are ZC and the ICC doing to rectify this situation? The BCCI have supported ZC here, but they don't seem to do a lot to help the games of the less prominent teams. India have put off having Bangladesh tour, for instance. The BCCI must do more to support the lesser nations develop their cricket, simply keeping them on the international stage isn't enough.

  • rankinrobbie on July 5, 2008, 12:42 GMT

    This should have been so easy for the ICC. Zimbabwe should have had their test status removed some time ago on standards alone. The nations that want Zimbabwe out should have argued on standards alone. Scotland, Ireland, Kenya, Uganda, Nepal, Bermuda and Afghanistan all have much brighter prospects in the future than Zimbabwe regardless of who is running the respective countries. Politics should be left out of this. The British government looked silly when calling on a boycott of Zim cricket whilst saying nothing to FIFA, IOC or other sporting bodies with links to Zimbabwe. India needs to grow up. It needs to realise it already is the number one power in cricket politically. They don't need the Zim vote if they show true leadership, the other countries will follow anyway. Also, can people here stick to cricket or politics concerning cricket. Talking about race, Iraq war etc is just bloody stupid.

  • TheOzGov on July 5, 2008, 11:07 GMT

    Since this affair is all about the BCCI trying to obtain the most amount of member votes to influence the ICC, the sooner Ireland, Scotland, USA, Netherlands etc are granted full member status the better!! Buy your way out of that one, BCCI!

  • TD27 on July 5, 2008, 10:12 GMT

    A great article.

    Although some of the comments below about next years Twenty20 miss the point slightly. The competition would have been ruined by Zimbabwe's participation due to them not being allowed into England or, if it was moved to another country, by teams refusing to play them.

    That tournament will bring in ALOT of money for the various boards and Twenty20 is the great new hope of world cricket. So the decision was inevitable. Zimbabwe were never going to be allowed to take part.

  • dasilva on July 5, 2008, 9:32 GMT

    There is a diffference between Fifa world cup qualifier than cricket. FIFA has a rule that there is no political interference in there sports. The sporting body of every country are not run by members of government and if government do interfere of the sport then they will be suspended. Therefore they have a right to say you can't mix politics with sports as zimbabwe, china football organization are not government bodies.

    Cricket is different where there is government interference and it is allowed by the laws of ICC. Board member do have strong connection with the Zana-PF party. This is a reason why Zimbabwe has such a strong spot light in cricket. When people say that politics and sport don't mix. It is already mix by people who are running the organization. Unfortunately major cricket sporting bodies such as bangladesh, pakistan and sri lanka do have political interference from governments and I don't see a change of rules from ICC to stop political interference in the future.

  • tronicsfan on July 5, 2008, 8:21 GMT

    Amazing article Dileep , at last someone articulates the BCCI view point .......whether right or wrong , some one needed to do this ....I was frankly getting tired of the Australian and the English media going on about the stupidity of the Indian Board ....

  • TheEnticer on July 5, 2008, 8:20 GMT

    There is a real moral issue and that is 'how to respond to the first world hypocrisy'. Mark my words, this has nothing to do with Zim or the political situation there. This has everything to do with weakening India. A case has been made by Gideon and others on cricinfo that politics and sports should mix. If so, then why dont their respective governments try to get ZIm thrown out of the Olympics first? Surely that would be a bigger snub than this. Why cant we apply the same standards to other countries who have blatantly violated human rights (google stolen generation) or are actively supporting a war that is highly controversial to say the least. England continues to rule over the Falkland islands and the bermuda islands, why cant those people be allowed the right to self determination? My point is every country has skeletons in it's closet and every other country tries to exploit them while trying to hid their own. Please see this for what it is, England and Aus' attempt to reign Ind

  • rajatdua2004 on July 5, 2008, 7:49 GMT

    Very nice article, very well written. The portrayal of the situation has been spot on.

  • anu_D on July 5, 2008, 6:37 GMT

    The politics of nations should not have anything to do with sports....that has not registered on the writer

    The politics in sports bodies is as much a part of life as butter and toast....and India is having their share of butter and toast after several years of only Eng and Aus having had it.

    a_D

  • Suresh_Krishnamurthy on July 5, 2008, 5:47 GMT

    This is probably the first article by Dileep involving BCCI or Indian cricket which discusses the issue from all view points. However, ending of the article betrays CRICINFO's and Dileep's naivete or politics, which ever way you see it. If BCCI is playing politics to get the fifth vote, then is ECB not playing politics to deny BCCI the fifth vote? The issue being discussed - mixing of politics and sport - has such enormous ramifications that ICC ill-equipped to handle. The virtual ban on Zimbabwe's participation in ICCT20 sets an ugly precedent which is sure to polarise an already divided ICC. The call for a ban on Zimbabwe is akin to calling for delisting of a stock when promoters embezzle money. Delisting reduces the value of stock held by small investors to zero. Does not hurt the promoters. Banning Zimbabwe punishes the cricketers and people of Zimbabwe. Does not hurt Zimbabwe's cricket managers

  • sap1979 on July 5, 2008, 5:43 GMT

    Jack J I have just heard that ashish nehra turned down an offer for worcestershire since they cant pay him enough. So much for ur british labour laws. U paupers cant even maintain ur soccer clubs what re u gonna do in cricket? I think most Indians have been too soft on these poms. Good on u BCCI for arm twisting these morons. They somehow do not understand the language of civility. We want a good fight now bring it on. We are now gonna bully u in every occasion.

  • aditya87 on July 5, 2008, 5:01 GMT

    If we as Indians are so suspicious of England and Australia on Zimbabwe, then we have to realize that Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, hardly English or Australian, have condemned the situation. I think if we as a country hold ideal the values of democracy dear, then we must boycott Zimbabwe. Forget about western hypocrisy or what the western nations think, it's for our own moral sake. Let's not reduce everything to an east-versus-west or white/black issue.

  • Arun.. on July 5, 2008, 4:43 GMT

    @ Sreedhar_Yadavally. You obviously don't have a problem with calling the whites as whites and calling yourselves as brown or beige. So why is it that suddenly addressing the blacks as blacks becomes an issue for you? Get a life. Petty rabble-rousers like you truly belong to the realm of politics. And as for your 'concern' for Dileep, it's the only thing that has sounded geuinely contrived so far.

  • IndianMigrant on July 5, 2008, 4:26 GMT

    Australian and English Media just cannot stomach the fact that BCCI is powerful and has made the game more popular during the last decade of their dominance which english and Australian failed for 100 years. If you want to mix sports and politics, the first team to be banned is England Cricket team for it's countries actions in Iraq. Taxes that the cricket players pay to the british government during 20/20 will be used to kill innocent iraqi civilians and to prop up chinese lobby so that it creates new business opportunities for British companies. No Australian or English cricket journalist seems to be outraged by this we all know why morality and justices differ based on one's color

  • zingzangspillip on July 5, 2008, 3:42 GMT

    Pun8max, your statement disturbs me. India is only the most powerful nation in cricket because it has the highest population. It is not because India is inherently better than anyone else. The assertion that they should "call the tune" because of this is reprehensible, especially since the BCCI appears to be more interested in increasing it's bank balance that the nation's cricket ability. Also, I resent Dileep's statement that Australia were staunch backers of the Iraq War. The only people in Australia who backed the U.S. were the government; upwards of 80% of the population were against the war, and John Howard's continued participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq was seen as one of the major reasons he lost our last election. Other than that, it is a good article. The problem worldwide is that people in positions of power, rather than wishing to help those who need help, wish only to remain in their lofty positions, at any cost.

  • Sreedhar_Yadavally on July 5, 2008, 3:31 GMT

    Editorial Note: With all due respect to dileep's credentials... kindly exercise more judicious choice of words... "black sheep administration", could have better alternatives. Another person writing this and it would have sounded seemingly contrived; we live in different times mate.

  • rv770 on July 5, 2008, 2:59 GMT

    First time a nice article published along with a negative comment on media as cricinfo also part of the western media as rightly said by " Posted by BangaloreKid on July 04 2008, 18:17 PM GMT" excellent comment on excellent article.

  • Skitto on July 5, 2008, 2:55 GMT

    If the BCCI and the other countries that support it in the ICC can just explain to me how Zimbabwe is a Test Playing Nation, then I will understand why they should have full member status in the ICC. Given that they aren't playing tests, and would struggle to beat most First Class teams in the rest of the world, what is this status based on? (Apart from the self-interested pragmatism effectively explained by Dileep.)

  • Skitto on July 5, 2008, 2:44 GMT

    I haven't heard the allegation that anyone has had their hands and feet cut off in Guantanamo Bay. I'd like to know how GB has worse human rights violations than Zimbabwe? (Which is not to imply that Guantanamo Bay is acceptable either. I just don't think it is worse than Zimbabwe.)

  • Jim_Ribbans on July 5, 2008, 2:44 GMT

    Bangalorekid,

    I don't think the English press line up to 'trash India at every opportunity they get', rather they take a hard line on the actions of a highly suspect BCCI. I have spent a great deal of time in India and have many Indian friends and I'd be appalled to think that the actions of the BCCI are symptomatic of India and it's people.

    It was in fact a question that I asked a number of my Indian friends and colleagues recently: Are you proud of the BCCI?

    The universal answer was a resigned and slightly weary...no.

    In the same way if one were to ask the majority of English fans whether they percieved the ECB to be the modern arbiter of all that is good about England I'm sure you'd be answered with derision.

    This is not a 'political' issue nor is it really a moral one (as numerous commentators have pointed out no nation's hands are truly clean when it comes to human rights) instead it should about whether the ZCU are stealing money from the ICC.

  • Zaeb on July 5, 2008, 1:13 GMT

    I am not a supporter of BCCI (I must tell).. But why the whole focus had shifted to BCCI on Zimbabwe issue..every board has right to use its resources to capture the power..If so call England and Australian Boards cant hold the power anymore..then why the blame coming on BCCI..had the whole english media forgot the double standards of these boards..?

  • JangBang on July 5, 2008, 1:13 GMT

    BCCI treats ICL and anybody associated with ICL, just like Robert Mugabe treats his opposition. Because of that, they don't understand what Mugabe is doing is wrong.

  • corpusninja on July 5, 2008, 1:03 GMT

    Yawn. All this BCCI bashing is getting tiresome. Let's face it, none of the ICC full members can take the moral high ground. I find the idea of weighted voting presented by a poster above most intriguing. 70% revenues = 70% vote sounds completely logical to me.

  • JarrodPotter on July 5, 2008, 0:33 GMT

    As far as I'm concerned, the current structure of the ICC resembles that of a parentless household full of children. The so called democracy of decision making is left up to factions that kick and scream until their goals are met. Pakistan refused to play a game of cricket which they were thoroughly winning at the Oval, why do they deserve a draw out of that? England didn't sulk in the corner that day when they were more than likely going to suffer defeat, yet Pakistan do it because they were penalised 5 runs.

    It isn't correct to leave Zimbabwe as it is. By demoting Zimbabwe to Associate status (with a sunset clause period of 5-6 years to revert the decision), they would play more cricket, and have a better chance of developing their youth, as it won't be a case of the ICC elite refusing to tour because of a lack of financial interest. When such time occurs that they can competitively play Test cricket, then they should receive their status back.

  • Subra on July 5, 2008, 0:23 GMT

    A well balanced article. In the Bible, there is an instance where Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." The Western Powers were trading with South Africa during the Apartheid era - while the cricket teams were told not to play. The pity is that Zimbabwe is a poor country, therefore there is no gain in trading with them. Hence they pull out all the stops. Rhe South Africa cricketers during the Apartheid era were allowed to ply their trade in England - but no Zimbabwean cricketer will be granted visas. Do I detect a color bias? Zimbabwe is quite right in pointing out that unlike South Africa they have not been banned from taking part in the Olympics or by FIFA. Do not mix sport and politics. If anyone thinks that depriving the Zimbabwean cricketers will bring about Mugabe's fall - he must be living in DREAMLAND. Please do not punish the Zimbabwean cricketers - by all means ensure that the money goes for the development of the game. R Sivasubramaniam

  • JackJ on July 4, 2008, 23:35 GMT

    I condemn Premachandran's attitude with contempt and disgust! The BCCI is unethical, venal, utterly lacking in integrity, and is a disgrace to those many fair-minded Indians I know. Somehow I can't see the likes of Sachin or Rahul or Anil and their like expressing approval of the antics of their board? I also hope that the ICL continues from strength to strength! Who gave the arrogant BCCI the right to think they own Indian cricket? Last time I looked, India was a democracy and encouraged free markets. Its good to have a competitor to the IPL, as it stops the BCCI monopoly. The BCCI has zero chance of getting the ECB to ban ICL players, because Britain has good labour laws. A pro cricketer is entitled to earn his living by playing cricket for whomever, and the courts will always endorse that right. Sorry you lose, BCCI.

  • AussiesRule on July 4, 2008, 23:21 GMT

    It's difficult to digest for the up-chin brit's that the game they accidently invented ?, is now no longer in thier control. why blame modi and pawar ? they are balancing the power that is totally bieng unbalanced by the non-asia block so to say. In a way you also learn to ignore the sissy brits. they are the poorest country of thier repute at the international level, be it soccer or cricket or hockey .. so god save them and thier hypocrit media

  • Made_In_India on July 4, 2008, 22:48 GMT

    Seriously, you people should, by this time, know what "POLITICS" mean. Does any one care about moral justice in politics? As the title said, "For India, the Zimbabwe issue is less a moral one and more of realpolitik". Same is the case everywhere around the world... so please stop going all hoop-la-hoo about this. If you are still not convinced, talk to Mr. D. Rumsfeld.

  • Cr1cket_Lover on July 4, 2008, 22:32 GMT

    This crisis in Zimbabwe isn't why they should be banished from world cricket. Robert Mugabe has ruled the country with an iron fist, withheld food aid from his own citizens unless they voted for him. He has also dispossessed white farmers in the country and stolen their property. He has had it coming for a long time.

    While the West isn't perfect, they have learned from their mistakes. But we the people from the so-called Asian block oppose the Western block countries using the pretext of their mistakes of the past. Imagine our outrage if Mugable was white and he had dispossessed black rich farmers and put black opposition leaders in jail. Our sense of right and wrong is totally warped, we think what Mugabe is doing is not a big issue because it is black on black injustice. We are better than this, and we need to show it too.

  • offspin79 on July 4, 2008, 21:39 GMT

    I certainly hope that this article doesn't represent views of the ICC. This display weak knowledge of cricket and even less of international politics.

  • The_Wog on July 4, 2008, 21:36 GMT

    Dileep, WORSE human rights abuses in Guantanamo than from ZANU-PF?? You might want to have a think about what you're writing before you publish it next time.

    pun8max, if IND finances 70% of world cricket (which I'm not convinced about), then they don't NEED to grovel to Mugabe to keep their powerful position. They already own IPL (which determines the timing of international cricket now, we're told). They own the umpiring appointments (Rauf's performance in Perth was every bit as bad as Bucknor's in Sydney, but he's still around) and of course the referees (remember Denness?). They own the top spots on the ICC. And they pretty much have veto power over anything that happens in the game. So why do this? In a 9-vote ICC, Asia will get WI's vote most of the time unless they want to do something REALLY outrageous.

  • pozx on July 4, 2008, 21:13 GMT

    good point Dileep,english and australian boards have always ruled cricket and think of themselves as law maker(no points for guessing champions league guide lines are made by australians).so the english board just wants to come at par with bcci and its gonna all the weapons it has in its armory(pity).Although bcci is wrong in supporting zimbabwe in this issue but the double standards of lawmakers have made this happen, and this kind of incidents will happen if icc continues to work in the manner it has worked so long or unless it is destroyed completely

  • mark777 on July 4, 2008, 20:29 GMT

    you Talk about Tibet but why i see no mntion of Kashmir here(a region with a far worse humen rights situation),eh dileep, when will you learn?Talk about hypocrisy.eh dileep, grow up now

  • time_pass on July 4, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    I see nothing wrong in flexing a muscle every now and then when you can. If not BCCI then somebody else will. Morality, ethics, etc... all sounds good but the dark fact remains that compromise or no compromise Zimbabwe wouldn't be playing the T20 Worldcup. Also, BCCI and co can't be wrong all the time and at the same time ECB and co can't be right always. I don't see the politiking higher up affecting the quality or entertainment value of the game played by the 22 who matter at any given point of time on the oval.

  • weegie_warrior on July 4, 2008, 19:43 GMT

    When the Apartheid regime was in place the cry was no sport with an abnormal society. What is normal about people being beaten up by their government because they support the opposition? Zimbadwe should be expelled from all international sport with immediate effect and not readmitted until such times as democracy is restored and free elections are held. All the West is looking for is consistency in approach to abnormal societies but evidently that is too much to hope for!

  • Raps on July 4, 2008, 19:16 GMT

    I am not sure why people are blaming the BCCI for taking the stand that they did. Politics should NEVER interfere with SPORTS. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of that and we jump on the fact that one sports committee makes a decision that is not a popular vote.

    Give it a thought!

  • Umair_umair on July 4, 2008, 18:46 GMT

    Reading all these posts about Zim issue. It seems, no one has a clear idea or clear solution that how should it be handled. Sometime it seems England is right. Sometimes, ICC seems right and even after reading this article, it seems partially the BCCI and Asian countries have a point there(read that double standard thing?)

  • Clean_hitter on July 4, 2008, 18:33 GMT

    It's absolutely no secret that India's stand on Zimbabwe is to keep it's own power base intact and to snub England and Australia at every opportunity. They have given NO moral reasons to keep Zimbabwe within the fold, and to keep Zimbabwe on sporting grounds is a joke at best, and a patchy cover-up at worst.

  • engima28 on July 4, 2008, 18:31 GMT

    Kudos to Dileep yet again for not mincing words and putting it exactly as he sees it (and the world should see it too.)

    For all it is worth, it is all about BCCI making sure it has the extra vote it so often needs to get things turned its way. Shameless act yet again by power and money hungry BCCI with absolute and total disregard for the interests of cricket in general. What Pawar and Modi are doing to cricket is just disgusting.

  • TwitterJitter on July 4, 2008, 18:17 GMT

    You have got it right it, Dileep as far as conveying how many Indians feel about this issue. However, the self-righteousness with which the British press has been treating this issue to trash India at every opportunity they get, has driven me away from any sympathy I have towards the cause. They still practice the George W. Bush 2001-2003 type diplomacy (you are either with us or againt us mentality) that even Bush seems to distance himself away from. Once ECB picks a stance, the British newspapers seem endlessly run their campaign to run their trash India every opportunity they get. Every day, I hear about the Asian-block vote. How about the ECB-CA-NZ board alliance. They seem to vote the same on every issue. What block do we call them? In my view, the whole ICC is impotent because it operates like UN. However, ECB are as equally guilty for the operation of ICC as BCCI. The only difference is that they play their politics well using their media to trash Indians while BCCI does not.

  • pun8max on July 4, 2008, 18:13 GMT

    Absolutely justified. International politics is not about principles. English and the western world are not fighting for principles. They are fighting for control over Indian riches. Nothing new about old colonialist policies! If they are so principled, then they should agree for weighted voting. Let whoever pays the piper call the tune! If India finances 70% of world's cricket, why should old colonialist call the shots?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • pun8max on July 4, 2008, 18:13 GMT

    Absolutely justified. International politics is not about principles. English and the western world are not fighting for principles. They are fighting for control over Indian riches. Nothing new about old colonialist policies! If they are so principled, then they should agree for weighted voting. Let whoever pays the piper call the tune! If India finances 70% of world's cricket, why should old colonialist call the shots?

  • TwitterJitter on July 4, 2008, 18:17 GMT

    You have got it right it, Dileep as far as conveying how many Indians feel about this issue. However, the self-righteousness with which the British press has been treating this issue to trash India at every opportunity they get, has driven me away from any sympathy I have towards the cause. They still practice the George W. Bush 2001-2003 type diplomacy (you are either with us or againt us mentality) that even Bush seems to distance himself away from. Once ECB picks a stance, the British newspapers seem endlessly run their campaign to run their trash India every opportunity they get. Every day, I hear about the Asian-block vote. How about the ECB-CA-NZ board alliance. They seem to vote the same on every issue. What block do we call them? In my view, the whole ICC is impotent because it operates like UN. However, ECB are as equally guilty for the operation of ICC as BCCI. The only difference is that they play their politics well using their media to trash Indians while BCCI does not.

  • engima28 on July 4, 2008, 18:31 GMT

    Kudos to Dileep yet again for not mincing words and putting it exactly as he sees it (and the world should see it too.)

    For all it is worth, it is all about BCCI making sure it has the extra vote it so often needs to get things turned its way. Shameless act yet again by power and money hungry BCCI with absolute and total disregard for the interests of cricket in general. What Pawar and Modi are doing to cricket is just disgusting.

  • Clean_hitter on July 4, 2008, 18:33 GMT

    It's absolutely no secret that India's stand on Zimbabwe is to keep it's own power base intact and to snub England and Australia at every opportunity. They have given NO moral reasons to keep Zimbabwe within the fold, and to keep Zimbabwe on sporting grounds is a joke at best, and a patchy cover-up at worst.

  • Umair_umair on July 4, 2008, 18:46 GMT

    Reading all these posts about Zim issue. It seems, no one has a clear idea or clear solution that how should it be handled. Sometime it seems England is right. Sometimes, ICC seems right and even after reading this article, it seems partially the BCCI and Asian countries have a point there(read that double standard thing?)

  • Raps on July 4, 2008, 19:16 GMT

    I am not sure why people are blaming the BCCI for taking the stand that they did. Politics should NEVER interfere with SPORTS. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of that and we jump on the fact that one sports committee makes a decision that is not a popular vote.

    Give it a thought!

  • weegie_warrior on July 4, 2008, 19:43 GMT

    When the Apartheid regime was in place the cry was no sport with an abnormal society. What is normal about people being beaten up by their government because they support the opposition? Zimbadwe should be expelled from all international sport with immediate effect and not readmitted until such times as democracy is restored and free elections are held. All the West is looking for is consistency in approach to abnormal societies but evidently that is too much to hope for!

  • time_pass on July 4, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    I see nothing wrong in flexing a muscle every now and then when you can. If not BCCI then somebody else will. Morality, ethics, etc... all sounds good but the dark fact remains that compromise or no compromise Zimbabwe wouldn't be playing the T20 Worldcup. Also, BCCI and co can't be wrong all the time and at the same time ECB and co can't be right always. I don't see the politiking higher up affecting the quality or entertainment value of the game played by the 22 who matter at any given point of time on the oval.

  • mark777 on July 4, 2008, 20:29 GMT

    you Talk about Tibet but why i see no mntion of Kashmir here(a region with a far worse humen rights situation),eh dileep, when will you learn?Talk about hypocrisy.eh dileep, grow up now

  • pozx on July 4, 2008, 21:13 GMT

    good point Dileep,english and australian boards have always ruled cricket and think of themselves as law maker(no points for guessing champions league guide lines are made by australians).so the english board just wants to come at par with bcci and its gonna all the weapons it has in its armory(pity).Although bcci is wrong in supporting zimbabwe in this issue but the double standards of lawmakers have made this happen, and this kind of incidents will happen if icc continues to work in the manner it has worked so long or unless it is destroyed completely