The show must go on

From Neville Menezes, New Zealand
The outcome over the staging of the Champions Trophy in Pakistan has consequences for 2011 Whatever the decision arrived at on whether or not to proceed with the Champions Trophy in Pakistan, a line in the sand has proverbially been drawn for what is to come for the ICC's truly show-case event in three years' time - the World Cup (also to be co-hosted by Pakistan).

The ICC know they have now been backed into a corner by the vexed issue of security and racial undertones that have resulted following the 'white' cricket nations' reluctance to tour an Asian cricket member. It is difficult to predict what political situation (or, for that matter the administrative state of the PCB) Pakistan will be in in three years' time but if the (recent) past is any guide, then the signs are not a good omen for 2011 when the subcontinent next hosts the 50-over aside event. It is interesting also to know what the reaction might have been had this event in 2008 been the World Cup (whether 50 or 20 overs a side).

The advent of the World Twenty20 has effectively consigned the Champions Trophy to the status of also-ran in the ICC trophy hierarchy. Its origins of ten years ago when first created as the Knock-Out have since been surpassed by the latest Twenty20 revolution taking hold. I dare say that player associations would have swallowed even the most harrowing of security reports to proceed to Pakistan had this been the World Cup at stake. The conundrum for the ICC is a clear lack of leadership at the present time. The prevarication on making a definitive statement re repercussions for no-shows and sticking by their decision to proceed with Pakistan is lamentable for the sport's world governing body.

For there to be no repeat of the 2008 shenanigans in 2011, the ICC must act now with authority. The clear way ahead is to stand by its decision to proceed with Pakistan as the venue for 2008 if the ICC remains convinced on the facts that the security situation can be addressed through more than adequate security measures. And if that means member boards/playing associations decide to boycott the event, the clear response must be sanction - most evidently a financial one. Money talks and, inevitably, players will walk.