Zimbabwe boycott raises more questions
Two senior journalists at The Australian offer very different opinions on the cancellation of Australia’s tour to Zimbabwe
Brydon Coverdale
25-Feb-2013
Two senior journalists at The Australian offer very different opinions on the cancellation of Australia’s tour to Zimbabwe. Malcolm Conn argues that the ban was right but should not be extended to games at a neutral venue.
The central issue is that cricket in Zimbabwe needs nurturing in the hope that when the ageing Mugabe is gone, the country and its cricket will begin to recover. International cricket is too small a pool to simply cut teams adrift.
Patrick Smith, however, suggests Australia should not play Zimbabwe anywhere.
It is transparent that neither Sutherland nor Speed could figure out that Australia was not touring Zimbabwe because the nation will not validate and give succour to a murderer. This is undeniable. Because if they had the slightest idea that's why Howard stepped in then Sutherland and Speed would not have suggested playing Zimbabwe on neutral territory. That is truly an ignorant and irresponsible proposal.
After Howard gave both Cricket Australia and the ICC a dignified exit plan, both men went and bounced him by suggesting the tour goes on somewhere, anywhere, but in Zimbabwe. How absurd. If we are going to boycott playing Zimbabwe in protest at Mugabe's regime then we boycott full stop. Harare, Johannesburg, Cape Town. Anywhere.
Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here