'Zimbabwe will return as soon as they are ready'

Chingoka: 'Democracy must rule. That is what it is' © AFP

Zimbabwe's Test status is likely to come up for review again this year ...
It's not a general question of coming up for review, we have to be clear. Firstly, in February 2006, after we had problems at the end of 2005 and early 2006, Zimbabwe Cricket took the decision [for suspension] on its own. We initiated this, so it was a voluntary thing. And it's voluntary to be saying we are coming back in. As soon as we believe we are ready, we will let the ICC know.

How far, then, are Zimbabwe from becoming a Test side again? There have been a few four-day matches, some with promising performances.
There has been that, yes, but we must remember, all this time we have really played most of our cricket at home. If not at home, we have played the four-day games in South Africa. This is the first chance we have had to play outside, so after this, after this series in Pakistan, we go home, we regroup and we take stock of where we are.

A key indicator of progress will be the domestic system's ability to constantly produce players for international cricket. How viable is the domestic cricket structure currently? There are reports that standards are not very high right now.
The standard is reasonably good and improving all the time. It is not yet perfect. We do need some additional resources. By that I mean possibly bringing in one or two players from outside Zimbabwe to play so that it helps younger players. Kenya playing last year [in the Logan Cup] was useful. Also, we could look at Namibia taking part and helping us as much as helping themselves as well. We are also playing the South African competition. So we are playing tough cricket where the players learn the hard way.

Robin Brown, Zimbabwe's coach, said recently that schools cricket and the academy and Under-19 structures were doing some good work. Tell us a little more about that.
We have an academy which operates, but the structures were burned down unfortunately. We are in the process of repairing that now. We take youngsters between the age of 17 and 23, those with promise and potential to be high performers, and we take them through not just the different facets of cricket, but we make them rounded people. Things like public speaking, how they control their financial management, know more about diets and nutrition and sports psychology.

The U-19s we have over the last three U-19 World Cups have excelled. We got to the quarter-final last time and the time before that we beat both Australia and New Zealand when the tournament was hosted in Bangladesh. At U-19 level we can mix it with the best.

Brown was appointed coach in September and that seems to have sparked something in the side. Were there problems for the players with Kevin Curran?
It's going well at the moment. Under Robin's care we have done quite well, but I don't want to over-criticise the predecessor because he could've done something to be planting a seed, which Robin also propagated. Robin is doing well, he seems to be enjoying it, he's doing a good job for the team. We keep monitoring that, talking to the players as well as Robin himself and the technical people around him to see that we are getting the best team around the young players.

Do you feel Zimbabwe cricket is in a better state now than it was three or four years ago?
Yes and no. Starting with the no side, the popular question that everybody asks is: what happened to this player or that player. From that point of view, the idea would've been for these young fellows to be sort of dovetailing in. In as much as we try to make it an all-inclusive squad, there were people that were against that whole idea. Some people thought it was an elitist sport that must remain elitist. As a policy there was no way we could subscribe to that, so there was a downside to reconstructing. But the reconstruction process also takes care of the fact that a lot of the players people would've asked questions about would have reached their sell-by date in any case by now. Some were near 36, 39 - the fullness of time has arrived for them.

The positive side is obviously from our administration point of view, that we have a much, much more stable version now. It's a structure that covers all the four corners of the country, which was not the case before. We now have ten provincial associations that are active. We followed the government in imitation, where we have ten provinces and all of them are active. Most of them are solid first-class anyway, when they are on, and in all aspects they are carrying out serious progressive programmes. From a structural point of view we are better off now and the quality is just what we have to work on now. Before we only had five provincial associations and of those five we had an additional two that were only involved in districts cricket.

A player who was involved in the exodus in 2003-04 has said that to a different degree both players and administrators were to blame for what happened. He also suggested that a more serious, mature attempt to integrate black players could have been made by the team. How do you feel about that?
Before I answer your question, Zimbabwe must be such an interesting subject that a 2004 story seems to be news still. Why is this? I never hear anybody raking up old quotes about Australia when they had their problems between players and administrators, but Zimbabwe seems to be a topical nation. Fashionable.

Well, that is his opinion and he is entitled to one. I said to you earlier that there were some people prior to 2006 who believed that cricket is a game for only one sector of the community. There is no way one could accept that. There is no way one could accept that you don't give equal opportunities to everybody who makes himself available to play for their country. That is where the board stood, that is where the board stands now. And I am sure incoming boards in the future will stand for this, to say: equal opportunities for all people that are Zimbabweans.

Four years ago no one said that. Four years ago no one in the Western media went to ask him to say what he has said now. Four years ago we were not even given an opportunity to state our side of the story.

A number of countries refuse to play Zimbabwe in bilateral competition. What is the best way of dealing with this issue, especially if governments get involved?
I haven't been given a genuine reason for them saying why they don't want to play us, so I can't really respond to that with logic. What we see is people telling us about safety and security concerns, which we have said time and again are not applicable. We can't comment without knowing exactly why they are doing it.

In so far as the game is concerned, all countries have had problems at one time or another. There are times when England has had problems. Before 1999, England were not in the top five. New Zealand in the late 90s were also not there. They were allowed to regroup, reconstruct and move on. Surely, we are entitled to do the same? Surely we are allowed to reconstruct and be allowed to come back into the fold and take our rightful place as we will do when we are ready?

By doing so the game will get stronger. By doing so we are true to the vision and mission of the ICC which talks about the globalisation of the game and is not in the business of shrinking the game. It means we have an opportunity of ensuring that Africa becomes the next growth centre ... for other countries in Africa to come through and play Test cricket, countries like Kenya, Namibia, Uganda, and I could name a couple more.

A couple of incidents in international cricket recently seem to have split the ICC down geographical or racial lines - the Asian bloc coming together on issues, the African countries doing so as well or supporting Asia. How dangerous is that trend?
Democracy. Democracy is that you are allowed an opinion and we respect it. If Zimbabwe want to take a particular line and their mind meets with India, Pakistan, South Africa or anyone, so be it. That is democracy.

Given the criticism Zimbabwe cricket comes under, what prevents you from leaving it all behind and getting on with your life outside cricket?
There is no one who has come to us to say exactly where the issues are. If you say so with substance, if you say so with evidence ... just general mudslinging in the hope something will stick doesn't convince me to review my position. You just said now that in hindsight certain people are saying that maybe there are two sides to the story. At the time you people in the media - I don't mean you personally - only looked at it from one side and went beyond the bounds of just cricket.

So coming back to your question, if you say to me that we have failed, for example, in our development programme and that nothing is coming through and you show me a way of doing it better, in a second I will listen to you. If you identify to me areas, other areas in our administration that, with substance, with evidence, you can say, this could've been done better, in a second I'll listen to you. But just generic throwing mud against a wall and hoping it sticks, doesn't help me, doesn't help Zimbabwe cricket, because it doesn't give us a basis on which we can ... even if we were to leave now, the people that are incoming must know, with substance, where things could have been done better by the previous administration.

What was the reasoning behind the recent removal of lifetime administrators of Zimbabwe cricket, men such as Dave Ellman-Brown?
No one has been removed. You see, we all talk about democracy as a convenience. What has happened is that with effect from 2007 a new constitution for Zimbabwe cricket is in place. That new constitution had to come in place because we are now in a new reality of having ten provincial associations as opposed to what we had, which was five provincial associations plus two so-called associations. The one in Matabeleland, there was no cricket played in the last two years of existence of them being there. So they were just there for political purposes really. There was nothing happening there. The one in Mashonaland, there were only two teams that sometimes played. So we had to get into a new dispensation, with ten new provincial associations. Those ten new provincial associations that we have, there is no way that a constitution that was suitable for five provinces plus two could be adapted for ten provincial associations. That is what has happened. The constitution has come through a democratic process, it is in place, it has a structure, it has got a margin to include certain life members but did not see the need for life presidents and life vice-presidents as we had in the previous situation. Democracy must rule. That is what it is. Nothing personal, just how we move forward.

What are the challenges of running cricket in a country where the game was once run by an elite?
It's taking its natural course now. Selection ... there will be some black players unhappy that they have not been selected and there will be some white players unhappy. It's not because of colour but their ability. It is what we are fighting for: that everybody is given an equal opportunity. Now if you are saying to me that there is a concession from former players that other young black players didn't have an equal opportunity earlier, then basically you are endorsing what we stand for and what we stand for is equal opportunity.

Following on, there are also severe economic problems in Zimbabwe. How does that affect the running of the game?
Yes, there are situations that are tough in general terms and we have to cope like everybody else in Zimbabwe does either in their individual lives or in their business lives. You have to be resourceful, you have to work hard with honest endeavour.

Our situation is even tougher because unlike certain other countries where the infrastructure is already solid for cricket, we are trying to do a balance. We are looking after the top of the pyramid which is hopefully our Test team, but our national team certainly. That is the top and the base is having as many people participate so that we end up with high performers. That pyramid needs to be solid. We have ten provincial associations now; we have to make sure we have activities in each and every one of them. We have to go beyond just the provincial level and have the same at district level and the real grassroots level. There is still a long way to go because of financial constraints but those are the reasons why it is tough to run it anyway. But also the more reason to try and make it a mass sport.

There will be better days. Even in the capital now we are drawing a lot of support and goodwill from the corporate world and I am sure that there is no reason why that should not continue for a long time, for as long as the administration is seen to be solid and with the right vision and mission.

Malcolm Speed, in a leaked report, revealed that a forensic audit of the Zimbabwe board's accounts found that they had been "deliberately falsified to mask various illegal transactions". What is the story there?
We won't comment on the leak because that is being attended to by the ICC. As far as the report itself is concerned, why is there so much anxiety of pre-empting the report? The report is due to come out. It has not been neutered in any way. Let the report come out and move on from there. And hopefully, if the report is as clean as we are confident it will be, you will give as much space, as much prominence and as much justice and fairness to it as you have done over the last few years. If it comes out, then do justice to that report, give it as much prominence as it deserves and also accept it.

What do you want your legacy to be?
That I didn't do anything personally, that I was, hopefully, a member of a collective that has helped transform cricket from an elite sport to a national sport, which today we can pride ourselves in saying we have taken to second place in terms of popularity. That we have put in a solid enough structure to carry the game in the country, that we have given equal opportunity to everyone to play it, that we have bridged the gap between the haves and the have-nots as far as cricket is concerned. I emphasise this is not me individually but as a part of a collective.