A good and reasoned piece from the Guardian newspaper in support of Bangladesh and ZM.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...438497,00.html
The cricket test
The empire is long gone (but some sports commentators haven't noticed)
Steve Busfield
Wednesday March 16, 2005
The Guardian
During the 1999 cricket world cup, as England were losing to South Africa at the Oval, a couple of gents sitting in front of us were discussing another game being played that day between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. "Of course," said one, "it's really Rhodesia versus Ceylon."
Since 2002, Zimbabwe has won only two test matches, and both of those were against Bangladesh, the newest team to international cricket. Zimbabwe's cricket team, like the country, has been ripped apart by politics. Last April, all the white players in the national cricket team withdrew in protest against alleged political interference in team selection, and there were calls from British commentators for Zimbabwe to be stripped of its international status.
Bangladesh, too, has suffered at the hands of British commentators who claim that they should be barred from test cricket - for not being good enough.
It is true that Bangladesh, which joined the international elite in 2000, did not win an international game until their 35th test match. But historically it has been hard for new teams on the international cricket circuit to establish themselves. India did not win until its 25th test match.
Telling the little countries what they can and can't do is sometimes dressed up as being for the greater good of the game, as with Bangladesh, sometimes as pseudo-political posturing, as Zimbabwe discovered. It is notable that when Zimbabwe's white players returned to the team this month - including the former captain Heath Streak, the most vocal of the rebels - there was no rejoicing in the British press.
Every nation deserves its chance to play. That is why the Olympic games allow all countries to compete and all are free to play in the football World Cup qualifiers. Cricket needs as many teams to compete as possible: after all, few locations outside the areas that used to be pink on imperial maps have taken much interest in this sport.
It takes time and experience to improve. The Bangladeshis are clearly better now than they were when they started out. And nobody suggests that England should be disqualified from playing against Australia because the result has been a foregone conclusion for almost two decades.
In a short time, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will be equal competitors with their more established rivals. Instead of carping, we should celebrate the fact that cricket in Zimbabwe has once more become a multiracial sport, and look forward to the day that Bangladesh's 140 million populace produces 11 top quality cricketers - which they will if they are given the exposure and finances to grow.
The game's governing body, the International Cricket Council, recently decided to move its headquarters from Lord's in London to Dubai. The decision has been portrayed as one based on tax concessions. Money certainly came into it, but so did the growing interest in cricket in the Middle East among a large migrant population from the Indian subcontinent.
Even more important is the shift in power away from the old colonial base. The new ICC decided that it no longer wanted to be tenants (of the Marylebone Cricket Club).
When the ICC was formed by England, Australia and South Africa in 1909 it was called the Imperial Cricket Conference. As new members joined, the founding members retained the right to veto ICC decisions. But the game's new rulers come from the former colonies.
It is time parts of England realised that the days of empire are over; that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are new, but equal partners; and that what England says doesn't necessarily go any more.
steve.busfield@guardian.co.uk
Edited on, March 17, 2005, 12:27 AM GMT, by Tintin.
Reason: Fixed the link