*Official* The Zimbabwe Situation

[Rik]

This should have been sorted out last year, not 1 week before the WC Starts! I was just talking to Andre about it, and he agrees. Why the need to tell people where to play? Why not just play the game wherever and accept it? England and NZ should have been asked a while ago weather they wanted to play the games in Zimbabwe and Kenya, as if the teams are forced to play a game in a country they do not feel safe staying in, or playing a game they do not wish to play then that's hardly the spirit of Cricket shining through.

 

[PY]

Though i appreciate what you had to say but what has cricket World Cup to do with World peace???

Unfortunately world peace is not possible as Uncle sam and his clonies are bent on staging war (not even respecting their own people's wishes)

You mind explaining how that's relevant to Southern Africa and whether or not the games should be played in the World Cup at designated venues? and do you mean clones or cronies or a clever mixture of both???:saint:

 

[Ringua]

You mind explaining how that's relevant to Southern Africa and whether or not the games should be played in the World Cup at designated venues? and do you mean clones or cronies or a clever mixture of both???:saint:

I have already said that it has nothing to do with cricket/SA, was just expressing my opinion on world peace. The games should be held on designated venue, ICC have done well so far.

And it was clones, last thing we need is a mixture of Uncle Sam

 

[Ringua]

I don't think home advantage is a real problem - IMO the Tournament should always be all played in one country - the ICC try to spread it, and look what happens!

How well Zimbabwe and Kenya are able to stage the WC matches remains to be seen, but previously India,Pakistan and SL had sucessfully staged WC jointly in '87 and '96, while NZ and Australia did a wonderful job in 1992, so i don't think that it is essential to limit WC matches to just one country.

Even in 2007, USA is going to host some of the games, rest will be held in west indies, i think it would be a complete success!

 

[marc71178]

How well Zimbabwe and Kenya are able to stage the WC matches remains to be seen, but previously India,Pakistan and SL had sucessfully staged WC jointly in '87 and '96, while NZ and Australia did a wonderful job in 1992, so i don't think that it is essential to limit WC matches to just one country.

In 87 there was no Sri Lanka involved.

In 96 it was not a big success - remember the teams refusing to play?

Agreed NZ and Aus went OK, but the way this one is going it's not going to.

Even in 2007, USA is going to host some of the games, rest will be held in west indies, i think it would be a complete success!

Erm, there's no such country as the West Indies - it is a massive collection of individual Countries, and the name only really exists for Cricket purposes!

 

[Langeveldt]

England just lost the battle to get their game moved to SA

And South Africa have just been handed the ICC world championship!

While I celebrate that, I get the distinct impression that the ICC is an organization that does not know what it is doing.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Let's go in, beat them, and get out again.

We have to play them there or we go out the World Cup.

Let's go beat them.

 

[Ringua]

In 87 there was no Sri Lanka involved.

Agreed, but it was successfully hosted by 2 countries, after after that it has become a trend to jointly host WC!

[/QUOTE] In 96 it was not a big success - remember the teams refusing to play?[/QUOTE]

Aus and WI did refuse to play in SL, yet the event was very successful, financially it was even better than '87

[/QUOTE] Agreed NZ and Aus went OK, but the way this one is going it's not going to.[/QUOTE]

Remains to be seen, but the way things are going, i do think there can be some problems.



[/QUOTE] Erm, there's no such country as the West Indies - it is a massive collection of individual Countries, and the name only really exists for Cricket purposes! [/QUOTE]
You are correct about that, basically its a collection of many islands, hence the WC'07 would be hosted by numerous countries!

 

[marc71178]

In 96 it was not a big success - remember the teams refusing to play?[/QUOTE]

Aus and WI did refuse to play in SL, yet the event was very successful, financially it was even better than '87
countries! [/QUOTE]

Owing to inflation it is going to be more successful that way, but that wasn't up for discussion!

 

[HenryV]

The format of the 2003 world cup is completely different to the 96 because in that you only had to get into the top four unlike the top three in this years cup.

 

[PY]

Just heard a rumour on English national radio (TalkSport 1053AM) that the South African govt is running the show behind all this farcical "on/off" situation because they don't want to have seen to have messed it up with handing games to Zim because they are aiming at hosting the football World Cup sometime in the future......this could just be a rumour because the radio station is known for spouting utter rubbish just to drum up high ratings but if that is true, that's an absolute disgrace :!( :!( :!( People's families being threatened for that. Anyone else heard anything similar?

 

[Rich2001]

I heard something like your comment, in that if England pull out of the Zimbabwe game not only will Zimbabwe refuse to tour us in the summer, but now SA will back out as well.... WHY?? we don't have an issue with them... but in readin your comment above it goes part way to explianing it.

Cricket (as much as I love it) isn't more important than lives, and I'll rather see England go home early than see endless amounts of inocent people being hurt and at worse killed... Inculding the England players/families themselves... As Nasser (I think) put it, it only takes one sniper hidden somewhere in the ground to gun down anyone they please, and theirs nothing to protect the guys when in the feild/ or batting.