BBC: Nasser's men to say no to Zimbabwe

Cricket World Cup

It is only one limited-overs cricket match between two pretty ordinary sides, but it will be enshrined in the annals of the game and perhaps of a regime. This morning in Cape Town, England's cricketers will announce whether they intend to play their World Cup match in Zimbabwe on Thursday.

Their decision will not be the final act in the drama, but it will signal the beginning of the end. All that was clear yesterday was confusion, which was appropriate and expected since that is the state in which the entire debate has been conducted for almost three months. It was reported last night by Jonathan Agnew, the BBC's cricket correspondent, that the players would boycott the game after receiving death threats from a group calling themselves "the sons and daughters of Zimbabwe". Conversely, the South African Sunday Times, the country's biggest Sunday newspaper, said the team had decided to play.

Nasser Hussain's team and their managers held the last in a series of meetings with officials of the England and Wales Cricket Board yesterday afternoon and then went away to reach a conclusion. There were to be no more hearings, appeals or reviews. The ball was in the court where the politicians and administrators had contrived to kick it. The players had to juggle safety, morality, money, famine, jobs, grass roots, the future, everybody's future.

A blanket of silence hung over the issue, which was unusual considering all the hot air which had been expended before. The players were tight-lipped, saying nothing, even to old mates. The ECB said: "There will be no further public comment on this issue today."

The arguments remained as they had always been. On the one hand, there was the problem of playing on the ground next door to the grand house occupied by the despotic President Robert Mugabe.

England have genuine concerns about their safety, despite the opinion of the International Cricket Council. Yet even if those could be allayed they had also taken on board the moral point, that playing cricket in a country where half the population is being systematically starved to death, is hardly desirable. Reports of divisions among players were not eyebrow-raising. It would be astonishing if there were noy different opinions.

On the other hand, they had to consider the repercussions if they decide not to go. They would be alive and kicking to tell the tale and would have the approbation of the principled wing. They would also forfeit four points and probably advancement in the World Cup.

That would not quite be that, because refusal to play would mean paying compensation to the ICC and possibly the television rights holders, the Global Cricket Corporation, a sum anywhere between £1m and £10m. The other hand might also mean Zimbabwe refusing to tour England this summer. It is at least possible that other teams would be similarly badly disposed towards England. The consequent loss of revenue would affect jobbing professionals in the English county game and the development of the sport in schools and clubs.

But the failure, for the third time in succession, to make an impact in the World Cup, albeit an artificially induced failure, would further debilitate the game's allure in England. And still by Wednesday, millions of Zimbabweans will be starving. The noble gesture will have been made, but for whose benefit?

All of these things were given an airing yesterday at a long round of meetings. The ECB must have dreaded that it would come to this. They had prevaricated in asking the ICC to move the match, and it was impossible not to suspect that a nod-and- a-wink deal had been done with the players.

A fortnight ago, many of the England party, who had been away from home for months, suddenly decided that they would like a few days at home between the end of the tour in Australia and the beginning of the World Cup in southern Africa. The ECB rejected the request, and mutiny was in the offing. Just as suddenly, the players decided that they did not want to come home after all. Perhaps they exchanged a few days at home for not having to travel to Zimbabwe. Certainly, within a few days, after expertly conducted pressure from Richard Bevan of the Professional Cricketers' Association, the ECB formally asked for the switch.

So, the ICC's event technical committee decided against them and on Friday the South African judge, Albie Sachs, confirmed that finding. The players then had a round of meetings in Cape Town. They met Bevan and the PCA lawyer, Gerrard Tyrrell, for 45 minutes. They had discussions with Malcolm Speed, the chief executive of the ICC, whose hard-nosed lawyer's stance has not budged a centimetre. Still later, they met the World Cup's head of security, Patrick Ronan, and a representative from the risk management company Kroll. Yesterday afternoon they were in further consultation with David Morgan and Tim Lamb, the chairman and chief executive respectively of the ECB. If there had been an Amnesty International delegate to hand, they would presumably have quizzed him.

Today, then, England decide. Hussain has conducted himself with immense dignity. He has been guided by his bosses but he has gradually let his moral scruples be known. It is one small match on 13 February and yet so much now depends on it. By St Valentine's Day, the dust will have settled. No love will have been lost. But last night the possible final irony emerged. It was raining in Harare.