Post by QPR Report on Nov 30, 2008 7:43:57 GMT
The Independent/James Lawton:
Like us, sport has to exist in shadows of terror
Friday, 28 November 2008
Kevin Pietersen enters the hotel where the England and India cricket teams are staying in Bhubaneshwar
There is nothing like a massacre to marginalise the often exaggerated dramas of sport. Even so, there are good reasons to hope that all the cricketers of England will indeed feel able to return to an Indian tour whose disasters seemed small indeed when the grim news from Mumbai began to filter through.
None of these reasons should have much, if anything, to do with the contractual arrangements that in the past have pushed the game, at the insistence of its ruling council, into all kinds of moral ambiguity, not least the granting of succour to Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
What is at stake now, after the announcement by the English and Wales Cricket Board that the plan is to come home and then return for the Tests – as it was when the American Ryder Cup team laid down their clubs in the aftermath of 9/11 seven years ago – is the willingness of sportsmen, like so much of the rest of humanity, to go about their business under some of the worst of the shadows brought by a violently changing world.
We are not talking about insane risk. If Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff are advised at any point that the Indian security services feel unable to make a proper fist of their protection – absolute guarantees, of course no longer being available in any corner of the universe – then of course they would have to consider their positions, and think of their families' interests, very carefully indeed.
No doubt the Australians, who in the past have expressed serious concerns about the risk of playing cricket in the subcontinent, went through the same process when London Underground came under attack during the 2005 Ashes series. They stayed to fight out a brilliantly contested series, admittedly something that might not be within the powers of the currently outplayed English team in India. You may say that the horrors of Mumbai are of a more serious order, but we are talking about a matter of degree.
What does seem essential is that the nerve of the England party holds, and that worries about safety do not, even subliminally, get mixed in with fears of yet another thrashing. If security assurances prove satisfactory there should be no reason why the Tests do not proceed. While it was understandably unfeasible to play the scheduled second Test in Mumbai – with the ground so close to one of the invaded hotels – it is a fact that India have literally dozens of optional Test venues.
It is, of course, an uncertain time for everyone involved but then it is part of the nature of life today. The risk England's cricketers run now – though it is one that they may believe is rather inconsequential when set against that of falling foul of a terrorist hit squad – is of appearing to cocoon themselves from some of life's less pleasant realities to the point of outright sanitisation.
Given cricket's rather less than uplifting record on moral issues – how far do we want to go back, all the way to Basil D'Oliveira in 1968 and a blithe willingness to live with apartheid? – it is doubly unfortunate that India should be both a place of deadly volatility and the unrivalled paymaster of the game.
It means that any decision on whether England fulfil their contract to play two Test matches will surely be touched by the irony that it could well affect the future prosperity of most of their key players.
Certainly, the irony of Flintoff's recent argument that he and his colleagues should be granted permission to play in the lucrative Indian Premier League, so as to improve their cricket skills rather than their bank balances, of course, cannot be lost amid the current agonising.
Yes, it is true, we keep coming back to the bottom line of personal safety, but then where is the line drawn? Where is it set between what is reasonable risk and foolhardiness? Certainly, it seems fair to suggest that the Indians at least deserve a little time to stabilise their position, report on all future implications, while the England players retained their options in an adequately secure place in India. As it is, the less reflective course of heading for the airport will surely paint, for some at least, a less than flattering picture of the resilience of highly paid sportsmen who a few weeks ago were so anxious to evacuate a Caribbean island, not for the sake of their hides but some acute personal embarrassment.
We have, of course, been covering much of this post-9/11 terrain for some time, with English cricket at the forefront. Seven years ago Andy Caddick and Robert Croft pulled out of a tour of India, while several others left their decisions until the last moment, after announcing that they had undergone much soul-searching. Croft said: "It's been a universally difficult decision to make. But after further discussions with friends and family I could not guarantee my full commitment to the England team knowing that my family would worry about my safety." Caddick echoed the sentiment, saying: "Turning down an opportunity to represent my country is something I would never have believed possible. I needed to be 100 per cent confident that my family were happy for me to tour. Unfortunately, that is not the case. For them, I've made the very personal decision not to tour India."
Not so much has changed in the fundamentals of the issue, except of course that yesterday carnage and massive disruption were still going on in India's most prosperous city – and that a massive amount of money remains on the table of the Indian Premier League.
Will the wives and the girlfriends of the current England squad be so assiduously consulted as those of Caddick and Croft before the return trip? Possibly, but the discussions are likely to be a little more complicated.
The subtext seven years ago was the old one that for almost every English cricketer touring the sub-continent, with its extreme climate, long distances and often problematic cuisine, was seen as the supreme ordeal. Now, plainly, it retains that potential, but it also offers dazzling rewards.
It means that the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff have to weigh their decisions rather more carefully today than back in the time when some tourists ticked off the days rather like bearded inhabitants of the Bastille.
There is, ultimately, the basic issue of life and death but does it not come with plenty of company? Do cricketers require greater guarantees than the rest of the population? How much would their smart retreat embolden another cell of publicity-hungry terrorists? Yes, it is all a matter of degree, but maybe the right level of reaction is impossible to reach while the alarms are still sounding.
Certainly, the boldness of sport in carrying on under the shadow of terrorism is one of the impressive sequels to that terrible day in New York in 2001. The American Ryder Cup team decided they could not go on and a few years earlier an IRA bomb threat forced a two-day postponement of the Grand National.
It is a quite remarkable record and one that, you have to hope, can be maintained under the pall of Mumbai. What will it take? Mostly the resolution of sportsmen not so often involved in the now routine stresses of real life to step back and weigh all of the factors. One of them, undoubtedly and legitimately, is their own skin. Another, perhaps, is maybe to look a little more deeply than that.
Testing times: Six months of cricketing uncertainty
England's remaining fixtures in India:
The final one-day internationals, due to be played tomorrow (in Guwahati) and Tuesday (Delhi), have been cancelled. The remaining tour match and Test matches are still due to go ahead.
5-7 Dec Tour Match v Indian Board President's XI (Vadodara)
11-15 Dec First Test v India (Ahmedabad)
19-23 Dec Second Test v India (tba: venue undecided)
Twenty20 Champions League:
3-10 Dec Postponed indefinitely, could be held in January 2009.
*England tour to West Indies, 2009
21 Jan-4 April 2009 Four Tests, one Twenty20 international and five ODIs.
Indian Cricket League:
Due to take place between March and April 2009.
Indian Premier League:
Dates to be confirmed, provisionally set for 10 April to 29 May.
Sri Lanka tour to England, 2009:
21 Apr-3 May Three tour matches
7-11 May First Test (Lord's)
15-19 May Second Test (Durham)
24 May First ODI (Bristol)
27 May Second ODI (Edgbaston)
30 May Third ODI (Headingley)
No-fly zone: Previous England abandoned tours and matches
1979-80: England in West Indies The Guyana Test was abandoned when the hosts refused entry to the England bowler Robin Jackman, who had played cricket in South Africa during apartheid.
1984-85: England in India David Gower's side spent a week in Sri Lanka after being advised to leave India during a period of mourning following the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister.
1988-89: England in India The England selectors picked several players for the tour who had played in South Africa during the apartheid era. The Indian government subsequently refused them entry, a stance which meant the tour was cancelled before England set foot on the plane.
2001: England in India Andy Caddick and Robert Croft refused to travel following the 9/11 attacks.
2003: World Cup England refused to play against Zimbabwe in Harare after receiving death threats from an anti-Robert Mugabe group, the Sons and Daughters of Zimbabwe.
2008: Champions Trophy England refused to travel to Pakistan on grounds of safety and security. After concerns were raised by other nations, the tournament was postponed until next year.
www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/james-lawton-like-us-sport-has-to-exist-in-shadows-of-terror-1038660.html