Cricket: Myths of Zimbabwe tour

You'd have to wonder whether the original Enigma code-breakers could decipher the misinformation surrounding the New Zealand-Zimbabwe sporting-contacts crisis.

New Zealand Cricket might have won the first battle for the right to send a team to Harare, but the Government is sticking to its guns over threats to ban a reciprocal visit from Zimbabwe in December.

The move is expected to be officially introduced by politicians on Monday, following a highly emotive but also highly confused debate on where New Zealand Cricket should stand on the issue.

Popular opinion has been overwhelmingly against the New Zealand team playing against Zimbabwe, but it's hard to escape the thought that much of the discussion has been based on inconsistent and flawed reasoning.

With this in mind, Supersport today sets out to debunk some of the more populist views floated and, in many cases, accepted by politicians and the media alike.

1) That there is some sort of parallel with the South African sporting boycott in the 1970s and 80s. In fact, at that stage there was a worldwide agreement on the South African embargo. In this case, New Zealand stands virtually alone, without even the support of Britain.

2) That New Zealand's stance is understood by its international cricket cousins. The reality is that India has no qualms about touring Zimbabwe next month and Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and South Africa have all played against Zimbabwe over the past season.

3) That the ICC is out of step with international sporting organisations in terms of prohibiting tours on the basis of moral grounds. As it happens, the policy is entirely consistent with the IOC, Fifa and the ITF.

4) That something constructive will come out of the proposed December ban. Well, it will hurt New Zealand Cricket's credibility, and reduce the New Zealand players' remuneration - but it will have no impact on either Zimbabwe's political situation, or President Mugabe's regime.

5) That safety and security could yet become an issue for our cricketers. As unpalatable as it sounds, the same police thugs responsible for the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe will also be charged with protecting the team on tour. There will be no security problems.

6) That New Zealand's loss of the 2011 Cricket World Cup is a "distant" red herring, invented by NZ Cricket to curry public sympathy. Hello? The decision on whether Australia and New Zealand will co-host the 2011 tournament will be made within 12 months.

7) That President Mugabe, who allegedly learned to understand cricket between 1964 and 1974 after white jailers tried to break his spirit by pumping match commentaries into his cell, would be damaged by sporting isolation. This is the longest of bows. Mugabe embraced cricket because of his hatred of the English, and because of the strength of his resistance. He would happily jettison the game, rather than cave in to sworn enemies.

8) That white politicians will force Mugabe to change his ways or step down. This is completely laughable. You might as well ask Germany to lecture Israel on the issue of xenophobia.

9) That the cost of not touring Zimbabwe would be only $3.7 million. This is just the starting point. The ICC contract also demands that New Zealand compensate Zimbabwe for all remuneration lost through an illegal cancellation. Given that India are also involved in the tour, and that the television rights will be worth about $30m alone to the Zimbabwe Cricket Union, the total bill would be astronomical.

10) That New Zealand would at least be making a principled stance against a tyrant, instead of carrying on as if nothing was wrong. But as has already been pointed out, if you're selective about your target (why not China, Pakistan or Sri Lanka) then your credibility suffers, and ultimately, no-one listens.