KEY POINTS:
It was not much more than a year ago that the worst major tournament in living memory finished in suitably dark and confusing circumstances.
What with the death of Bob Woolmer and the subsequent botched and innuendo-fuelled investigation; the locals priced out of the event; the interminable format; the failure of India and Pakistan to progress out of the group stages; and a rain-affected final featuring officials who did not know the rules, the World Cup was the International Cricket Council's (ICC) darkest hour.
Surely the Champions Trophy, no matter how second-rate, was a chance for them to seek redemption and to prove they could put on a world-class show?
Alas, no. It seems inconceivable now that the Champions Trophy will be anything other than a complete wash-out, with at least four, probably five, countries likely to send depleted sides, or pull out altogether.
Yesterday Sean Morris, head of England's Professional Cricketers' Association said: "The one thing you are never going to compromise on is security. You may find a world-class event doesn't feature a large number of world-class players. That would be a real shame for cricket."
Australian and South African players' representatives weighed in.
"We've gone through this with a fine-tooth comb and we don't think the risk to go to Pakistan is acceptable," said Paul Marsh, Australia's player rep.
His counterpart in South Africa, Tony Irish, said: "The South African team are very disappointed with [the] decision and remain extremely concerned about safety and security in Pakistan."
Nobody, perhaps, has been as strident as Heath Mills, New Zealand's player association manager.
"They [the ICC] are clearly not making decisions that are in the best interests of the game. They are making decisions on a political basis," he told the Herald on Sunday.
"In terms of ICC events, this could well be the second abject failure in a row and demonstrates once and for all that under this structure, we are not going to get decisions made in the best interests of cricket and I think that's really sad."
This could be construed merely as FICA, the federation of players' associations, flexing their muscles. When they met recently in Austin, Texas, the consistent theme of the meeting was their dissatisfaction at the game's governance. But posturing or not, having a tournament with most of your best players missing is no advertisement for cricket.
Mills rejects the notion that it is grandstanding. He says that when New Zealand last toured Pakistan in 2003 - without incident as it happened - he encouraged the players to tour even after it had been initially postponed following an emailed terrorist threat directly against the team.
"What we have in Pakistan now is far worse than the situation then."
SO WHERE does New Zealand Cricket sit in all this?
According to a NZC spokesman yesterday, NZC will not take a position until the middle of the week at the earliest. Before then they will be talking to their board, board chair Sir John Anderson, the players' association, captain Daniel Vettori, and the players themselves.
Most likely, they will be waiting to see what other countries do.
But their silence itself is telling. If the ICC decision was one they were comfortable with, they would have issued a statement now saying they respected the board's decision and would be attending the September tournament, whether their best players were going or not. The fact they haven't done so should tell you something about their unease.
They have broader implications to consider. With India's pulling power and financial muscle, it does not pay to get them offside, especially with them touring in the summer.
But in the end this decision will come down to one thing only: Are they 100 per cent certain that unless some unforeseen freak accident occurs, they will get all their players back home in one piece?
Some reports suggest the independent security advisers have doubts about that.
Of course, the players' concerns, coming from where they have, will be seen by millions in a sweeping arc from Karachi to Colombo as another white whinge against the shifting balance of power that now sees the 'Asian Bloc' with their hands firmly on the tiller of world cricket.
But equally, it does no good to champion the subcontinent cause by spouting tosh about how it is justified payback after years of belittlement at the hands of an Anglo-Australian power bloc. Two wrongs ... and all that.
The whole point of governance and power, surely, is to use it in the best interests of your constituents. Even the Romans, whose neighbours didn't always appreciate them dropping in unannounced, left Europe with roads and basic sanitation, as we were so famously informed by the cast of Monty Python.
So, to continue The Life of Brian theme, what has the subcontinental cricket cabal ever given us?
Commando Modi: "A filthy rich Twenty20 tournament."
Reg: "Well yes, yes, there is that, I suppose. But apart from a potentially destructive annual slog-a-thon, what else?"
Modi: "A Malcolm Speed-free executive."
Reg: "True. But apart from crucifying a capable administrator and a filthy rich, potentially destructive tournament, what else?"
Modi: "Don't forget we've given free rein to Zimbabwe to keep a spot at the ICC trough."
Reg: "Silly me, clean forgot. Anything else?"
Modi: "An all-expenses-paid trip to Pakistan. I hear it's lovely there this time of year."
