Our best wishes to all our readers for Christmas and New Year. With no cricket to report, ZCO will not appear next Friday, 28 December, but will be back on Friday 4 January.

By that time Zimbabwe will have completed the First Test match against Sri Lanka and, for whatever reason, current form suggests we will be defeated heavily, that our national team does not have the confidence or spirit at present to make a close game of any of the three Test matches. The best we can hope for is to avoid three defeats in a series, which is a very real prospect for the first time in our history.

This may sound defeatist, but it need not be so. We have the talent to do better, and the experienced members of the team have proved in the past that they can compete at Test level and in tough conditions. It's all in the mind, and the players must work it through for themselves, as Andy Flower has done. Hopefully coach Geoff Marsh will begin to make an impact on them and help them to do so. Until then, it is futile to entertain any hopes of victory or even equality in Sri Lanka.

Look at Dion Ebrahim and Craig Wishart, to provide two examples. In three one-day internationals in Bangladesh they were brilliant: 211 runs for twice out and 152 for once out respectively. Move them to Sri Lanka and what happens? Ebrahim 35 runs in four matches, Wishart 38. Much stronger opposition and harder conditions, but should it make all that much difference? Is there any reason why they couldn't score half as many runs in Sri Lanka - unless the problem was in the head?

Perhaps some sort of sports psychology course is required for our players. It is infuriating to see so many of them performing feebly, when we know they can do better, when their past history shows they have done better. We look to Geoff Marsh to instill some Australian confidence and spirit into our team.

Part of the problem lies in what might be termed a national inferiority complex. Zimbabwe is a small country that has historically always been overshadowed by its much more powerful neighbour South Africa, and I suspect our sports teams have always been handicapped by that view. That perhaps was why Rhodesia, as it then was, never won the Currie Cup in which we participated until 1980.

Under the captaincy of Mike Procter we were favourites for three or four years in the early seventies, blatantly robbed once by the South African Board who overturned the decision of the umpires to award a match to Rhodesia when Eastern Province refused to complete it with Rhodesia on the verge of victory, but never quite made it. When we looked like doing so, a disastrous batting collapse would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Perhaps the most talented cricket team in this nation's history never quite put it together consistently when the pressure was on.

There is also the matter of culture. Australians are brought up in a hard, brash, confident culture, while Zimbabweans are expected to be self-effacing. This was best illustrated to me when the Australian Academy team, which included fast bowler Brett Lee, visited this country three years ago. They played a match against a team from our local academy, then in its first year.

The young local players had never faced anybody anywhere near the pace of Lee, and being Australians they swooped on them like sharks scenting blood. Several of our young players, instead of relishing the challenge, were clearly terrified of facing Lee. I spoke to the Academy coach Rod Marsh about this, asking how he would encourage such a young player. He looked bewildered and said straight away, "I don't know; I've never come across that problem."

So this is an additional problem facing our cricketers, and changing a culture is clearly impossible, when a confident child is squeezed into the mould of the society by peers and well-meaning adults alike. We do not want to breed a nation of brash, arrogant children, but there is a difficult middle course of building confidence without arrogance - Andy Flower being the ideal role model here. When that is not part of a culture, though, it remains a problem for our cricketers.

New Zealand is a country similar to ourselves in that they have always been overshadowed by their larger neighbour. They actually took 26 years and 45 matches to record their first victory. They had the occasional world-class player and the occasional good tour, such as to South Africa in 1961/62 and England in 1973, but until the eighties victories were rare.

The arrival of Sir Richard Hadlee as one of the all-time great bowlers, with a good supporting cast, made them for a period during the eighties perhaps second only to West Indies in world cricket, and in that decade they won three series and lost only one to Australia. They maintained their reputation as perhaps the most pleasant team on the international circuit, one that they sadly lost after the retirement of Hadlee and perhaps tried to make up for the comparative lack of talent by adopting the verbal war game. Zimbabweans have not enjoyed their attitude on the field ever since Martin Crowe's team was the second Test-playing side to visit us in late 1992.

Due to lack of size and resources, New Zealand and Zimbabwe will never be as consistently strong as Australia and South Africa. But we will have brief periods of glory and can certainly give most teams a hard game most of the time. New Zealand have reached that state, although sadly they have lost their once-fine reputation for outstanding sportsmanship. One day too Zimbabwe should also reach that state, although it will not be until we get a genuine black majority in our side. Let us hope that we can go one better than New Zealand and enjoy a reputation for both good play and good attitude.

A final thought is that we could well do with some more experienced players in Sri Lanka. Alistair Campbell, Guy Whittall and Paul Strang may not be in the best of form, but in such difficult conditions their experience of several tours there would be invaluable. It is clear that several of our young players re currently on learning curves that are too steep for them. One or two more old hands could make the difference between competitiveness and humiliation. We do not want any more double-figure totals in the Test series. If Andy Flower fails, that could very well happen.

VAUGHAN HANDLED THE BALL

There has been another clash of cultures on the cricket field this past week, this time in India, where England batsman Michael Vaughan was given out `handled the ball' when he thoughtlessly picked it up with his hand on the popping crease while batting.

This was quite in accordance with the laws of the game, but since Vaughan's action was not in any way depriving the opposition of a wicket, the question is whether it is within the spirit of the game. The Indians obviously believe it is; the English do not. The incident was reminiscent of the notorious Murray Goodwin incident at Harare Sports Club two years ago, when the Sri Lankans ran out Goodwin when he moved down the pitch in the belief the ball was dead. The English, like some of the Zimbabweans then, predictably but wrongly retaliated by making the atmosphere as vicious as possible when the opposition batted. This sort of thing brings the game into disrepute.

My rhetorical question to such incidents is: "Is it really worth it, to take a wicket in circumstances that so greatly offend the opposition?" Unfortunately, in today's world of professional cricket where there seems to be no idea of professional etiquette, the answer is often yes.

When two sides differ so strongly on incidents like these, there should be some method of resolution. It is difficult to legislate for the spirit of the game. My thought is therefore that the captains of the various Test-playing countries, who hold an annual meeting every year, should get together and decide among themselves exactly how they want to play the game between themselves, bearing in mind the image of the game.

Do they really want bouncer warfare, such as that practised by Brett Lee on South Africa's hapless tailenders? Do they really want sledging or excessive appealing? Are they happy to condone players slagging each other off on the field or pressuring umpires to decide in their favour when they know the batsman is not really out?

Occasional incidents, like those involving Goodwin and Vaughan, also need discussing. If teams do not have a common understanding on such matters, there will be much unnecessary antagonism, bitterness and vengeance both on and off the field. If they decide that such dismissals as those inflicted on Vaughan and Goodwin are acceptable, then fair enough. At least we will all know where we stand. But when two teams accept different interpretations of the spirit of the game, there will be trouble and the game itself will be brought into disrepute.

Various teams, most notably India, are not happy about the role played at times by match referees. Perhaps they need reminding that the system only came into operation because of the excesses of players who should have been controlled by their captains. Right now would be a good time for international captains to take some of the responsibility back into their own hands by agreeing on a code of conduct for their teams, a code that portrays the right sort of image of the game. If this is done and adhered to, there will be small need for match referees.

Nobody wants to see Test cricket lose its hardness. But it can still be played in a spirit of good humour and chivalry, without bitterness or malice. Let's see the Test captains take the lead, especially Steve Waugh. He commands tremendous international respect and he has noticeably reined in the excesses of the Australian team in recent months. He is reported to have a great respect for the history and traditions of the game. It would be good to see him leave as part of his legacy something concrete to ensure that the best traditions of the game are still upheld after he has left it.

© Cricinfo