So the long tour is over. Since the Zimbabwean cricket team left for Sharjah in mid-October, they have progressed to India, New Zealand and Australia in turn. They played three Test matches, losing one and drawing the other two; of no fewer than 20 one-day internationals, four were won and 16 lost.

There is both a positive and a negative side to such results, which I think need to be held in balance. The positive side is that, with playing resources so much smaller than any of the other Test-playing countries, including the latest, Bangladesh, it is remarkable that we can compete at all. There are only a few hundred adults playing regular cricket in Zimbabwe, compared with many thousands in each of the others. We are dependent more than any others on the money coming from television rights, because there is not much coming in from other areas. We have a large proportion of companies in Zimbabwe who are friendly towards cricket, but with the disastrous slide in the economy here fewer can spare anything significant for the game. Yet we can give any other Test-playing country a good fight, even if clinching victory only comes about one match in five.

On the negative side, we could be producing better results a little more consistently. Sharjah is not an easy place to play, and we made India fight hard, but two heavy defeats to Sri Lanka were disappointing. In India every visiting team is likely to struggle, and it will be a real test for the Australians, many of whom seem to consider themselves invincible now, when they play there later this month. New Zealand was perhaps the high point of the tour, as we won our first overseas one-day series there against what seems to be a demoralized team.

Australia was the biggest disappointment. We played far better than West Indies did against Australia. On the other hand, we played far better against Australia than against West Indies! In all four matches against Australia we scored more than 200 runs; we did that only once against West Indies. Well as the West Indies sometimes bowled against us, Australia have much the stronger bowling attack. Why did we do so comparatively well against the strong side and then bat so feebly against the weak side? My thoughts on that subject are included in my final article on the Australian tour.

Inevitably our players returned home somewhat drained mentally, with a number of them carrying hopefully minor injuries. If this could be used as a real excuse, though, they would have performed poorly against Australia as well. They arrive back to the finals of the club competitions and the Logan Cup programme, before Bangladesh, India and West Indies arrive in turn. We have almost six months of the season still to go! Commendably the Zimbabwe Cricket Union want to boost the status of the Logan Cup by playing it when the international cricketers are available, but the heavy international programme makes it likely that many will prefer to take time out to nurse genuine strains and injuries, while the fit may be quite unable to raise their enthusiasm.

SPORTSMANSHIP

It has been a pleasure to read a number of complimentary letters about the sportsmanlike behaviour of the Zimbabwe team in Australia, and these are included in our letters section. Many Australians, it seems from this and other sources, are unhappy with the attitude of their own team and welcome the Zimbabweans, who play in much more the traditional manner. Well done to all our players for being such fine ambassadors both for their country and for the game itself.

There was one incident, though, in the final match against West Indies, that disturbed me. Sadly, there were no doubt some cricket followers who reacted to it by saying, once the match was over, "It serves Zimbabwe right." Not just because of their defeat due to their inability to handle the pressure, but because of an incident that happened right at the start of the match.

Daren Ganga pushed a ball from Streak on to the leg side and set off with his partner Sherwin Campbell for a quick single. Streak, trying to field the ball, ran across the pitch towards the ball and then pulled up short, either because he saw he was on a collision course with Campbell or because he saw Trevor Madondo coming in to field the ball. He completely obstructed Campbell, although it was unintentional. Remarkably the batsman did not even try to reach the crease but just shuddered to a halt in the middle of the pitch, giving Madondo all the time in the world to remove the bails.

The laws of the game do not protect the batsmen in this situation; as long as the obstruction was accidental, he has to go. But, in the spirit of the so-called `gentleman's game', now clearly no longer so, the fielding side would not attempt to take advantage of such a situation. The umpires, applying the strict letter of the law, had to adjudge Campbell out, but one approached Streak, told him that they considered the obstruction to be accidental, and asked if he still wanted to appeal. I was amazed and disappointed when Streak insisted on claiming the wicket of Campbell who, as far as I could see, would probably have made his ground had the collision not taken place.

True, Campbell did himself no favours at all, and perhaps it was his attitude that annoyed the Zimbabweans and persuaded them to press home their appeal, and also alienated some cricket followers who would otherwise have been outraged that he should be run out in such a way. If Campbell had attempted and failed to make his ground, the Zimbabweans might well have declined to appeal – I hope so. But even in this situation, I feel the basic principle still applies: don't take advantage of a batsman accidentally obstructed.

Zimbabwe were outraged when Sri Lanka ran Murray Goodwin out last season when he wandered down the pitch, believing the ball to be dead. They were angry when, in a very similar situation, earlier this season New Zealander Dion Nash obstructed Guy Whittall as he turned for a second run, leading to the run-out of Pommie Mbangwa, which may have prevented Zimbabwe from saving that Test match at Harare Sports Club. Now Zimbabwe are involved in a similar incident. They would probably justify it by saying, "Nobody gives us anything, so we're at a disadvantage if we don't play the game the same way." But it is a sad illustration of how principles and the spirit of the game have been almost destroyed in international cricket today.

They did nothing against the laws of the game. Neither did Sri Lanka or New Zealand. But all three incidents were against the generally accepted spirit of the game. Ironically, had Zimbabwe been the victims, Jimmy Adams of the West Indies is perhaps the most likely of the Test captains today to have adhered to the spirit of the game and withdrawn his appeal. As I have written before, the only way for the spirit of the game to return to international cricket is if the Test captains themselves decide to do something about it, and there is no sign that any of them really care. Test cricket has become a `dog eat dog' affair, and the captains themselves, down through the years, must all bear the greatest responsibility for that.

The true spirit of cricket in the international arena is almost dead, and that attitude is inevitably seeping down into the lower levels of the game. But this appears to have been a one-off blemish on the part of the Zimbabweans, and I just hope our players see it that way and behave differently next time. My dismay was largely due to the fact that it seemed completely out of character for a Zimbabwean team. I suspect that Campbell's refusal to try to complete the run lost him all sympathy, with both players and spectators, either at the match or watching on television.

Perhaps it is harsh to criticize too strongly a decision taken in the heat of the moment and perhaps Streak and his advisers later regretted their decision. There may also be one or two minor factors that weren't evident on television, and it will be interesting to see what the players themselves have to say about it. Streak has a reputation in Zimbabwe of being one of the fairest of sportsmen. But now Zimbabwe will have no grounds for complaint should they ever fall victim to such an incident themselves in the future. We may have gained a wicket but we sacrificed goodwill, with the opposition at least, even if followers of the game overlooked this uncharacteristic lapse. Was it worth it, even if it had meant the winning of the match?

Another certain fact is that this incident immediately aroused a great deal of animosity between the two teams. Did it help to fire up Nixon McLean and Cameron Cuffy, to enable them to produce that superb spell of pace bowling at the start of the Zimbabwean innings? Certainly it could only have made them more rather than less determined. It is always impossible to tell what might have happened, but it would be interesting to know from the West Indians themselves exactly how they reacted at that decision. Fortunately they did not appear to react with sledging and other unacceptable tactics on the field, but with absolute commitment and determination to win the match.

Only minutes after the Campbell dismissal came another incident that reflects badly on modern cricket but is inevitable when teams ignore the spirit of the game. Daren Ganga played an uppish stroke that appeared to be well held by Streak at mid-on. Umpire Hair was not far away but did not even appear to be looking as the catch was taken. He called for the third umpire, who ruled not out, presumably deciding he could not make a definite decision. Even after the Campbell dismissal, I am convinced that if Streak said he caught it then he caught it, but Ganga, as with Ricky Ponting earlier in the tournament, refused to take the fielder's word for it. But after losing a partner to such a controversial run-out, probably no batsman in the world would have walked at that moment. What goes around comes around, and unfortunately Zimbabwe on this occasion played their part in making sure it all keeps going around.

On the face of it, those decisions perhaps evened things up between the teams. But on the playing side only. It certainly would not even up the relationships between the two teams, but does anybody care about that any longer? The Zimbabweans usually do, and it may surprise many readers to know that they consider the Australians among the friendliest of opponents – off the field only – and often surprisingly fair on it! I wonder what that would be like were we in a position actually to challenge Australian supremacy regularly on the field.

The Ganga catch incident led one or two commentators to complain about the third umpire system and say it should be discontinued for catches, as umpires were far too ready to refer decisions to the third umpire, which resulted in the wasting of time and too many wrong or uncertain decisions. Well, it does clear up some, so I don't think that would be the best solution as far as accuracy is concerned.

I refer again to Duncan Fletcher's suggestion that during an innings each side should have three chances to appeal to the third umpire against decisions. Perhaps an alternative might be to make this five appeals, but deny the umpires the easy option to consult the third umpire on anything and everything, as too many of them tend to do with run-outs in particular. The umpires would still have to make decisions on the spot and time would not be wasted, unless a side genuinely felt it had been hard done by and wanted to use one of their appeals to try to put it right. We will never get everything perfect, but everything should be done to ensure fairness. Bad umpiring decisions can do a great deal to cause fury and unnecessary antagonism between teams on the field –although so can incidents like the Campbell run-out and the Ganga catch.

A system of appeals would mean that teams can voluntarily accept an umpiring decision and have no reason to complain, or else can have what they believe as genuine errors corrected. Why aren't the players consulted about this more often? As I understand it, they are all in favour of correct umpiring decisions. They may even have some ideas about how to obtain greater accuracy.

THIS ISSUE

It has not been possible yet to interview any of the national players who have just returned from Australia in time for this issue, but we have been promised interviews with Stuart Carlisle, Alistair Campbell and Eddo Brandes, who went over as a spectator. These should appear in our next issue, which will be published as the first round of Logan Cup matches begins. As the original fixture list has been amended slightly, we include the latest version in this issue. We hope to include previews for each of the six Logan Cup teams, and for this we were dependent on our provincial correspondents. Our Matabeleland preview, by Derrick Townshend, is already in this week.

We also include the updated records of all Zimbabwe's 181 official one-day internationals.

© Cricinfo