| By Tawanda Jonas,
on February 26 2008 22:47
|
Favoured : 22 |
Peter
Chingoka, Zimbabwe Cricket's board chairman offered the following
interview.
How far is Zimbabwe from becoming a
Test side again?
There have been a few four-day
matches, some with promising performances. There has been that yes,
but we must remember, all this time we have really played most of
our cricket at home. If not at home, we have played the four-day
games in South Africa. This is the first chance we have had to play
outside, so after this, after this series in Pakistan, we go home,
we regroup and we take stock of where we are. A key indicator of
progress will be the domestic system's ability to constantly
produce players for international cricket.
How viable is the domestic cricket
structure currently?
There are reports that standards are not
very high right now. The standard is reasonably good and improving
all the time. It is not yet perfect. We do need some additional
resources. By that I mean possibly bringing in one or two players
from outside Zimbabwe to play so that it helps younger players.
Kenya playing last year [in the Logan Cup] was useful. Also, we
could look at Namibia taking part and helping us as much as helping
themselves as well. We are also playing in the South African
competition. So we are playing tough cricket where the players
learn the hard way.
Robin Brown, Zimbabwe's coach, said
recently that schools cricket and the academy and Under-19
structures were doing some good work. Tell us a little more about
that?
We have an academy which
operates, but the structures were burned down unfortunately. We are
in the process of repairing that now. We take youngsters between
the age of 17 and 23, those with promise and potential to be high
performers, and we take them through not just the different facets
of cricket, but we make them rounded people. Things like public
speaking, how they control their financial management, know more
about diets and nutrition and sports psychology. The positive side
is obviously from our administration point of view, that we have a
much more stable version now. It's a structure that covers all the
four corners of the country, which was not the case before. We now
have ten provincial associations that are active. We followed the
government in imitation, where we have ten provinces and all of
them are active. Most of them are solid first-class anyway, when
they are on, and in all aspects they are carrying out serious
progressive programmes. From a structural point of view we are
better off now and the quality is just what we have to work on now.
Before we only had five provincial associations and of those five
we had an additional two that were only involved in districts
cricket.
A player who was involved in the Exodus
in 2003-04 has said that to a different degree both players and
administrators were to blame for what happened. He also suggested
that a more serious, mature attempt to integrate black players
could have been made by the team. How do you feel about that?
Before I answer your question, Zimbabwe must be such an interesting
subject that a 2004 story seems to be news still. Why is this? I
never hear anybody raking up old quotes about Australia when they
had their problems between players and administrators, but Zimbabwe
seems to be a topical nation. Fashionable. Well, that is his
opinion and he is entitled to one. I said to you earlier that there
were some people prior to 2006 who believed that cricket is a game
for only one sector of the community. There is no way one could
accept that. There is no way one could accept that you don't give
equal opportunities to everybody who makes himself available to
play for their country. That is where the board stood, that is
where the board stands now. And I am sure incoming boards in the
future will stand for this, to say: equal opportunities for all
people that are Zimbabweans. |
|
|