Tonight:
4°c
Tuesday was a day all of us in the cricket world hoped would never happen. Even when the England team - and the media - returned to India after the Mumbai attacks before Christmas, we persuaded ourselves that cricketers would never be targeted by terrorists, and that we would be perfectly safe.
The shocking images from Lahore have changed everything.
It could have been us, rather than our friends, who had been in that convoy to the Gaddafi Stadium. As it is - and by sheer good fortune - we are working on another Test series elsewhere, but we are all on the same merry-go-round that often takes us to dangerous and volatile parts of the world where promises of strong security look very hollow.
For now, the entire subcontinent appears vulnerable. There is a war in Sri Lanka, a recent border guards mutiny in Bangladesh left many dead and the outrageous attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai occurred two weeks after we had stayed there - and a fortnight before we were due there again.
Now that an Asian cricket team have come within an inch of being massacred by Asian terrorists, everything changes and attitudes to touring that part of the world will harden.
If that makes people say the terrorists have won, the honest answer is they already have in India. The oppressive security measures taken in the hotels and cricket grounds in Chennai and Mohali before Christmas ensured that the matches took place, but cricket should not be staged against a backdrop of crack commandos, machine gun posts and anti-riot nets. It was no way to play cricket, and no way to watch it.
The International Cricket Council have no choice but to move the 2011 World Cup to Australia and New Zealand, and hope that by 2015 the level of terrorist threats to innocent human life has eased on the subcontinent.
It might be that in deliberately targeting cricket, the most revered sport in the region, the terrorists have made a serious error of judgment. That is for the people of Pakistan to determine, but if the region remains dangerous, it must wait another four years to host a World Cup. And another, if necessary.
I know the ICC were not happy sending their officials to Pakistan, but the hosts were desperate to show they could stage cricket, and the virtually bankrupt Sri Lankan Cricket Board needed the money. The governing body will not be so easily persuaded in the future.
It all seems a world away from Port of Spain, but the incident has been the major talking point before the final Test, which starts tomorrow. There have been distractions before every match of this series - Andrew Flintoff's injury, the IPL auction, the Stanford crisis - and now this happens with England facing tough selection decisions. There is some disappointment in and around the team that Matt Prior chose to fly home to see his baby, which had already been delivered safely. He was needed in Barbados where, had he played, England might have been able to field five bowlers.
Prior has now returned but, in his absence, Tim Ambrose scored runs and kept well , and there will be a view that he should retain his place. But Ambrose at No 6? To play the balanced attack, that is where the 'keeper must bat.
Meanwhile, Owais Shah had been promised a good run at No 3 and has had only four innings there. One of Shah and Ravi Bopara will have to go - but Bopara scored his first century in the last game. I would play Shah because he can bat in any position, but if Bopara is chosen, the order will change with Kevin Pietersen moving up to three.
Then England need an attack to take 20 wickets. James Anderson was excellent in Barbados, Stuart Broad looked exhausted but gave everything and Graeme Swann bowled well to the many left handers. As for Ryan Sidebottom, he struggled and will not feature here.
That leaves a choice of two from four with experienced pair Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar joined on the list of candidates by newcomers Amjad Khan and Adil Rashid.
Harmison is furious that he did not play in Barbados - or, at least as furious as the gentle giant can ever be - and preferring the uncapped Amjad could signal the end for 'Harmy'. It would also make the selectors look stupid if Amjad made a nervous and ineffective debut in a match England must win.
Leg-spinner Rashid would be interesting - especially against West Indies' lower order - but I would choose Panesar in the hope that my senior bowlers can make amends for the team's chaotic batting collapse in Jamaica.
Reader views (1)
As the article points out, there's civil and across border fighting, wars and tensions across the sub continent. The No. 1 sport in the region has now been dragged in after the terrorist attack in Pakistan. Some of the English cricket team members were staying in the hotel only days before the December attacks in Mumbai.
The attack in Pakistan could have been about internal politics. The possibility can't be overlooked however, that like the attempts in Mumbai, there are factions looking to destabilise India; politically, financially. With the 20/20 matches now attracting international players that has to be a prime target for some time to come.
Backers in those 20/20 matches have pumped in a lot of money (and prestige), but this is not a time to play around with players lives. Cricket has become like football, all about money. Just don't let's see matches being fixed up that leave players facing foolish and unacceptable risks. (Pakistan's political and official sporting big-wigs assured there were no risks.) This is a time for common sense and caution to prevail if we don't want to see international cricket being killed off in the region.
- J Witherspoon, coventry, 10/03/2009 10:37
Report abuse
