Welcome to the first issue of Zimbabwe cricket's weekly on-line magazine. It has unfortunately arrived a week later than planned, due to a computer breakdown, which has also made the compilation much more difficult. But, barring such mishaps, we plan to be here every week with much more information about Zimbabwe cricket at all levels than the Zimbabwe cricket page was able to provide in the past.

We are aiming this magazine primarily at our growing Zimbabwe audience, and so plan to include a great deal of cricket of below first-class level: in schools, in the clubs and provinces, and in the development programme. It has proved difficult in some of these areas to find correspondents, so we ask you to bear with us as we continue our search for those willing to give of their time to provide us with the information we need. We particularly thank those who have contributed to this issue.

We still hope to contain much that will be of interest to the wider world: reviews of international matches, reports on current issues and profiles of and interviews with players among other items. We also plan to include guest columns where possible, inviting top writers and well-known people to contribute their views.

Reader participation is of vital importance to us. Whatever readers would like concerning cricket in Zimbabwe we will try to include, although it may not always be easy or possible. We would also like readers to contribute their views on any subject concerning cricket in Zimbabwe, and will reserve a page especially for your letters. If you wish to contribute or comment, please send mail the editor at jward@samara.co.zw.

This first issue could hardly come at a worse time for cricket in Zimbabwe, when the national side is at its lowest ebb since gaining Test status in 1992, and have just suffered by far their most overwhelming defeat at the hands of South Africa at home.

The team has been unrecognisable this season from the vibrant team that beat India at home last season and South Africa in the World Cup, among other recent achievements. The vital spirit seems to have gone from the side, and the reason is not apparent. The biggest disappointment is simply that they are playing well

short of their best.

The batsmen in particular during the three recent Test matches have looked as if they haven't played first-class cricket all year. And this is actually almost completely true. In the past six months only Trevor Gripper, who played for the President's XI against the Australians in Bulawayo, and Andy Flower and Neil Johnson, who had a rain-ruined match in England in August for MCC against Sri Lanka A, have played first-class cricket. Virtually all the cricket the team has been able to play in that time has been one-day cricket, either at international or at club level. Instead of our usual Logan Cup matches as preparation for a touring side, the team went off to play in one-day tournaments in Singapore and Kenya. Then, still in one-day mode, as they themselves admitted, they were called on to play Test matches against the two strongest teams in the world. We cannot expect our players to make the transition to Test cricket satisfactorily under those circumstances, and we in Zimbabwe should all have foreseen that. Let us hope our players do not have to cope with a similar programme in future. Let's leave it at that.

With the benefit of hindsight, I feel this is the largest single factor in Zimbabwe's present dismal state. But it does not account for the loss of spirit in the team, although Andy Flower has tried visibly to revive it by bringing his players out jogging on to the field and tossing the ball to each other in the Test against South Africa. Other problems and solutions have been proposed by many.

One easy solution, according to many, is to throw out the so-called 'old guard' and bring in new players. Yes, we have some talented youngsters in Trevor Madondo, David Mutendera, Andy Blignaut and others, but those who know them best do not believe they are yet ready for Test cricket. More maturity is needed; young batsmen need to be able to build an innings, young bowlers to bowl line and length (unless possessed of exceptional talent which it would be detrimental to stifle), or else it will be a recipe for disaster. I believe that by and large the first-choice players in the current Test team have a greater combination of talent, form and experience than the younger players are yet able to offer. But it's an easy option to call for changes when a team is unsuccessful. It sound like the traditional example of faulty logic: Something must be done; this is something; so let's do it.

But the youngsters will not be left in the cold. Convenor of selectors Andy Pycroft has said that, in view of the heavy international programme this season, they plan to rotate players, resting some and giving experience to others. This policy was clearly in evidence in the one-day matches against the Australians, when Mutendera, Blignaut and Gary Brent formed the Zimbabwean pace attack in the first game with eight one-day games and just three one-day wickets between them. Lacking experience, they found it difficult to bowl to their fields and were little more than meat and drink to the Australians. Older hands like Bryan Strang and Pommie Mbangwa were omitted when their greater accuracy would have helped relieved the pressure from the beleaguered captain. Having said that, the experience gained by these younger players should certainly stand them in great stead for the future.

Disagreements with the ZCU over salaries and contracts has also been cited as a cause of unrest for the Zimbabwean players. Part of the problem is that they rub shoulders with the stars from wealthy countries like Australia and South Africa and feel aggrieved that they are only receiving a fraction of their salaries. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that there is less money in Zimbabwe. Nevertheless this is an issue to which a satisfactory and permanent answer needs to be found, and compromises will be necessary on both sides. It would be tragic if the players are indeed allowing the issue to affect their play.

Other targets for criticism are, of course, the manager and coach, and there are some who believe they are not providing strong enough leadership to the team. But the captain seems always to be the one man with whom the buck stops, in the opinion of many. Alistair Campbell has been the victim of a great deal of harsh and generally uninformed criticism by those who don't know him or understand him. He has his limitations, and he has always been prepared to admit that. Calls to resign are all very well, but there is always the question: is there anybody else who could do a better job? If there was, the selectors would be more likely to know than the public or the press.

Most captains can be described as average. A few are bad; they may be poor tacticians, unwilling to learn, poor man-managers and the cause of disaffection among the players. Campbell certainly does not fall into this category. It is not easy to maintain the loyalty of a losing team, but he did so to the end. He was tactically limited, but he was aware of this and prepared to learn. He did the best of which he was capable and did enjoy some very satisfying successes on the field.

Only a few captains can really be described as outstanding. They are few and far between, as England for one have found out ever since the retirement of Mike Brearley. The best captains may be outgoing personalities, leading by charisma and personal example, and able to inspire their teams to play above themselves, such as Eddie Barlow or, during his brief tenure, Peter Rawson. Others may be quieter, usually better tacticians than the charismatic variety, and excellent man-managers on an individual basis, like Brearley - or Duncan Fletcher. But both types are rare. Their lack is all the more evident in weak teams, and neither England nor Zimbabwe are able to find such a leader at present. As the search goes on, all we can do is support the captains we have.

There are two main reactions when the team we support do badly. The easy option is to give way to emotions, to condemn, criticise and blame. The other is to encourage and support, although still offering constructive advice when appropriate. It is all too easy in times of trouble to take the first option, as I have done myself at times.

The Zimbabwe team has never been in greater need of public support than the present. But it is so often only the critics that the players here. Few seem to show the same positive attitude as a Bulawayo friend who asked me after the Australian Test how he could contact Alistair Campbell because he particularly wanted to offer him and the team support and encouragement.

As George Goodwin suggests in our guest column, though, it does work both ways, and probably the Zimbabwean team has been so immersed in its own problems that it hasn't given enough thought to winning friends of the public. But if the mountain will not come to Mohammad, maybe Mohammad should go to the mountain. Perhaps supporters of Zimbabwe cricket can take their opportunity now. How about sending a message of support for the team as a whole, or Alistair Campbell, or Andy Flower, or any of the other players? Simply write to them at the following e-mail address:

zcu@cricinfo.com

Such assurances can only serve to lift the players and perhaps play an important part in the team's revival. Many players testify how they got a lift in the World Cup as they stepped on to the field and heard the roar of Zimbabwean supporters urging them on; how they will never forget that sea of red below them from the balcony at Chelmsford after beating South Africa. This is how Zimbabwean supporters can contribute positively to their team's success. How about it?

© ZCU