Aussies going to Zimbabwe because they're scared not to

Fear for their personal futures appears to be the only thing stopping several Australian players from pulling out of this month's increasingly ridiculous tour of Zimbabwe.

A day before the team's scheduled departure Stuart MacGill, the only Australian player who has so far washed his hands of the trip, said: "It's a really tough situation for some of the guys. They couldn't forgive themselves if they gave up their spot in the team and ended up losing it permanently to someone who performs well in their place."

MacGill's comments are in line with last week's admission by Darren Lehmann - "I would be lying if I said there wasn't a concern about the whole scenario" - and at odds with the coach John Buchanan's unequivocal reassurances last Monday.

Buchanan told reporters at the team's pre-tour camp in Brisbane: "I wouldn't think there is any concern." He went on: "We're invited there as cricketers ... and everybody's committed to doing that."

Just why they feel so committed to play against a side in which various white players have been made unwelcome - to take the field against a team they would presumably not be eligible to play for because of the colour of their skin - remains a mystery.

Tim May, chief executive of the players' association, hinted yesterday that several players did not so much feel committed as compelled to go. "I think it's very fair to say that our blokes are going reluctantly," he said.

Even Glenn McGrath, who has previously declared he was determined to tour because he wanted to "give a little bit" to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, now appears less than enthusiastic. Asked if the Australians were prepared to make a stand against the anti-white mood sweeping Zimbabwean cricket, McGrath would say only: "At the moment, no."

MacGill has received private assurances from Cricket Australia that his withdrawal from the tour - on the grounds that he didn't feel he could go with a clear conscience - will never be held against him. There is no suggestion that players are being given explicit threats about their future. That is not to say, however, that implicit pressure is not being applied by the board. It derives from the board's continuous assertions that the players are cricketers not politicians; that their job is to make runs not ethical judgements; that if there is no security risk then the show must go on.

Twelve days ago Cricket Australia's general manager of public affairs, Peter Young, emphasised the board's "absolute determination" to keep faith with the ICC's 10-year programme. He showed not one ounce of humanity when, talking to The Age newspaper, he spoke of the Zimbabwe tour in the following terms: "We need to put it behind us, put a tick in that box."

The latest remarks attributed to MacGill, May, McGrath and Lehmann suggest the players no longer occupy the same ethics-free-zone as the administrators; that they no longer see Zimbabwe as simply "a tick in that box". But for the moment money, security and fear of losing their spot or rocking the boat would appear to be winning out.

MacGill admitted the obvious yesterday: that he ran the risk of a rival player shining in his absence, and that by skipping Zimbabwe he would lose out financially too. "That was never a consideration," he said. "It was an issue of personal conscience. Money did not come into it."

For now, the prospects of 13 other Australian cricketers being able to say the same thing with a straight face appear remote.