England fear tour they cannot win

So how come, from Vaughan down, they haven't withdrawn their labour?

The British government wanted England to stay away, sponsors Vodafone are only reluctantly allowing their name to be associated with the trip, there is little enthusiasm for the mission among this country's cricket fans, never mind the population at large, and the players are on edge.

Indeed, two of England's best cricketers have made plain their moral objections to touring Zimbabwe.

Steve Harmison told the selectors he was not available while Andrew Flintoff would have taken the same stand if he had not been rested.

Crucially, Harmison and Flintoff were among the players who agonised for days before England pulled out of last year's World Cup date in Harare. In the end, fears for the squad's safety became the official (and convenient) reason for withdrawing, but their concerns went much deeper than that.

"One of the things we talked about then was what would happen to people who might want to use our match for peaceful demonstrations," recalled Flintoff. " The same thoughts apply now. I wouldn't want that on my conscience."

With Nasser Hussain and Alec Stewart retired, and other players no longer in the one-day set-up, only four members of the 2003 World Cup squad will be heading to Harare later this month.

They are Vaughan, the captain's close friend Ashley Giles plus Paul Collingwood and Jimmy Anderson. But there must have been a bigger change than the one involving personnel to have persuaded Vaughan and Co to undertake a trip that has little or nothing in its favour.

That change involves trust - and it could be the one positive development to come out of the whole Zimbabwe saga.

"During the World Cup, the ECB's management of the whole situation was a disaster," said Bevan. World Cup captain Hussain was scathing about the England and Wales Cricket Board and, in particular, about their now ex-chief executive Tim Lamb, who he has accused of using " emotional blackmail" 21 months ago in trying to persuade players to fulfil the fixture in Harare.

This time the ECB have tried a much more transparent approach.

For example, chairman David Morgan was at pains to stress, at an early stage, that any player - whether contracted or not - was free to make himself unavailable for the tour on moral grounds.

So, apart from Harmison, why didn't more players withdraw? "If there had have been more players pulling out then I think the tour would have been in danger," said Bevan. "But, in latter months, the ECB have communicated well and been very professional about treating the players not as youngsters but as partners in their business.

"The players do understand the ECB are in a difficult position."

That position is this: according to the International Cricket Council, tours can only be cancelled by government order or because of safety or security threats. With England unable to use either get-out clause, refusing to undertake an officially sanctioned trip could have resulted in suspension or a damaging fine of at least £1million.

Suspension is almost certainly an empty threat. But financial penalties cannot be dismissed quite so easily. Nor should the possibility of a retaliatory cancellation, not only by Zimbabwe, perhaps, but also by a sympathetic and much bigger cashraising visitor like India.

But if the players appreciate all this, that still leaves the huge moral argument of visiting a country accused of violating human rights.

Vaughan and those going can only continue to reiterate the line that this tour "in no way condones" what is happening and "nor should it be regarded as a normal tour".

Indeed, all the usual functions and meeting of local dignitaries have been wiped from the schedule.

"If there is any breach in the assurances we have been given, then the players will review their situation," said Bevan. "That is why it's important the decision-makers are there and not on the end of a phone."

Bevan will not go into detail on those "assurances" but added: "It's important there are no assaults, acts of intimidation or human rights issues in respect of people going to the ground or in the ground."