By Jonathan Agnew BBC cricket correspondent

Every aspect of the Zimbabwe tour has been mired in controversy, which even the selection process did not escape.

The selectors - David Graveney, Rod Marsh and Geoff Miller - together with the coach, Duncan Fletcher, originally came up with a squad of players which, they felt, was strong enough to beat the badly depleted Zimbabwe team.

The squad would also serve England's priority to rest jaded, key players.

One of these was Michael Vaughan, the captain.

Vaughan should have been rested, Agnew believes

For David Morgan, the chairman of the board, this was one step too far.

He is right to say that England is part of a global cricketing community and, therefore, responsible for sending the strongest possible team.

But Vaughan has been on the 'go' - just like Andrew Flintoff, Marcus Trescothick and Ashley Giles - since February.

For the chairman of the board to overrule the selectors and coach, who were implementing their responsibility in planning for the long-term benefit of the England team, is extraordinary.

However, there have been a number of times these past six months when the ECB really should have taken a step back, and viewed the situation from a more realistic situation in order to obtain a stronger position.

The ECB's handling of the whole Zimbabwe issue has been weak, in order to appease the ICC

It is true the ECB's relationship with other members of the International Cricket Council is poor, to put it mildly.

The leaking of Des Wilson's document, which gave guidelines of how England might opt out of tours on moral or political grounds, was disastrous, and was the last straw for a number of county chairmen.

But the ECB's handling of the whole Zimbabwe issue has been weak, in order to appease the ICC, and the players have been left in the front line even though the board claimed it would not put them in that difficult position again.

Even the warm-up to the series is bizarre.

The South African cricket board apparently refused to cooperate with England's desire to practice in Johannesburg.

This could be a decision that could be deeply embarrassing to them if the ICC's inquiry into racism within Zimbabwean cricket substantiates the allegations made by Heath Streak and his fellow white players.

Memories of the highly successful sporting boycott against South Africa appear to have faded fast within that country's new cricket administration.

So, England will head for Namibia instead, and play two games there before travelling for Harare on 24 November for a series that nobody - other than the cash-strapped Zimbabwe Cricket Union - appears to want.

And which, in cricketing terms, promises to be utterly meaningless.