Ken Borland

The Sands of Time are running out for Cricket South Africa’s Members Council so their last desperate attempts to block progress and the restructuring of the Board should be no surprise. The same self-serving administrators who put their own interests ahead of those of the game as a whole and allowed cricket to be captured were never going to vacate their seats on the gravy train without an almighty struggle.

That they have been operating in poor faith becomes clear when one considers that they themselves agreed to the establishment of the Interim Board on the basis that they would introduce a majority independent board chaired by an independent director, but now that the memorandum of incorporation amended to include these prerequisites has been presented, they have refused to accept it.

Their excuse for not ratifying the changes was that they were instructed to do so by their constituencies, but it seems this is a flimsy reason. Follow-up investigations with the provincial boards have shown that the ones who mandated a vote against the new MoI did so based on the incomplete picture they were presented by their provincial president sitting on the Members Council. And eager to have more of a shot at a place on the new Board.

The major sticking point appears to be the definition of an ‘independent’ director and those wanting to stymie progress have warned that this will lead to cricket being run by people who have no love nor knowledge of the game. Which is pure fear-mongering and much of it has been deliberate and not just the understandable caution when approaching a landmark change in how things are done in cricket administration.

There is an inevitability that the recalcitrant administrators will eventually lose, but some of them seem willing to hold out for as long as possible, never mind if it breaks the game in this country. As has been said, and proven, several times before, the Members Council cannot take on the Minister of Sport and hope to win.

Nathi Mthethwa holds all the aces and has all the legal weaponry he needs to force them to comply. Unfortunately, many of these will devastate the game – much like a couple of nuclear bombs ended World War II but also caused immense suffering and damage. The sports minister can withhold funding or remove the right to award national colours from CSA, effectively suspending the Proteas’ involvement in international cricket.

Let’s hope that matters do not have to go that far.

It causes immense frustration that the players – through a strongly-worded statement from SACA, sponsors, media and the general public have all expressed their great dismay at the attitude of the Members Council and yet the stubborn miscreants who have already done so much damage to the game continue to defy all calls for them to embrace change or move out.

Minister Mthethwa will justifiably be enraged by the lack of respect he has been shown and that is certainly the emotion I feel when confronted by the sheer, selfish obduracy of the parasites on the Members Council.

In their desperation, the Members Council have also, when it suits them, invoked Sascoc’s policy that members need to have a majority of non-independent directors on their board. Never mind that CSA ignore what goes on at Sascoc 95% of the time, that organisation is squelching through the mud of their own corporate governance crisis.

In 2017, then Minister of Sport Thulas Nxesi instituted the Zulman Commission to investigate the governance and management of Sascoc. It red-flagged conflicts of interest surrounding board members and recommended that they follow the benchmarks of international best practice and amend their board to have more independent directors.

Having more non-independent, hands-on directors in provincial structures might make sense, but a national board, considering their oversight function and the billions of rands they deal with, must be dominated by an independent contingent whose only concern is the overall good of the game.

The world has changed, top-level sport is no longer an amateur endeavour that can be run by the blazer brigade. It is big business and one needs heavyweights of the corporate world to steer the organisation.

Hopefully the light bulb will come on soon in the Members Council boardroom and they will ensure a more certain future for the game in this country.

No spectators are going to be allowed at Randpark Golf Club when the prestigious Joburg Open is held there from November 19-22, but there will be plenty of entertainment for golf fans at the club both before and after that with the installation of the new InRange ball-tracking facility at their driving range.

InRange is a system designed by engineers in Stellenbosch who were global leaders in the field of tracking technology for radio telescopes and radar, who turned their attention to tracking the flight of golf balls. The result is not only a package that is used by leading professionals, golf clubs and coaches, but which also has tremendous entertainment value.

Golfers previously going through the motions on the driving range can now track each and every shot and can play under added pressure in the system’s game mode that allows multiple players to compete against each other in contests such as Longest Drive or Bullseye. With four buckets of balls costing less than R400 for a foursome, this sounds like great fun for a group of golfing mates.

The technology is also available on an app, allowing individuals to enjoy the experience at a cheaper cost.

But for the weekend of November 19-22, Randpark will become a place of national importance and closed to the public as the European Tour and their top international golfers arrive to participate in the Joburg Open. As Randpark GC chief executive Francois Swart explained, they simply cannot risk any Covid transmission occurring, especially with South Africa hosting the Alfred Dunhill Championship at Leopard Creek and then the South African Open at Sun City on the following weekends.

“It’s very important that the safety protocols are adhered to and we have to manage the bubbles and ensure the safety of the players, not just for this tournament but for the next two as well. I think not having spectators is the better call and unfortunately not even our members will be allowed at the club. It’s the right call because it’s a big investment.

“The players are the ones who have the most risk and if any of them get exposed then they’re out for the rest of the tournaments as well. Not having spectators is normal practice at this time on the European Tour and they have had a lot of input because they have staged big tournaments already this year. They’ve given us valuable insights and I have all the confidence in the world that the Joburg Open will go off beautifully,” Swart told The Citizen.

It would seem the whole debate over whether ball-tampering should be allowed in cricket has been resurrected due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, predictably, it has been Australians leading the way.

When it comes to delicate questions requiring much cricketing wisdom, I generally ask myself, “What would Michael Holding do?” (Although I disagree with his belief that the toss should be done away with as I explained in a previous column – http://kenborland.com/2018/09/cricket-looking-to-toss-a-boomerang/)

And Holding has indeed made a very pertinent observation regarding the whole legalising ball-tampering debate: The great West Indian fast bowler and much-loved commentator asked whether we should even be playing cricket if we are so worried about saliva and sweat?

Whether the Covid-19 virus can even be transmitted via sweat seems unlikely. But if the ICC are so concerned about possible transmission through perspiration then they should probably not be playing cricket anyway. Cricketers are generally running about in the sun and they are going to sweat, there’s no avoiding that fact.

And bowlers, the sweatiest of the lot, are also likely to be spraying out some saliva when they are bellowing out appeals.

The cricket authorities overseas are assuring us that there will be thorough testing, temperatures being taken every day, and extensive safety measures in place, and yet they are also suggesting putting sweat or saliva on the ball will not be allowed. Which would seem to be a contradiction. If the testing and safety measures are so good, why are they still concerned about those body fluids?

The Australians, of course, are still recovering from the disgrace of being guilty of the biggest ball-tampering scandal of the lot – when David Warner, Steven Smith and Cameron Bancroft decided to use sandpaper on the ball during the 2017/18 series here. It is disappointing that they are now the first to suggest legalising that sort of nonsense, perhaps revealing that their only remorse is that they were caught and not that their blatant cheating did much damage to the game.

I understand that bowlers are going through a tough time in cricket, but there are better ways of restoring the balance between bat and ball. Pitches can provide more assistance to bowlers, although not as much as has been on offer in some recent summers here, but most importantly there should be greater control over the size of bats that are being used.

The bat manufacturers are giving batsmen bigger and bigger trunks of wood with ever-larger sweet spots and edges that are now broad enough to still hit the ball for six.

Down through the ages, bowlers have used all sorts of substances to illegally alter the condition of the ball and I fear relaxing those rules will lead to a flood of ingenious new methods of ball-tampering. We’ve already had all manners of creams, bottle tops, long fingernails, mints and sandpaper, what’s next?

And to say it can only be done under the supervision of the umpire is only going to cause even more lengthy delays in the game. Most teams have a designated player responsible for looking after the ball and are they now going to have to walk over to the umpire between deliveries and spend 30 seconds rubbing and shining the ball under their watchful eye?

This week came the happy news that England’s players next week will resume training in controlled environments at a range of different venues. This is in line with the UK government relaxing their Lockdown protocols  and will initially just be to allow the bowlers to get their fitness levels up. This will then be followed by more typical nets featuring batsmen.

England are still hoping to be able to host the West Indies in the first Test of a series in seven weeks’ time, but whether this happens remains to be seen with Caribbean players already expressing concerns about going to one of the epicentres of the pandemic.

Cricket is, in many ways, a strange game but there is nothing as infuriating than play not taking place when blue skies and bright sunshine are overhead. That was the case in Durban last weekend as the first Test between South Africa and New Zealand was allowed to just die with only 99.4 overs being bowled in the match.

As an endangered species, Test cricket needs to be given utmost support and attention and I firmly believe that where there is a will, there is a way.

Notwithstanding the foolishness of Cricket South Africa digging up the Kingsmead outfield in order to soften it two weeks later than they should have, meaning it struggled to cope with unseasonal heavy rain in Durban, the villains of the peace for me were English umpires Ian Gould and Richard Illingworth, who showed little interest in actually getting play underway, so fixated were they on a few damp patches on the outfield.

The umpires are the final arbiters of what is fair and safe in terms of conditions, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. Both teams were eager to play – in fact the Proteas were gathered on the side of the field shortly after play was finally abandoned on the fifth day eager to have a run-around and get some fitness in, but they were prevented from going on to the field because that would have made the umpires look bad.

I am certain that if it had been an ODI or a T20 match with similar soft areas of outfield, a plan would have been made and the umpires would have done everything in their power to get a game underway.

As usual, the accountability has been shifted to Kingsmead, who never wanted the outfield to be dug up in the first place. The International Cricket Council, as usual, passed the buck. There was absolutely no communication from the match referee, Andy Pycroft, to explain why play was not possible, and he declined to speak to the media. What’s the point of having a match referee if that is their attitude?

To make matter worse, the umpires were so apathetic when it came to making an effort that they actually banned the groundstaff from the field when groundsman Wilson Ngobese and his staff wanted to proceed with mopping up operations, saying they preferred to allow natural processes like sun and wind to run their course.

Week in and week out rugby players are busy making crunching tackles and sidestepping such collisions in often wet conditions, but how often do one of them turn an ankle? With both teams happy to play, the only conclusion is that Gould and Illingworth were being overly precious.

The future of Test cricket may not bother them or Pycroft, but what happened at Kingsmead under their watch was a fiasco and just another small nail in the coffin of the original format of the game.

Proteas captain Faf du Plessis spoke earnestly on Friday about how, for them, Test cricket was still the ultimate and it needed better treatment from the ICC.

“Test cricket is still number one for the players and a Test Championship is a step in the right direction. You ask any of the international players and they will tell you that Test cricket is still the best thing to play and we need to play as many Tests as possible.

“You want to be able to say you’ve given everything on the field and that feeling of winning a Test can’t be copied, especially not by T20. I hope the ICC is looking at that,” Du Plessis said.

Sadly, the ICC are more interested in red tape and bureaucracy, and are way more likely to jump up and down about over-rates, sponsors’ logos being too big or a player saying something even mildly controversial in a press conference.

As usual, the administrators seem to think cricket fans are more interested in what they are up to than in the actual game they are meant to be serving.