Ken Borland

Paul Adams’ refusal to testify in Mark Boucher’s disciplinary hearing is an unfortunate development that will not only considerably weaken Cricket South Africa’s case, but also reflects badly on the former spin bowler and makes it harder for the current Proteas coach to clear his name in an unambiguous fashion.

Having showed an admirable level of courage in testifying at the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings about an offensive team song the Proteas used in fines meetings in the late 1990s, Adams now seems to have lost his nerve when it comes to presenting and justifying the same evidence, but this time with Boucher’s representatives being able to cross-examine and test his claims.

It shows again that for SJN Ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza to err so badly in allowing inflammatory allegations to be publicly aired without being properly subjected to legal processes has only created more headaches for Cricket South Africa.

Adams was also disingenuous in his weekend statement announcing his decision when he claimed he never meant to single out Boucher in his SJN testimony. While Boucher’s name was admittedly brought into the conversation by one of Ntsebeza’s legal assistants, Adams went on to say that Boucher “should come and say sorry, if that’s enough, but we can’t brush this under the carpet”.

Adams also went on to target Boucher’s appointment as Titans coach in 2016.

No amount of “sorry”s can fully cleanse the stain of being unjustifiably called a racist and Adams’ refusal to further discuss his allegations has denied Boucher the chance of properly exonerating himself if he is innocent of the offences his former team-mate accuses him of doing.

With Enoch Nkwe also not expected to testify, CSA’s entire case could quickly disintegrate. But the public may not be as quick to forget the allegations that were made against Boucher but which have never actually been disproven.

That could only have happened if Adams had availed himself to answer such probing questions as what other songs were sung, what songs did he participate in and who actually wrote the offensive lyrics?

Having provided the matches to those who are looking to burn down Boucher’s career, Adams has now slipped out of being held accountable for what he said.

There will be howls of dismay again over how badly the Proteas bat against spin following their capitulation to 125 all out and defeat by 78 runs to Sri Lanka in the third and decisive ODI in Colombo on Tuesday, but it was seam bowler Dushmantha Chameera who actually had a massive say in the series-clinching win for the home side.

Chameera first of all scored a crucial 29 runs after coming in at 154 for seven to lift Sri Lanka to 203 for nine in their 50 overs, and give them belief that they had a total they could defend on a turning pitch.

Given how South Africa’s spinners had dominated, it was always going to be the Sri Lankan slow bowlers who were going to be the chief risk for the Proteas batsmen.

But it was Chameera who made two massive strikes up front with the new ball to immediately undermine the run-chase. The lithe fast bower bowled Reeza Hendricks (1) through the gate with a cracking delivery and then, in his next over, had key man Rassie van der Dussen (5) superbly caught by a diving Kamindu Mendis at short midwicket.

And then it was easy for the Sri Lankan spinners to keep kicking the Proteas batsmen in the shins as they took full advantage of a pitch that provided sometimes vicious turn.

From 19 for three, Heinrich Klaasen lifted them to 45 without further loss with a positive approach, but then debutant Maheesh Theeksana, a mystery off-spinner in the same mould as Ajantha Mendis, cut the legs off the innings with his carom balls.

He removed opener Janneman Malan (18) and then Klaasen fell for 22 when he got his pads in the way of a delivery that turned like a leg-break.

South Africa were 54 for six and doomed.

They were eventually bowled out in just 30 overs as Theeksana finished with four for 37, Chameera took two for 16 and leg-spinner Wanindu Hasaranga claimed two for 32.

South Africa, who had lost the toss, had actually bowled really well as stand-in captain Keshav Maharaj employed a battalion of spinners.

Sri Lanka struggled throughout with Dhananjaya de Silva (31) and the man of the series Charith Asalanka (47) the only batsmen to prosper for a while.

But Chameera made sure the last three wickets added 49 runs as the Proteas again faltered when it came to closing out an innings in the field.

Kagiso Rabada was out of sorts as he went wicketless in eight overs and conceded 46 runs, while Andile Phehlukwayo and Wiaan Mulder only bowled one over each.

For the rest it was all spin. Slow left-armers Maharaj (10-0-38-3) and George Linde (10-1-32-2) tied up the batsmen superbly, Tabraiz Shamsi nipped out a couple of batsmen and even Aiden Markam got through a full quota of 10 overs, conceding only 41 runs and dismissing Dhananjaya.

A decidedly undistinguished performance by the Proteas saw them lose the first Test against Pakistan by the large margin of seven wickets. The batting, after posting totals of just 220 and 245, will once again be in the spotlight, but the fielding was also far inferior to that of the home side and the bowlers, while toiling manfully, lost the plot badly on the third morning.

A couple of key catches were missed in Pakistan’s first innings after they had been reduced to 27 for four, and there were also numerous ground fielding errors that released whatever pressure had been painstakingly built up by the bowlers. Pakistan were able to effectively rotate the strike and the intensity, which creates its own pressure, that one normally associates wit the South African fielding effort just wasn’t there.

Speaking of intensity, it was dismaying to see how flat the Proteas were on the crucial third morning. Pakistan began the day on 308 for eight, already 88 ahead, and it was vital for the visitors to wrap up the innings as quickly as possible. But apart from the persevering Rabada, the rest of the bowling was woeful as the lower-order lashed 70 runs off 74 balls to almost double the lead. They were vital runs that put the home side in firm control.

South Africa had also lost their way with questionable choices of bowlers and tactics with the second new ball. Pakistan were 214 for six when it was taken, still six runs behind. But Rabada only had three overs with it and soon it was part-time off-spinner Aiden Markram using it. The first 14 overs with the new ball saw 61 runs rattled up as the momentum clearly shifted.

But it was the batting that yet again let the Proteas down. They have scored more than 300 just once in their last 23 innings in Asia dating back to July 2014. To say they have a problem with spin is an understatement. Debutant Nauman Ali removed Dean Elgar and Quinton de Kock in the first innings and his left-arm spin ripped through the batting in the second innings as he took five for 35. Leg-spinner Yasir Shah also took seven wickets in the match.

The pitch was certainly conducive to spin but there were several soft dismissals. I wonder if the Proteas batsmen have full confidence in their skills against the turning ball? I say that because they tended to get stuck at one end, unable to rotate the strike, and then the ill-judged expansive shot would come, trying to break the shackles with a boundary rather than ticking over the scoreboard by manipulating singles.

Quinton de Kock was probably the biggest disappointment with the bat and his performance as captain also raised question marks.

In the first innings, instead of setting the example, he succumbed to impatience and tried to belt Nauman over the top of the infield but was caught at a wide mid-on, and in the second dig he went hard at a Yasir delivery, bat well in front of his pad, and was caught at short-leg.

De Kock has the air of a laid-back dreamer, and would never be described as being full of words. He is certainly more shy than outgoing and, while there is no doubting his cricketing intelligence, he’s never going to be the most vocal captain. On that flat third morning, South Africa needed someone, however, to stoke their fires.

But the most important reason for being concerned about De Kock as captain is that he does not seem to be enjoying the added responsibility. The joy of playing cricket has been his energy in the past, but in recent press conferences, the captaincy seems to be a chore for him, a duty rather than something he really enjoys. And worst of all, it seems to have robbed the Proteas of a batting genius who is at his best when playing with freedom. De Kock has now scored just 45 runs in four innings as captain.

As we have seen so often in rugby, making changes to long-standing rules of the game almost invariably brings unexpected consequences and there has been a lot of talk recently about doing away with one of cricket’s most famous traditions, a move which I believe will boomerang badly on the sport.

South African captain Faf du Plessis was the latest to bring up doing away with the toss, although his beliefs lost some credibility because they came straight after the Proteas had been mauled in their two Tests in Sri Lanka.

Various high-profile Australians have also backed the ending of the toss, but again, these comments were mostly made after they had lost the Ashes in England.

Proponents of the eradication of the toss propose that the visiting team just gets to choose whether they want to bat or bowl, thereby supposedly removing home advantage, which the anti-toss advocates say has become a major problem in world cricket.

Happily, a couple of months ago the ICC Cricket Committee discussed doing away with the toss and decided that it was an integral part of the game and should be spared.

No doubt they had a better grasp of the actual facts surrounding the issue. Home ground advantage has always played a role in cricket, as it does in just about every sport, but winning or losing the toss actually does not have a major effect.

In this decade, the team winning the toss still only wins 43.78% of Test matches, so it is not a massive advantage. There is a slight benefit because only 35.13% of teams that lose the toss go on to win the match. Historically, Australia are the only side that wins more than 50% of the Tests in which they have won the toss, and even then it’s just 50.49%, only slightly higher than their overall success rate of 47.16%.

I believe giving the visiting team total control over what they do first would have a major bearing on the game, which is where the unintended consequences come in, especially in countries like India or New Zealand.

It’s fair to say the weather is out of the control of the people who prepare the pitches in those countries and they can only do so much to negate the effect of overhead conditions. Doing away with the toss would grossly undermine teams like India and New Zealand – in the heat of the sub-continent, dry, dusty, deteriorating pitches are almost inevitable and India would be batting second every time; conversely, New Zealand is usually pretty damp and overcast and the Black Caps would find themselves sent in to bat every time.

It would happen often in England as well that the home team would automatically have to bat at the most difficult time and it could also affect the Proteas at home.

What it boils down to is the ICC actually using the mechanisms they already have in place to ensure fair conditions – they already have rules in the playing conditions when it comes to unfair pitches and they just need to enforce them more diligently, especially when it comes to the sub-continent and even some South African green mambas.

The perception that away teams are struggling does have some basis in fact. In this decade, the visiting team has lost 51.75% of Tests, up from 46.40% in the 2000s. It is interesting, though, that the away team has been winning Tests in the last 20 years at pretty much the same rate as they have been doing through the history of the game.

It is, of course, the number of away draws that has dropped significantly in recent times; down from 47.31% of Tests in the 1960s to just 20.76% in this decade. That is obviously a positive but it also points to the rise of T20 cricket and batsmen being able to hit the ball but not defend against the turning, seaming or swinging delivery.

The problem is not the toss, it’s modern-day batsmen being ill-prepared for foreign conditions, and sometimes the ICC allows the home union to get away with cheap shots in terms of pitch preparation.