Ken Borland

Proteas coach Mark Boucher on Wednesday admitted to being disappointed with how the national team performed in his first four months in charge, but like a chef cooking up a new dish, he now believes he has the right ingredients to ensure the South African cricket side meet expectations once they resume playing.

Boucher took over the reins in December and although the Proteas won his first Test in charge against England at Centurion in stirring fashion, they went on to be thumped 3-1 in the series. They shared the ODI series and lost the T20s 2-1, in both cases again wasting a 1-0 lead.

They lost the T20 rubber against Australia 2-1, but then produced the highlight of the summer with a 3-0 whitewashing of the strong tourists.

“Now that I’ve had time to reflect on the season, our performances were quite disappointing to be honest, especially against England. We didn’t perform the way we ought to or the way we wanted to. But as a new coaching staff, we asked some questions and we got some answers, some of them good, some of them bad.

“But the nice thing is there was light at the end of the tunnel, especially in the short formats, the performance against Australia. A lot of work still needs to be done on Test cricket, that side needs a lot of rebuilding and a couple of injuries didn’t help either.

“But it was exciting to see the players grow as we gave opportunities to a couple of youngsters. We were no longer relying on just one individual guy. But there’s still a helluva lot of work to be done before we are the finished product,” Boucher said on Wednesday.

For someone who was criticised in some quarters for not having done enough coaching courses, Boucher, who brought sheer competitiveness to the 147 Tests and 295 ODIs he played, also seems to have handled the man-management aspects of his new job well.

“It’s always difficult but we gave some opportunities to youngsters when we could rest senior guys and I was pleased with quite a few of them. They were thrown into the deep end a bit but I was pleasantly surprised by how they went.

“It meant that towards the end of the season we had a lot of guys in good form and with a lot of confidence, which meant we were selecting from a pool of about 20 players. That’s good for South African cricket, we were in a strong position, and although it causes a couple of headaches it’s better than just having 11 definites.

“Communication is important in that situation and I think I did fairly well. We made it clear that it didn’t matter what performances were put in, the senior player rightfully holds on to his position. But if people don’t perform then they have to go to the back of the queue, it is what it is unfortunately,” Boucher said.

The 43-year-old, who won five trophies in three seasons with the Titans, said his relationship with assistant coach Enoch Nkwe, who he ostensibly replaced at the helm of the Proteas, was also growing.

“Enoch and I have had some great conversations and I think we understand each other. We certainly have the same ideas and agree on how to do things, we know there are going to be hard calls to make but we’re not scared to make them.

“Enoch has a good relationship with some of the youngsters I don’t know properly yet and he takes a load off my hands, which I appreciate. We’ve just got to keep working hard together and drive our vision together,” Boucher said.

While Boucher praised assistants Charl Langeveldt, Justin Ontong and strength and conditioning coach Tumi Masekela for all adding value, he said he hoped consultants Jacques Kallis and Paul Harris could be retained on a contractual basis by the Proteas.

Amidst these tumultuous times in South African cricket it does seem like acting chief executive Jacques Faul and interim director of cricket Graeme Smith have brought some stability, but it is vital that fans and stakeholders of the game in this country do not forget the reasons for the crisis that led to their appointments and the clarion call for the Cricket South Africa board to stand down must still ring out loud and clear.

There is the danger that because of the sterling work done by Faul and Smith, people think everything is suddenly hunky dory with South African cricket. The battle against the Covid-19 pandemic has also provided a timely distraction for the incompetent, self-serving board to hide behind.

But an expected loss of a billion rand and the poor governance and thoroughly undemocratic behaviour of people like suspended CEO Thabang Moroe and president Chris Nenzani happened on the board’s watch. Many of them were active participants and supporters of #CricketCapture, the rest turned a blind eye and were in breach of their fiduciary duties as directors.

So far, the board has shown no intention of accepting accountability for their gross dereliction of duty to the game.

The big problem in South African cricket, however, is that the governance structure is all wrong and that makes getting rid of the parasites on the board a tough task.

The problem dates back to 2013 and CSA’s reaction to the Gerald Majola Bonus Scandal and the Nicholson Commission’s findings which eventually forced the board to get rid of the then chief executive. But CSA did not follow the commission’s recommendation that independent directors make up the majority on the board. Instead, CSA implemented a new system where five independent directors were elected on to the board alongside seven non-independent directors.

Those seven non-independent directors also sit on the Members Council, a 14-member group that elects the board and, according to CSA’s Memorandum of Incorporation, is the only structure that can dissolve the board.

The seven non-independents are elected from the 12 provincial presidents and CSA also devised a system whereby provincial presidents sit on the Members Council for three years, and can also serve a second three-year term.

So you can see the problem?

With the resignation of Gauteng’s Jack Madiseng as a director, six of the seven non-independent board members also sit on the Members Council that will vote on their fate. So it means at least seven provincial presidents have to vote against them.

But many of those provincial presidents have been part of the problem because they sit on the Members Council for three years. The old saying of turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

A quick survey of the 12 provinces suggests four that would probably vote for change – Gauteng (Madiseng) and KwaZulu-Natal (Ben Dladla) apparently have their mandates already, North-West are currently under the administration of Archie Pretorius, one of Majola’s critics who was kicked off the board during the 2013 sham, and Western Province, who have a new president in Nic Kock, an advocate who has not been scared to take on CSA already in his short term in charge at Newlands.

But Eastern Province are led by a massive supporter of the Moroe/Nenzani axis in Donovan May, Boland have also been a backer through their president, Angelo Carolissen, although his second three-year term should be coming to an end soon. Border have a new president in Simphiwe Ndzundzu but sympathy for Nenzani would be understandable because he comes from the Bisho area.

South-Western Districts also have a long-serving president in Rudi Claassen, as do Free State (Zola Thamae, one of the directors) and Northern Cape (Rihan Richards). Northerns seem unsure of how to vote, mostly because their president, Tebogo Siko, has been newly elected on to the board and should not be blamed for the crisis. Easterns also have a new, young president in Xolani Peter Vonya.

Nenzani and his vice-president Beresford Williams, who has also strongly supported the regime, also have votes on the Members Council.

So because clubs wanting change in some provinces still have to wait two more years before they can outvote their president, change will be slow in coming via the traditional route.

Which is why I would call on any angel investors looking to get involved with Cricket South Africa to stipulate in their contracts that their sponsorships are dependent on the board changing.

And companies like Momentum need to follow through on their earlier ultimatums that they will withdraw their support unless the CSA board resign.

What will hopefully become a new era in South African cricket administration also desperately needs a change in governance structure so we don’t get into this sort of mess again. They had a chance in 2013 to get it right, hopefully in 2020 that chance will be taken and not dropped like a sitter at mid-off.

https://citizen.co.za/sport/sport-columnists/2265248/cricket-south-africa-clean-up-should-extend-to-the-board/

–

Given the financial crisis at Auckland Park, it is easy to attack the SABC for their coverage of cricket, but an incident during the third Test between the Proteas and Pakistan at the Wanderers got me thinking about the influence of SuperSport in South African cricket.

I have an early disclaimer to make – I used to work, on contract, at the broadcaster and I do believe South African sport would be much worse off were it not for the millions of rands SuperSport pumps into the various codes through broadcast rights.

But there is also an unseemly, monopolistic and dictatorial element to this relationship.

I experienced it first-hand when I happened to call Tony Greig a “loudmouth commentator” in an opinion piece I wrote for their website. The instruction came from on high from Imtiaz Patel, now the executive chairman of MultiChoice and apparently still ruling with an iron fist from Dubai, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to withdraw the article and send Greig a written apology.

I was tempted to use the famous apology former English fast bowler Andy Caddick once received from a West Indian journalist, who described him in his report as being “the big-eared Caddick”. The cricketer stormed into the media centre, found the journalist and demanded that an apology be printed in the next edition.

The apology was indeed there – “I am sorry that Andy Caddick has big ears”.

Last week’s incident also involved a commentator, but one that generally chooses his words with a lot more purpose than Greig did – Mark Nicholas.

The Englishman said on air on the first day that their lunchtime chat, which is sadly not easily accessed by those at the ground, on the second day would be with three South African legends of the past – Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards and Mike Procter.

Many viewers waited with huge anticipation for the interview – and we must remember that there is massive overseas interest in those three greats – but then there was nothing. The whole idea was quietly canned and never happened. SuperSport should have at least informed the public as to why what appeared to be a major snub had happened. Even Pollock, Richards and Procter were left in the dark.

Apparently, the interview was pulled due to one of those instructions from on high, seemingly because Cricket South Africa’s response to anything Richards has to say these days is akin to that of my wife when she discovers a Parktown Prawn in the house.

So instead of serving their viewers, and allowing cricket fans to enjoy a good chat with three of the greatest players ever, SuperSport preferred to score some cheap political points.

SuperSport have a terrible attitude when it comes to their responsibility as the most powerful media house in the country. They will avoid even the slightest hint of criticism aimed at the sports bodies that give them the broadcast rights, bending over backwards to fulfil every little wish of the administrators. Many of whom should be subjected to the harshest media scrutiny of all.

Cricket South Africa, who were captured themselves by the Guptas, have SuperSport captured although it is a more mutually beneficial relationship. But does it benefit the sport in the long term?

SuperSport have some very good broadcasters and journalists and they should be allowed more freedom to do their jobs. Certainly someone as experienced and sharp as Nicholas was highly unlikely to allow anything embarrassing to be said.

Instead, the embarrassment is all SuperSport’s now with their absurd banning of three absolute cricket greats, admired the world over.

https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-gauteng/20190119/282656098637360

As cricket lovers we often talk about the old days and how our heroes of yesteryear would have fared in modern-day cricket, especially the new white-ball formats which have changed the face of the game.

The more nerdy of us love compiling teams that would never take the field but oh, how we wish they could have. One of the sides that is often discussed is the best T20 XI made up of players who never had the opportunity to play the shortest format of the game. In other words, all cricketers before 2003.

One of my selections would be Chris Wilkins, the former Natal, Eastern Province, Border and Derbyshire batsman who sadly passed away at the start of the week, to open the batting. Members of the younger generation need not feel like total dorks if they have never heard of the man, because he never played for South Africa. But he did command immense respect from his peers and many of them I have spoken to agree that one of the 1966 SA Cricket Annual Cricketers of the Year would make their XI for players who never had the opportunity to play T20.

Opening the batting in limited-overs cricket these days is all about being able to hit boundaries against the new ball by playing orthodox cricket strokes, and Wilkins was a master of that. There is many a former provincial fast bowler who is still bearing the scars of being belted over the covers or straight back over his head to the boundary in the first over of the innings, whether in first-class cricket or limited-overs, by Wilkins.

An average in the mid-30s is not exceptional by today’s standards, but a word of warning to those wanting to cast aspersions on the quality of cricket back then. Because it was three-day cricket, most of the pitches were pretty green and result-friendly, and it was probably the greatest era of South African fast bowling in terms of depth – the likes of Vince van der Bijl, Mike Procter, Garth le Roux, Clive Rice, Eddie Barlow, Rupert Hanley, Kenny Watson and Stephen Jefferies et al were all at the peak of their powers. Back then, only a handful of batsmen would ever average more than 40.

Wilkins was held in high enough esteem to be chosen for the Rest of the World XI that toured England in 1970, making an impact with a swashbuckling 73-minute century, the fastest of the season, against the T.N. Pearce XI at Scarborough.

As well as Wilkins, is not the thought of Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, Procter and Adrian Kuiper playing T20 cricket a mouthwatering one? Lance Klusener is not eligible for this fantasy XI because he played 53 domestic T20 games, but there would not be a more sought after player in any of the world leagues if ‘Zulu’ were in his prime now.

All those wonderful fast bowlers would have been great to see in T20 as well, but, in these days of spinners being a strike bowler in white-ball cricket, there is not too much by way of South African slow bowlers to choose from. Leg-spinner Denys Hobson would probably have been the Imran Tahir of his day, although the Western Province star would probably have been a better Test bowler.

There are many international bowlers from the 1970s and 80s who are extremely thankful that there was not a T20 format back then during the heyday of the West Indies … bowling to Viv Richards would certainly not have been for the fainthearted.

There is a T20 tournament on the go at the moment in Abu Dhabi, with South Africa’s champions, the Titans, taking part. It seems to be very much a made-for-TV event, judging by a great paucity of spectators in a grandiose stadium. A triumph for the Titans would be nice, but hardly memorable given the gimmicky feel of the event and tiny boundaries that really make it into a slogging contest.

What is clear, however, is that South Africa has a great deal of top-class talent and it was a bittersweet feeling to see Colin Ingram and Kyle Abbott starring for a team from Afghanistan of all places.