Ken Borland

Nothing damages a relationship more than dishonesty and Cricket South Africa should bear that in mind when it comes to their relationship with Proteas fans, who have already had to put up with so much.

The selection of world cup squads has always been controversial simply because everyone has their own favourite cricketers who they believe should be in the team. But the announcement this week of the squad for the T20 World Cup in the United Arab Emirates next month has caused uproar because CSA have taken their fans to be fools.

George Linde, who has played in 14 of South Africa’s last 18 T20 Internationals – and done really well, was omitted from the squad of 15. The two orthodox left-arm spinners chosen, Bjorn Fortuin and Keshav Maharaj, have played just six and zero matches respectively over the same period. Linde is also the best batsman of the three.

Convenor of selectors Victor Mpitsang struggled to provide cogent reasons for why Linde, who has taken 15 wickets and has an economy rate of just 7.08, has suddenly been leapfrogged and I have yet to see any valid cricketing reasons put forward for the decision.

The elephant in the room – as it always seems to be – is quotas. For at least the last decade, no Proteas squad has gone to a World Cup with less than seven Black players. Which is the exact number chosen this time around too. Where the public was taken for fools was when Mpitsang said “there just happens to be seven players of colour” and when director of cricket Graeme Smith said “no policy was given to the selection panel”.

I get that the likes of Smith, Mpitsang, coach Mark Boucher and captain Temba Bavuma are caught between a rock and a hard place. Do they acknowledge that there is a quota to meet and risk undermining any fragile psyches amongst the players or do they pretend like nothing’s going on and alienate the public?

CSA’s new board need to be honest and come out and say what is more important for them: Ensuring the Proteas tick certain boxes when it comes to demographics or ensuring the very best combinations can go out and be competitive on the ruthless international stage.

Of course transformation and winning are not mutually exclusive – the Springboks have shown that. But when it comes to selecting between someone who has spent the last year meeting all expectations in his role or another player who has always been behind him in the pecking order, the colour of skin really should not come into it.

As much as some people want to ignore quotas, they are there. Denial is not going to stop that realisation seeping into the changeroom either.

After the Proteas lost the ODI series against Sri Lanka, what do you think the first question was in the post-match press conference with Boucher? Was it about the failure of the batting line-up or whether two seam-bowling all-rounders was the right selection?

It was neither.

“Are you happy with the balance of the side in terms of transformation?” was the first question. If the most pressing issue for the media is that only five players of colour were selected, including just two Black Africans (Bavuma and Lungi Ngidi were both unavailable), then why can’t CSA just be honest about quotas?

The CSA Board hire people to do a cricketing job but then also expect them to ensure political objectives are met, without ever talking about those ‘targets’. (What a euphemism that is as Ashwell Prince found out when he missed his ‘target’ once as Cape Cobras coach and was immediately hauled before a disciplinary hearing).

Just in case there is any doubt, I am a huge Maharaj fan and his T20 debut is overdue, plus he provides valuable leadership to the squad. I am also a Fortuin fan, but it is going to be hard on him to replicate Linde’s role at a World Cup given how few T20 Internationals he has had the opportunity to play in.

Proteas coach Mark Boucher has described the team’s fines meetings as being a bit of a giggle designed to build team spirit, but he has apologised for any offence caused in his affidavit to Cricket South Africa’s Social Justice and Nation-Building commission, which he released publicly on Monday.
Boucher has been accused of racial abuse dating back to his playing days following the testimony of former Protea Paul Adams, who said he was called “Brown Shit” in a fines meeting song.
“One way we try to build team spirit, as do many teams across the world, is to have fines meetings. … They were lighthearted with lots of laughter, singing and ribbing of team-mates. Management and the captain were often fined. … There would never really be a fine for an on-field event as this could, mistakenly, be taken personally.
“So ‘offences’ would typically be for wearing the wrong kit, being late for a meeting, talking out of turn in the fines meeting … and these fines would be accompanied by a song. … Lots of us had nicknames for each other which had a racial connotation and we all called each other those names. I was also given a nickname which made reference to my colour … but I can categorically say that I did not give Mr Adams the name ‘brown shit’.
“While at the time we thought it was playful banter within a team environment in which we all participated … , I deeply regret and apologise for the part I played by joining in with my team-mates in singing offensive songs or using offensive nicknames,” Boucher said in his affidavit.
Boucher made his debut for the Proteas in 1997 as a “naive” 20-year-old and, while he does not try to paint himself as a sweet young man, he strongly refutes any suggestions he was racist.
“I was a young man, barely out of my teens. In hindsight, we are all naive – the players, the coaches, the management. We were not only naive but also ill-equipped to deal with the new environment in which we found ourselves. … I have committed to educate myself so that I do not do or say things that are unintentionally offensive. …  I feel privileged to have experienced what I have and I deeply regret playing a role in not seeing or doing more for those who could have had a similar experience.
“I do wish to state categorically that nothing I have ever said or done was motivated by malice and was certainly not motivated by racism. … There has been an implicit insinuation in some media reports and by some people in social media, that I am a racist. The attack on my character by these people has been relentless, bereft of objectivity and evidence and appears motivated by a hidden agenda. My family and I have been traumatised by it,” Boucher said.

Cricket South Africa’s Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings are set to resume on Monday and now those implicated in the first three-and-a-half weeks of testimony will get the chance to sell their side of the story to the ombudsman, Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza.

So far the SJN hearings have been anything but boring as nearly 50 respondents have come before Ntsebeza and his fellow advocates and testified with great zeal about how they have been hurt or discriminated against by the game of cricket in this country.

Unfortunately, numerous critics and commentators have been a bit slow to realise that we have only heard one side of the story thus far. None of this evidence has been tested or cross-examined, but that hasn’t stopped sensational headlines and vicious social media attacks being made.

While many of the stories of hurt were eloquently and movingly presented, sadly some people abused the process to continue the campaign against CSA director of cricket Graeme Smith and Proteas coach Mark Boucher, making them the focus of their presentations. As if Smith and Boucher are personally responsible for all the awful things that happened in the 1990s and 2000s. And, judging by some of the hysterical reaction, they would already be locked away in a cell before being allowed to give evidence according to certain people’s idea of how justice works.

Discrimination based on race is what the SJN is looking for, but several of the complaints around selection ignore the fact that Linda Zondi was national convenor of selectors at the time, or Russell Domingo was the Proteas head coach. So is it Black people being discriminatory or are we going to deny both these great cricket servants their agency and say they were merely stooges for the few White people involved in the running of cricket at the time?

Omphile Ramela, the former president of the players’ association, has been one of the most vocal voices claiming rampant discrimination in cricket. His personal complaints centred around him no longer being contracted by the Highveld Lions as a batsman and for CSA turning down his application to succeed Zondi as the convenor of selectors. Enoch Nkwe was the Lions coach who decided not to renew his contract and Victor Mpitsang was rightfully given the job of selection convenor, given his broad knowledge of the players in the system through both his coaching and commentary work.

There are many witnesses who have every right, however, to be angry about how they were treated, especially in the earlier days of unity. Selection frustrations are always a part of cricket though and a player not being selected cannot automatically be ascribed to racism. While Khaya Zondo was no doubt embittered by what happened to him in India in 2015, it is probably true that the only South African cricketer who was definitely dropped from the Proteas XI due to the colour of his skin was Kyle Abbott in the World Cup debacle earlier that year.

Watching our gloriously transformed and brilliant Springboks in action and listening to the painful SJN Hearings around the same time, I cannot help but feel it is the strict quotas in cricket that have caused much of the anger, strife and bitterness.

Rugby has never had quotas as strictly enforced and their transformation has been more organic. And to try and paint them as ‘targets’ in cricket is totally disingenuous – if they were just targets then why was Ashwell Prince, according to his own testimony, hauled before a CSA disciplinary committee after failing to meet the requirements on one occasion as Cape Cobras coach?

White players, who lose their places in the team due to quotas, are naturally upset and wonder if the player replacing them is there on merit. This unhappiness has now extended to Coloured and Indian cricketers and is not good for changeroom morale.

The other side of the coin is that Black players also wonder if they are in the team on merit (as the majority are), and that type of self-doubt is lethal in a sport like cricket which relies so much on confidence and self-belief.

The second week of the Social Justice and Nation-Building Hearings has taken place at Cricket South Africa’s Melrose offices and, with former players giving evidence this week, it is clear that many feelings of discrimination arose from selection matters.

Selection in cricket is always a controversial and complex matter because of how many variables are involved in the game. It’s a bit like rugby in that you often don’t just choose your 11 or 15 best individual players. It’s about combinations and, in cricket especially, the balance of the team is so crucial.

And that balance has to be fit for purpose for whatever the conditions on the day or the opposition.

Adding to this already delicate mix is the fact that interfering with selection is official CSA policy; as Roger Telemachus testified this week, he had to be pulled from a 2007 World Cup match because there were no Black Africans in the XI.

The fact that it was Makhaya Ntini who was ‘forced’ into the team is interesting. The Mdingi Express was not only a vital beacon for transformation, but also a guaranteed selection for the vast majority of his career simply because of how great a fast bowler he was. But by 2007, especially on the low and slow pitches of the Caribbean, his white-ball form was declining.

Telemachus, a more skilful bowler in terms of slower balls, yorkers and other variations, was probably the better bet at that stage. Shaun Pollock, around about the same time, had to face similar pain as coach Mickey Arthur called time on his Test career because of his declining pace.

These are the sort of cricketing, rather than discriminatory, reasons that should definitely be considered by the SJN commission. As excellent a job as ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebenza and his two colleagues are doing, I do wish they had been given a cricketing expert to assist them – someone like Geoff Toyana.

The SJN’s shortcomings in this regard were shown when Ntsebeza asked Aaron Phangiso why Imran Tahir didn’t just stand down and give him a chance. Imagine Kagiso Rabada being asked to sit out and give Lutho Sipamla a go?

Phangiso was disgracefully treated in terms of selection in the 2015 World Cup, of that I have no doubt. For him to not play a single match was far more in need of intervention than the ill-fated make-up of the semifinal team. To not even play this quality left-arm spinner, known as ‘The Banker’ by his highly successful Highveld Lions team, against Ireland and the United Arab Emirates was appalling. The latter game was played on the isle of New Zealand, where the UAE were never going to stretch the Proteas. If South Africa felt Phangiso’s inclusion was somehow going to risk defeat, he should never have been in the World Cup squad in the first place.

But was this discrimination? The coach at the time – Russell Domingo – is Black, and so is the then-CEO, Haroon Lorgat, who had oversight over selection, with a majority Black board breathing down his neck.

I get the feeling from the many comments I have seen about former players ‘deserving’ better or ‘why weren’t they given more opportunity’, that many people don’t understand the nature of high-performance sport. Its about the best taking on the best. Of course in this country, with its history of oppression, there are mechanisms required to level the playing fields.

But no-one is entitled to be chosen, high performance sport is not about giving everyone a chance. It was also my dream to play first-class cricket, but I wasn’t good enough, end of story.

To see a former player with a batting average of 19.24 and strike-rate of 51 after 72 innings across the formats pose as a victim of a lack of opportunity is sad. He also said CSA is full of white bosses, which is totally at odds with the actual situation in a boardroom that has been majority Black for a long time.

I fully support Ntsebeza in this vital initiative to try and fix our cricket. But he is going to need the Wisdom of Solomon and some real cricket experts to do that.