Ken Borland

The tears and recriminations are flowing after yet another premature World Cup exit for South Africa’s cricketers, but spare a thought for Vernon Philander, Kyle Abbott and Aaron Phangiso, who all have good reason to feel angry on top of the brutal disappointment they must be suffering after the semi-final loss to New Zealand.

Nobody selects himself to play for the Proteas, and while it was undeniably a poor decision to play Philander ahead of Abbott, the Cape Cobras man has been a wonderful bowler for South Africa, even if his ODI skills on flat pitches don’t match his Test brilliance, and he certainly deserves way better than to be scornfully dismissed as a “quota” selection.

There were so many good cricketing reasons to play Abbott – his superb form in the quarterfinal against Sri Lanka, the doubts over Philander’s fitness (made worse by Dale Steyn’s own niggles and the ridiculously arrogant decision to only play four frontline bowlers), and the fact that the strategy against Brendon McCullum and some of the other NZ batsmen revolved around digging the ball in short and targeting the ribcage, for which Abbott is suited and Philander, who bowls at a very hittable pace if there is no movement, is not.

There has been speculation that Abbott was left out in order to play another player of colour, with rumours coming from people close to the camp that the Dolphins fast bowler was extremely angry ahead of the semi-final.

Which begs the question – when will Cricket South Africa get transformation right?

For me, it is just as much of a disgrace that Phangiso did not play a single game at the World Cup as it is if Abbott was left out for political reasons.

Will young Black Africans believe CSA when they say the Proteas are for everyone or will they look at Phangiso’s treatment and say his selection in the squad was all just window-dressing of the worst kind?

Instead of bowing to political demands before a semi-final that will now leave fresh scars on the South African psyche, why did CSA not insist Phangiso play at least against the UAE?

South Africa have not bowled skilfully enough in limited-overs cricket for a while now and this is ultimately where the World Cup campaign was lost; the only good all-round bowling performance they produced was against Sri Lanka. And to think they thought going into a semi-final with just five bowlers was a wise move.

All AB de Villiers’ statements about the Proteas being “the best team in the tournament” now sounds like empty chest-beating, designed to cover their own doubts.

If Russell Domingo did not have any misgivings about his side, why did he say they could not play Phangiso against the UAE because it was vital they finish second in their pool? An SA A side should have no trouble beating the UAE!

Yes, the Proteas have given their all and played with tremendous courage in the semi-final. But they also seem to have had an over-inflated opinion of how good they were throughout the World Cup, only for the doubts that have so blighted them in previous tournaments to come back once that bubble was burst.

Although it was undoubtedly a valiant effort by the Springboks, they can’t feel hard done by after their exit from the World Cup at the hands of the All Blacks in their semi-final at Twickenham over the weekend.

It is often said that you can’t play rugby without the ball and that is also true of territory: against top defensive patterns like New Zealand have, you’re not going to be causing many problems if you’re playing from your own half all the time.

South Africa only had 33% territory against the All Blacks – in other words two-thirds of the game was played in their own half. We saw magnificent defence from the Springboks, but we didn’t see anything else. As predicted before the game, they could only offer one-off ball-carriers, strong as they were, and no variety to their attacking play.

Much of the territory problems came down to poor exit strategies. When your scrumhalf is chiefly responsible for clearing your lines via a box-kick from the base – which by its very nature is going to be a higher, shorter kick – then you’re not going to be gaining as much ground compared to when your flyhalf, with a bit more space, can fire a long, raking touchfinder off after a couple of phases. It’s become a bugbear of mine, but Handre Pollard has a massive boot, why wasn’t it used more to drive the All Blacks back?!

The Springboks were hoping that their physicality would wear down the All Blacks, but that’s not going to happen when the opposition can match you physically and is better conditioned. In fact, it is the defending champions who did all of the wearing down, because they constantly asked different questions of the defence, as Nick Mallett pointed out.

“The All Blacks tried to attack in a variety of ways – they had Julian Savea coming off his wing, they played off nine, then they tried going to the backs with Conrad Smith and Ma’a Nonu carrying the ball, then they went to pick-and-goes and they even tried grubbers. They kept on trying different things, which keeps the pressure on the defence. They don’t just have one game plan, they have a whole variety of attacking options and we were beaten by a better team. We were lucky it was a very wet day,” Mallett said on SuperSport after the game.

There is understandably some negativity around South African rugby at the moment, but I believe our glasses aren’t just half-full of talent, they are full to overflowing, as shown by some of the wonderful Currie Cup rugby produced by the Lions, Western Province and Blue Bulls.

Experienced, visionary coaches are a bit thinner on the ground, but appointing Heyneke Meyer as Springbok coach again is not going to take our rugby forward. The high-intensity, ball-in-hand game plan which Meyer flirted with and then ditched is the way forward, but he clearly does not believe in it and/or cannot coach it.

Two of the most promising young coaches in the country, Nollis Marais of the Bulls and John Dobson of Western Province, have both gone on record in the last couple of weeks as saying the Lions’ brand of rugby, which is all about laying a platform up front and then using the ball while playing what is in front of you, is the way forward.

Lady Luck is a fickle mistress in the arena of top-level sport, but she seldom favours the team that isn’t willing to try anything; the team that hardly plays any rugby at all.

It is now one month since South Africa’s painful World Cup exit and a range of questions still remain despite Cricket South Africa’s defiant dead-batting of any suggestions there was interference in the selection of the team for that semi-final against New Zealand.

Fresh questions have sprung up like: Why would Mike Horn say things like “It doesn’t matter how politics or the quota influenced the players” and “Now we need to fill gaps, now we have to make the difference with less but give more,” if there hadn’t been any interference?

If three players of colour was sufficient for half the games the Proteas played at the World Cup, including the quarterfinal, why would that not be the case for the semi-final?

Why do CSA not understand how Aaron Phangiso not playing a single game at the World Cup is a disaster for transformation?

And, perhaps most tellingly, if there was no interference, why hasn’t a single player stood up and told the media to leave the whole selection saga in the past?

The players are understandably reticent to break out of the corral and speak openly about what happened on tour because there have been precedents before where players have been victimised or punished either openly or behind the scenes for speaking out of turn.

But all is clearly not well in South African cricket, even if CSA still want to live in la-la land with investigations conducted by their own directors and statements that are playing with semantics. Six months after the launch of the #ProteaFire campaign, the public trust in our cricket administrators is back to the minimal levels of 2009-2012 during the Gerald Majola bonus scandal.

Their rapid investigation last week immediately reminded me of former CSA acting president AK Khan’s investigation which cleared Majola of any serious wrongdoing, but which was subsequently described as a “cover-up” by the Nicholson Inquiry.

Team unity is often a fragile thing after the bitter disappointment of defeat, but it is clear that the players believe there was interference, it is they who have been driving the rumours as the media speak to people once-removed from the side. Even this week, I had fresh corroboration of the interference from someone, intimately involved in cricket, who had spoken to one of the players of colour in the team.

In order for our national team to bloom as they move forward into fresh challenges, this selection issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that satisfies not just the CSA board, but also the players and the stakeholders of the game – the public.

Personally, I believe the first step in achieving this is for captain AB de Villiers – the only player who really knows what happened in the selection meeting – to speak out and reveal what the truth is from his eyes.

De Villiers will not be the first captain who didn’t get his preferred team – rightly so because selection panels are there to balance out the views of the skipper to avoid the risk of cliques developing in the side – but as South Africa’s finest cricketer, he is in the unique position of being able to speak out because surely not even the CSA board would dare to punish him for honesty?

It would not be the first time there has been interference in selection – the cases of Jacques Rudolph and Charl Langeveldt readily spring to mind – but it would also not be the first time there has been a misunderstanding between the captain and the selectors.

There have also been suggestions that the Proteas are reacting to their own poor performance by making a controversial selection the scapegoat.

Whatever the case, the responsibility now rests on De Villiers, as the leader of the team, to lance South African cricket’s festering boil as soon as possible.