Ken Borland

Many teams coming to Loftus Versfeld these days try to ignore the effects of altitude, but one factor the Bulls are hoping Munster are not able to brush aside in their United Rugby Championship clash in Pretoria on Saturday is the late afternoon heat of a summer’s day.

Kick-off on Saturday is at 4.05pm and, judging by the weather forecast for Pretoria this week, the temperature could still be a warm 28°, a far cry from the 7° Munster was shivering in on Monday.

“We hope the conditions at home will give us a bit of an advantage,” Bulls flyhalf Chris Smith said on Monday. “The coastal teams battle with altitude here and hopefully the sun is out on Saturday.

“Hopefully it’s cooking for the 4pm kickoff and that heat could actually be more important for us than the altitude. We hope we can chase them around the field with the sun beaming down.

“We want to make them tired and then hopefully the game will open up a bit later on. But it’s going to be a good challenge for us, to measure ourselves against top players in the URC,” Smith said.

It’s a big sporting week for the Smith family, with Chris’s teenage brother Daniel scoring his maiden first-class century for the Western Province cricket team. The 27-year-old Chris Smith is a key figure in the Bulls side at present, with Morne Steyn suspended and Johan Goosen out injured, and he has enjoyed very good outings against both Zebre in Parma and Griquas in Kimberley.

“I’ve definitely felt the pressure because I’ve mostly played off the bench for the last two years, I have not played many full 80s,” Smith said. “But I see it more as an opportunity.

“It’s more the pressure I’m putting on myself to make use of this opportunity than any external pressure.

“I’ve been working on playing more flat and being more in the defence’s faces. I do tend to hang back a bit, I sometimes rely more on my passing game than my running game,” Smith said.

South Africa’s stunning 3-0 whitewash of India has answered many questions surrounding the ODI squad as the heavily-favoured tourists lacked the composure or the skills under pressure to register a single victory over the Proteas, even in conditions that suited them.

Five batting places are secure with Quinton de Kock and Janneman Malan entrenched as the opening pair, Temba Bavuma averaging 51 in the No.3 position, Rassie van der Dussen being the master of the middle-order and David Miller showing the value of his finishing experience in the nailbiting final ODI.

In terms of the bowling, Keshav Maharaj and Tabraiz Shamsi remain crucial in the middle-overs and seamers Lungi Ngidi and Andile Phehlukwayo both had fine series with the ball, keeping the batsmen guessing with their range of skills.

Bavuma has also unequivocally shown he is the right man to lead the team.

So what questions remain for the Proteas ODI side?

• Has Aiden Markram done enough to stay in the starting XI or do South Africa sacrifice the sixth bowler for another batsman?

There is no other obvious candidate for the ‘JP Duminy role’ of batting in the top six and being able to bowl a few tidy overs of spin, so it’s a straight choice – keep Markram and have that sixth bowler, or drop him and have just five bowlers and possibly a more consistent batsman.

But Markram did a fine job with the ball, conceding just 5.00 runs per over in 17 overs and taking a couple of wickets. There were also encouraging signs with the bat in the way he stayed with Van der Dussen to help steer the Proteas to victory in the second ODI with a confident 37 not out. He was batting with good positive intent in the last game as well, before being caught on the boundary.

• Should Marco Jansen be a regular part of the starting XI?

The left-arm quick enjoyed a brilliant maiden Test series and was immediately thrown into the first ODI, where he bowled nine wicketless overs for 49 runs, lacking the consistency he had shown with the red ball. The 21-year-old is clearly an outstanding talent, but maybe we should all take a breath and not burden him with a big workload right now in white-ball cricket as well. While he brings useful variety to the seam attack, the Proteas still have Kagiso Rabada, Anrich Nortje and Ngidi in that department.

• What is Sisanda Magala’s future?

Captain Bavuma made a plea after the series that Magala does not receive half-hearted backing but that the selectors “suck everything they can out of what he offers”. A perennial poor starter – those nerves need to be managed somehow – Magala however showed promise when he bowled in the middle overs and at the death. He fairly thuds the ball into the pitch, hitting the bat hard with steep bounce, and he can also go full blockhole when required. The Proteas may have found the sort of skilful old-ball bowler they have been looking for.

• Will the CSA board listen to the players or decide to derail the team despite their progress and success versus India?

South Africa’s next ODI engagement is in March when they host Bangladesh. By then the fate of coach Mark Boucher should be known. As much as they are able to as contracted employees, the players have made clear how happy they are with their current management, and the results show that.  But will the CSA board ignore the clear growth and improvement in the team and instead only have ears for the tom-toms beating and the cries for one particular head to roll for things that happened twenty years ago?

It is typical of the negativity and destructiveness of so many in South Africa that even after the Proteas completed an outstanding 3-0 ODI whitewash of India, to go with their remarkable triumph in the Test series, there were still choruses of ‘Boucher Out!’ from many of cricket’s version of the RET faction and the naively woke.

Of course the major reason for those wanting Boucher’s head to roll has got nothing to do with what happens out on the field, which has sadly been a recurring theme in South African cricket for way too long. It is because of alleged racial slurs that date back 20 years to Boucher’s early playing days with the Proteas.

It is highly improbable that Boucher was the only one singing the offensive song in question, so why is he being singled out? Because it is the continuation of the same witch-hunt put in place by the same people who took Cricket South Africa to the brink of ruin before the Fundudzi Report and Stavros Nicolaou’s Interim Board sorted things out.

Of course, justice needs to be done for sins of the past, but when they involve entire teams and took place in a time very different from our own from which we are peering back in judgement, then rough justice will cause more harm than good.

Boucher’s evidence before his disciplinary tribunal will probably point out that, due to the total lack of sensitivity training and the state of society as a whole back in the 1990s, it was not just Paul Adams who had a nasty song written about him (the author of which is apparently a major surprise). The White players were called names too, as were the Black Africans and the Coloureds. For those who have never been in a fines meeting, it is all meant to be about poking fun. However misguided the lyrics were.

But confidence in CSA and their ability to ensure we have a competitive Proteas team will be severely dented if they summarily dismiss Boucher, just as the national side are starting to bloom again.

The last two months have seen not just any team vanquished, but the mighty Indians, the superpowers of the game and ranked No.1 in Tests before being knocked off their perch by South Africa.

To make the triumph even more memorable, the Proteas managed to overturn the previous history between the two teams when it came to playing and bowling spin. India’s spinners were previously able to exert a stranglehold over the South African batsman, including during the February 2018 series over here.

But in this series, the Proteas batsmen were terrific against the turning ball, in conditions that were going to suit the visitors, and they have said much of the credit for that should go to Boucher and batting consultant Justin Sammons.

And then when India batted, they were dominated by Keshav Maharaj and Tabraiz Shamsi, with even Aiden Markram keeping them under pressure, to such an extent that South Africa won the crucial middle-overs battle conclusively. The way the Proteas have embraced the use of spin and have become one of the best sides in the world in that department is another reason to commend Boucher, who has instituted a sea-change in strategic thinking.

Boucher’s immense playing experience is obviously helpful to the team as they navigate the varied challenges of the international game, but his knowledge of various team cultures and environments can also serve to help the current team as they forge a new identity.

When Boucher made his debut for the national team in 1997, the culture was pretty rotten with new arrivals treated very much as juniors and a threat to the places of the senior players. He lived through that and learnt from it, and he was also a key part of the Graeme Smith era when the team embraced Protea Fire and made big efforts to become more inclusive.

Getting rid of Boucher now would only serve as an exercise in bloodletting and scapegoating. CSA Boards have a history of giving baying mobs what they want; let’s hope Lawson Naidoo and Co can show stronger leadership at this crucial time.

Despite their dodgy origin, there are many who believed the Social Justice and Nation-Building (SJN) hearings would be a very good idea, something necessary to try and heal the increasingly polarised and embittered environment of South African cricket.

But now that the SJN report has been made public, what a grave disappointment it has been and what a waste of R7.5 million. So much evidence has simply been ignored or totally misinterpreted and the legal flaws within the findings reflect very poorly on Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza’s standing as one of our finest jurists. Never mind the poor job done by his assistants from Werksmans Attorneys.

It is now clear that the entire focus of the SJN was on getting dirt on Graeme Smith and Mark Boucher. Addressing historic wrongs and racial discrimination was just a side project.

Ntsebeza has found Smith’s appointment as director of cricket to be irregular and has also accused him of racist behaviour in the past. This is despite what I thought was compelling evidence presented by the likes of Cricket South Africa, the South African Cricketers’ Association and former Proteas manager Mohammed Moosajee.

The report almost entirely ignores all of that and goes way outside of its mandate in slamming Smith’s appointment. Surely Ntsebeza is aware that headhunting is a common occurrence in the corporate world and his appointment was approved by a number of people, the majority of whom were Black?

But no, it was racist. As was Boucher’s selection as Proteas head coach.

Enoch Nkwe is a very good coach and, in an ideal world, should be the successor to Boucher. But to say he was discriminated against based on the colour of his skin is ridiculous. It ignores the fact Boucher had more experience and more success coaching at the level below the Proteas and the wicketkeeper/batsman’s immense international knowledge from his playing days.

Three franchise trophies in one season point to Nkwe’s potential, but to equate trophies won in second-tier cricket in the Netherlands, semi-pro cricket or junior weeks, and even a second place in the Canadian T20 league, with Boucher’s achievements is ludicrous. The report also makes no mention of the 3-0 hammering South Africa suffered in India under Nkwe as interim head coach just before Boucher’s arrival.

The SJN could really have done with some advice from an ex cricketer or anyone with some idea of how high-performance sport works. The total lack of expertise in this regard has been made clear by the report. There was an early warning sign of this when legal assistant Sandile July asked why Imran Tahir had not stepped down from the Proteas team to allow another spinner a chance!

I also believe Mr July exhibited a lack of impartiality in his examination of those witnesses who had been implicated. He seemed to implicitly believe that the evidence of the complainants, even those dishonest individuals banned from the game for their involvement in matchfixing, was true.

The allegation made this week that over 250 paragraphs of the complainants’ heads of argument, which were written by July and Fumisa Ngqele, have been simply cut and pasted word-for-word directly into the ombudsman’s report, reflects poorly on the fairness of the SJN process.

These are not just minor matters that need amendment. Most damning of all is Ntsebeza’s own admission in his closing remarks that the evidence presented was not able to be tested. He says he cannot make definitive findings, describing his own conclusions as being “tentative”.

And yet he has happily painted Smith, Boucher, AB de Villiers and various other former players and officials as being racist. The decent thing for Ntsebeza to do would be to pay back half the R7.5 million to CSA for doing half a job, never mind the compensation he might have to fork out for the damage he has done to the reputations of people based on “untested evidence” and “tentative findings”.