Ken Borland

The Proteas enter an ODI series in Sri Lanka on Thursday and once again there is a mass of expectation on their shoulders as they look to not only win on the field but somehow also win over the hearts of the many people who are deeply dismayed by what has been going on in South African cricket lately.

One can sympathise with captain Temba Bavuma as he looks to juggle all these demands that range from socio-economic issues that plague the country as a whole to how to deal with turning pitches on the subcontinent.

South Africa’s struggles with that are well-known and they have not won an ODI series since beating Australia 18 months ago, which means they are currently outside the top eight in the race to pre-qualify for the next World Cup. And they have not won an ODI series overseas in nearly three years – again it was Australia who succumbed to the Proteas, in November 2018.

“It seems these days whenever we play there’s always something brought up that we haven’t done,” Bavuma lamented on Wednesday. “Our main aim is to win series, to try and accumulate as many points as we can to qualify for the 50-over World Cup, and we are here in foreign conditions and we don’t focus on the past, but we do learn from it. I’ve only been in this role for two series – against Pakistan and the Ireland series that was affected by the weather.

“We still have a lot to overcome as a team, there’s the stuff going on behind closed doors, but our responsibility is to make sure that what we do on the field meets a certain standard. Winning is where our minds are at and our conversations are largely centred around how we can play our best cricket. We don’t need to get involved in external matters,” Bavuma said.

The Proteas are also missing key players in Quinton de Kock, David Miller and Lungi Ngidi. The absence of De Kock means either Aiden Markram or Reeza Hendricks will open the batting with Janneman Malan, with Heinrich Klaasen or Kyle Verreynne taking the gloves; both could play as they did in South Africa’s last ODI, a thumping 70-run win over Ireland that levelled the series.

But there are also empty chairs to be filled in the management room with bowling coach Charl Langeveldt not able to travel due to Covid quarantine and assistant coach Enoch Nkwe having resigned.

“It’s our first tour without Enoch and it’s quite a big loss, especially on the tactical and strategic side. He was a good sounding board for me, someone I could test my ideas with, and we had experience of working together at domestic level. But life goes on and there’s not much we can do about it. As far as his reasons go, as a team we have not heard from Enoch himself.

“There has been a lot of speculation, but I’m sure he’s rooting for us. For it to be said there was something wrong with our team culture and environment, makes me feel … I haven’t had the opportunity for a formal discussion with him, so I would like to sit down and unpack it all with him, hear from him first. I will take what he says on board and discuss it amongst the team,” Bavuma said.

There are many words to pen about the dominance of the Bulls in the admittedly insular world of Currie Cup rugby, but there just seems to be no stopping the blue juggernaut at Loftus Versfeld as they notched another comfortable win there on Sunday, hammering the Lions 40-21.

They put six tries on the board and their efficiency in all aspects of the game was too much for a willing Lions team. The likes of hooker Johan Grobbelaar and eighthman Elrigh Louw had mighty games, but it was how the side combined as a unit that was most impressive.

While one should deservedly wax lyrical about the Bulls attack, the defence was equally impressive as they fiercely protected their line. It is clear that this Bulls side takes enormous pride in their defence.

The Bulls led 28-14 at halftime, but it was the Lions’ second try that deserves full description because it was an absolute marvel.

The Bulls were hard on attack but Lionel Mapoe’s pass infield from close to the corner flag went to a Lions player. From behind their own goal-line, they launched a counter-attack, fullback Wandisile Simelane stepping his way all the way to the 22. There he found flank Vincent Tshituka, who produced a remarkable display in a well-beaten team. To see Tshituka galloping from 22 to 22 was an amazing sight and he then produced a superb offload in a double-tackle for wing Courtnall Skosan to score.

But the Lions could not add to that score before halftime despite camping in the Bulls’ 22 and throwing the book at them with wave-after-wave of strong carries. Apart from loose forward Arno Botha being yellow-carded as the penalties piled up, the Bulls suffered no loss.

After that the result was assured as they dominated the second half. It took them 15 minutes to crack some staunch Lions defence as well, with flyhalf Johan Goosen cleverly deviating from all the pick-and-goes as he sent a crossfield kick to wing Richard Kriel for a well-taken try.

His older brother David, playing at fullback, put his name on the scorers list six minutes later.

The Bulls are back on top of the log and look in good shape to book their place in the semi-finals some time soon.

Scorers

Bulls – Tries: Harold Vorster, Zak Burger (2), Johan Grobbelaar, Richard Kriel, David Kriel. Conversions: Johan Goosen (5).

Lions – Tries: Vincent Tshituka, Courtnall Skosan, Sti Sithole. Conversions: Jordan Hendrikse (3).

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.

The first week of the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings have been a mere aperitif for what I sense many people are hoping are more sensational revelations from next week when former players start appearing before Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza, the ombudsman appointed by Cricket South Africa.

But in many ways, this week’s “scene-setters”, as Ntsebeza has called them, have provided vital testimony because they have given a factual account of the transformation policies of CSA and how they have changed through the years. There have been successes, but there have been failures as well and surely no-one can question that the national team is not as transformed as it should be nearly 30 years after Unity.

The SJN commission did not have a promising start though. The first witness was Dr Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw, which was fair enough because the SJN was largely her idea. But the former CSA independent director produced a couple of hours of largely incoherent testimony riddled with factual errors. As a former Board member, how does she not know that the players’ association (SACA) don’t pay the players’ salaries?!

She then thought it would be appropriate to give Ntsebeza a cricket bat, signed by her, to commemorate the occasion. The ombudsman looked bemused and it was telling that he never mentioned Kula-Ameyaw’s presentation again during the week.

It was onwards and upwards from there though as Advocate Norman Arendse, former CSA president and current independent director, and Max Jordaan, CSA’s head of transformation, spoke of the steps taken to ensure equal opportunities for all before cricket was captured and the likes of Kula-Ameyaw took the reins.

Mary-Anne Dove, a doctor of sports and exercise science whose thesis was on the role of socio-ecological factors in talent development in sport, gave insights into how targets or quotas have to be accompanied by development and other interventions, and Zola Thamae, a former Board member and manager of the Proteas women’s team, gave shocking evidence of how the women’s national team was treated a decade ago.

Professor Richard Calland, an expert on sustainable governance and organisational culture, gave an interesting presentation too.

It is clear that CSA have made a meal of transformation, but it does not matter how many Black player quotas or targets they have, the failure of the Proteas to be truly representative of the country is firstly down to socio-economic issues.

Jordaan, who has been at CSA for 20 years, apart from the disingenuous comment that “nobody is missing out on selection because we are juggling numbers”, made the salient points that when the Proteas won the ICC mace for being top of the Test pile, targets were in place, and that transformation has to start at the many non-former-Model C and private schools and at clubs, but CSA runs into difficulties when they try and improve facilities in these areas due to recalcitrant city councils and the lack of support from the department of education.

Jordaan gave the example of a cricket facility in Welkom being taken over by the local council, who built a casino instead on the land, and buildings in townships “disappearing brick-by-brick”.

Instead of just congratulating themselves for having ticked the box of having a certain number of Black players in the Proteas and domestic teams (which is not a valid measure of transformation success because teams are forced to meet the racial targets), cricket needs to firstly make sure the pipeline at grassroots is working.

I believe CSA have actually done okay in this regard and have worked very hard to keep the pipeline flowing. But there is no doubt Black players still predominantly come from the former Model C and private schools – a much smaller pool.

This is due to structural, systemic problems that only national and local government can fix, especially with the currently constrained financial resources of CSA.

The frustration of Black African cricketers was evident in the presentations of Johannesburg coach David Mashiyi and former player Zonde Mbekeni.

The fact that Mbekeni feels as frustrated and angry about the lack of opportunities for Black Africans as he did in his playing days back in the 1970s is not okay.

But in many ways it boils down to a struggle for scant resources and opportunities.