Ken Borland

The Proteas don’t seem to be close to resolving who their Test captain should be, which certainly seems to be negatively impacting the performance of the struggling outfit, but I guess knowing who definitely shouldn’t be the skipper is a step in the right direction though.

Sadly for one of South African cricket’s favourite sons, Quinton de Kock has produced a pretty open-and-shut case for why he should not be captain as he has scored just 74 runs in six innings at an average of only 12.33 since taking the reins. A struggling batting line-up that had become used to De Kock bailing them out really cannot afford the flow of runs from his dashing blade to be stopped like that.

The 28-year-old wicketkeeper/batsman is just too valuable to not have playing well and whatever is hindering him from producing his usual world-class performances needs to be removed from his burden.

There is no shame in him standing down: He took on the job with some reluctance but out of a sense of duty as a senior player in a rebuilding side. For me, there are parallels with the great Hashim Amla, who relinquished the captaincy in January 2016 because he felt the team would be better served by him focusing on his batting.

In his press conferences, De Kock certainly does not seem to be enjoying the captaincy (although bubble life is probably also not making him happy) and personality-wise he is never going to be the sort of skipper who inspires through rousing speeches and being demonstrative out on the field. Sometimes his head doesn’t even seem to be in the game, such is his laidback demeanour.

So who are they going to appoint as the new Test captain? ‘When are the Proteas going to be playing Test cricket again?’ is probably the question that needs to be answered first though. As things stand, there are no confirmed Tests for the rest of the year.

But it seems obvious the new leader is going to come from one of three, maybe four, candidates – Aiden Markram, Temba Bavuma, Dean Elgar or Rassie van der Dussen.

Whoever gets the job, they are going to need to bring new energy, intensity and fight to the team. The kind of enthusiasm that the new-look T20 side showed at the Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore, even though they made mistakes and ended up losing to the home side by three runs.

The answer to the old question about whether leaders are born or made is pretty clear to me: sure, the leadership skills of someone can be improved by the right programs and mentors, but the innate ability to lead is either there or it is not. The best captains are those who truly enjoy and embrace the role, and the troops respond to the assuredness that is projected. The team will have direction.

Who is the captain-elect who has the loyalty of the whole team? Who is ready for the burden and will flourish under it, lifting the team’s performances at the same time?

Is it Markram, who has been groomed and anointed as the future skipper ever since he led the SA U19s to the World Cup title? The determination of the 26-year-old is clear as the runs have mercifully started flowing again after a tough couple of years.

Or is it Bavuma, the talisman of the team is so many ways and the face of the hopes of millions of cricket fans? The tenacity and energy he shows can only be inspirational.

What of Elgar, the senior statesman, the reliable one, the guy who constantly puts his body on the line on the field and is one of the biggest characters in the changeroom?

Or Van der Dussen, the relatively new face, still making his way in Test cricket but who exudes the sort of calm and composure that is also vital in the make-up of a leader?

We wait with bated breath for whoever the successor is going to be. They will carry our hopes as the Proteas try and re-establish themselves as a world power, it is going to be a very tough job with so many external challenges, and whoever gets the captaincy is going to need the support of the whole country.

But South Africa has a proud cricketing heritage that needs to be restored by this man, whoever it ends up being.

It would seem the whole debate over whether ball-tampering should be allowed in cricket has been resurrected due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, predictably, it has been Australians leading the way.

When it comes to delicate questions requiring much cricketing wisdom, I generally ask myself, “What would Michael Holding do?” (Although I disagree with his belief that the toss should be done away with as I explained in a previous column – http://kenborland.com/2018/09/cricket-looking-to-toss-a-boomerang/)

And Holding has indeed made a very pertinent observation regarding the whole legalising ball-tampering debate: The great West Indian fast bowler and much-loved commentator asked whether we should even be playing cricket if we are so worried about saliva and sweat?

Whether the Covid-19 virus can even be transmitted via sweat seems unlikely. But if the ICC are so concerned about possible transmission through perspiration then they should probably not be playing cricket anyway. Cricketers are generally running about in the sun and they are going to sweat, there’s no avoiding that fact.

And bowlers, the sweatiest of the lot, are also likely to be spraying out some saliva when they are bellowing out appeals.

The cricket authorities overseas are assuring us that there will be thorough testing, temperatures being taken every day, and extensive safety measures in place, and yet they are also suggesting putting sweat or saliva on the ball will not be allowed. Which would seem to be a contradiction. If the testing and safety measures are so good, why are they still concerned about those body fluids?

The Australians, of course, are still recovering from the disgrace of being guilty of the biggest ball-tampering scandal of the lot – when David Warner, Steven Smith and Cameron Bancroft decided to use sandpaper on the ball during the 2017/18 series here. It is disappointing that they are now the first to suggest legalising that sort of nonsense, perhaps revealing that their only remorse is that they were caught and not that their blatant cheating did much damage to the game.

I understand that bowlers are going through a tough time in cricket, but there are better ways of restoring the balance between bat and ball. Pitches can provide more assistance to bowlers, although not as much as has been on offer in some recent summers here, but most importantly there should be greater control over the size of bats that are being used.

The bat manufacturers are giving batsmen bigger and bigger trunks of wood with ever-larger sweet spots and edges that are now broad enough to still hit the ball for six.

Down through the ages, bowlers have used all sorts of substances to illegally alter the condition of the ball and I fear relaxing those rules will lead to a flood of ingenious new methods of ball-tampering. We’ve already had all manners of creams, bottle tops, long fingernails, mints and sandpaper, what’s next?

And to say it can only be done under the supervision of the umpire is only going to cause even more lengthy delays in the game. Most teams have a designated player responsible for looking after the ball and are they now going to have to walk over to the umpire between deliveries and spend 30 seconds rubbing and shining the ball under their watchful eye?

This week came the happy news that England’s players next week will resume training in controlled environments at a range of different venues. This is in line with the UK government relaxing their Lockdown protocols  and will initially just be to allow the bowlers to get their fitness levels up. This will then be followed by more typical nets featuring batsmen.

England are still hoping to be able to host the West Indies in the first Test of a series in seven weeks’ time, but whether this happens remains to be seen with Caribbean players already expressing concerns about going to one of the epicentres of the pandemic.