Ken Borland

Judging by the antics of the Members Council at Saturday’s Cricket South Africa AGM, local cricket fans can thank their lucky stars that there is now a predominantly independent Board that has been put in place to oversee the strategy and vision of the embattled organisation going forward.

In between clowning around in a meeting that has serious consequences for South African cricket and subverting the democratic process by trying to elect people by consensus rather than putting everything to a vote, the Members Council did also manage to object to one of the independent directors named by the Nominations Panel.

Advocate Norman Arendse can be an enormously controversial, divisive figure as he has shown in previous stints on the CSA board, and the Members Council were unanimous in their unhappiness with his appointment. Newly-elected CSA Members Council president Rihan Richards was vague about just why they objected to Arendse, other than to say he was the lead independent director when dismissed CEO Thabang Moroe was appointed and he has made derogatory utterances about CSA in his time off the board.

The Nominations Panel agreed to reconsider Arendse’s appointment, but according to Dr Stavros Nicolaou, the chairman of the Interim Board, they can consider input from stakeholders but can pretty much appoint who they like as long as they meet the eligibility criteria.

The seven independent directors that were confirmed on Saturday are Advocate Steven Budlender, a self-described cricket obsessive; former Proteas batsman and convenor of selectors Andrew Hudson; Simo Lushaba, who has a doctorate in Business Administration and has extensive experience on several boards; governance expert Lawson Naidoo, the executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution; Andisa Ntsubane, a marketing and communications expert whose face is well-known in cricket circles through his work with major sponsors; former MultiChoice CEO Mark Rayner and Ntombi Ravele, a seasoned sports administrator who was involved in boxing, netball and tennis.

Ravele is the only woman on the board because the Members Council could not find it in their hearts or resolve to follow through on their oft-spoken belief in gender equality as they elected Border president Simphiwe Ndzundzu, who has been accused of breaking a woman’s arm with a knobkerrie when he went to a colleague’s house and attacked him and his elderly mother, ahead of Central Gauteng Lions president Anne Vilas.

Ndzundzu, head of a province whose financial situation is almost as disastrous as their on-field performance, and Vilas, in charge of arguably the most successful union in the country, found themselves tied for the fifth non-independent director’s position. Ndzundzu has also accused Vilas of being racist when she raised the allegations of his gender violence.

The four other non-independent directors elected are Daniel Govender (KZN), John Mogodi (Limpopo), Craig Nel (Mpumalanga), Tebogo Siko (Northerns).

Interestingly, neither Richards nor Donovan May of Eastern Province, who was elected vice-president of the Members Council, made themselves available for the Board. While Richards said this was “to ensure clear separation between the Members Council and the Board”, history suggests one will find it is merely an arrangement to ensure seven Members Council representatives share the gravy instead of just five.

For the Springboks to remain a top-class side, they have to be a flexible team with a capacity for thinking on their feet, coach Jacques Nienaber said on Friday as he outlined his vision ahead of his first assignments in charge against Georgia and the British and Irish Lions.

The world champions have not been in action since winning the World Cup in November 2019 meaning Nienaber, who was appointed as the successor to Rassie Erasmus in January last year, will oversee the Springboks for the first time when they warm up for the Lions series with two Tests against Georgia on July 2 and 9.

But with Erasmus, now the director of rugby, saying winning the series against the Lions will be like winning the World Cup, the focus is firmly on those three Tests between July 24 and August 7.

“The Lions have a well-balanced squad which can play both types of rugby. So that means we will have to be adaptable and solutions-driven during the match, and that’s how we are trying to coach. At the World Cup, during the knockout rounds, we had to play a certain style of rugby against Japan, moving them from side-to-side. It was about breaking down their style and imposing ours.

“Against Wales it was the complete opposite and then England posed something completely different in the final too. Part of the alignment camps has been about telling the players which are the critical areas of play that we need to get up to the required standard. We’ve been drip-feeding them bits of the game-plan as well,” Nienaber said on Friday.

While a series of such importance as the Lions playing the world champions is unlikely to produce sexy rugby, Erasmus said he does believe the tourists will have the ability to play quite expansively and at a high tempo.

“The players they have chosen won’t have any influence on our selection coming up next weekend, but if you look at the Lions squad, it’s fairly evenly spread between the four countries. Scotland have provided the most backline players, and Gregor Townsend [Scotland head coach] is the attack coach, while there are only three England backs. But the forwards are mostly from England and Wales.

“Most of the coaching staff have also worked with Warren Gatland before, Townsend is the only guy who hasn’t. I think they’re going to bring a mix, it won’t be like playing against Wales where whoever grinds the hardest wins. They have a fast, quick pack, just looking at their mobile props and if someone like Courtney Lawes plays at lock,” Erasmus said.

Proteas coach Mark Boucher says the team has found a new vision and identity for themselves and also a new way of playing that will hopefully bring greater success as a rebuilding side looks to regain their glory days.

The South African cricket team’s Culture Camp at Skukuza last month not only dealt with wrongs of the past, especially those that involved racial discrimination, but also plotted a way ahead for the future. #ProteaFire, the mantra of the team that went to number one in all three formats with Boucher as a player, has now officially been extinguished, replaced by three watchwords: Belonging; Empathy; Respect.

“One of the biggest changes came in terms of #ProteaFire, which gave us direction and the values to become the number one side, especially when under pressure. But none of those guys are playing anymore and we have outgrown that, it’s an outdated identity. Maybe it became too commercialised, it ended up just being on paper and the guys no longer live it.

“There are more cultures in the team now and it was time those came through. It’s important for a new team to create a new identity and that’s exactly what we got – a new set of values. It will start with how we play and the players chose the same route that myself and Enoch Nkwe [assistant coach] wanted, everything aligned without us really trying. It’s also about how new guys coming into the team must feel and management did not choose the vision, the players did,” Boucher said in an audio interview released by Cricket South Africa on Monday.

Boucher said the Culture Camp also gave the larger group of players from which the Proteas will draw the opportunity to talk about their pet peeves and he found the revelations to be eye-opening.

“We all come from different backgrounds and have been brought up in different ways, and we must understand our shortfalls in the past. We can’t turn a blind eye, we must acknowledge them, that’s empathy, which is a big word for us. We need to use our four or five different cultures to our advantage and I came out of the camp with a completely different understanding.

“I educated myself, I found it quite fascinating, things I have never thought about before. The camp opened my eyes in a massive way and I would encourage people to get out there and try and understand the feelings of different races. Now the best thing for the game would be for our biggest assets – the players – to be able to take over the headlines for good things, let the game do the talking rather than the other things that have been hogging the headlines,” Boucher said.

On their own website, the International Cricket Council state their vision as custodians and administrators of the game.

They say it is to “lead the continued drive towards more competitive, entertaining and meaningful cricket for players and fans. We will grow the sport by creating more opportunities for more people and nations to enjoy it and increase the competitiveness of international cricket at all levels. We will promote cricket by delivering exciting and engaging global events, attracting new and diverse fans and building long-term successful commercial partnerships. And finally, we will continue to make considerable efforts to protect the integrity of the sport.”

It’s all good and well that that is their vision, but unfortunately the ICC have a notorious history of almost inevitably making the wrong decision when it comes to the good of cricket.

The citing and subsequent suspension of Proteas fast bowler Kagiso Rabada for the second Test against England, which started in Nottingham on Friday, is a case in point.

Yes, Rabada was a naughty boy for swearing on the field. Thank heavens the ICC are stamping down on such behaviour that clearly poses a major threat to the game. I look forward to the day when they have undercover agents patrolling the stands, banning spectators who swear. I am sure, too, that the ICC will be putting pressure on their beloved broadcast partners to ensure they do not show movies with any of that vile language on their channels. Standards are standards after all.

Rabada was not suspended for swearing per se, of course, but rather because the one demerit point he was given took him to the threshold of four points that brings with it a one-match ban. The majority of those four points came from an incident in January when he shoved Sri Lankan batsman Niroshan Dickwella.

It is important, of course, to ensure decent standards of player behaviour, but there are better remedies than removing a star player from a crucial game in a high-profile series. Cricket is ultimately the loser this week as those watching the Trent Bridge clash are denied the joy of watching a great fast bowler locking horns with some fine batsmen. Rabada versus the combative Ben Stokes is always compelling viewing, and a fast bowler with fire has always been one of the best sights in cricket.

Instead of devaluing their own product, which is in desperate need of proper marketing, why does the ICC not rather fine players for their misdemeanours? I know some people will say the cricketers earn so much they don’t care about paying thousands of Rands in fines, but my experience of contract negotiations and the general behaviour of players shows they care just as much about money as the rest of us do.

The ICC have far more important things to worry about than a swear word uttered in the heat of combat.

Justice has been swift in Rabada’s case, but when are the ICC going to put in place a proper structure and context for international cricket? Their incompetence in this regard is putting their premier product – Test cricket – at risk. They have put their heads together innumerable times to discuss this issue and yet they have still come up with nothing. It’s enough to make a puritan want to swear.

In England, at this time of year, the sun stays up right into what we (except for those living in Cape Town, which is part of Europe anyway) would consider night – at 8pm it is still quite bright enough to play cricket. But in the first Test at Lord’s, those in the paying seats and those watching in their lounges did not see the prescribed 90 overs of play on any of the four days of play.

I get a little tired of some of the obsession about over-rates, because, if it’s a gripping contest, nobody cares if a team is bowling 12 overs per hour or 14. But if the conditions allow it, then play should continue for as long as necessary to get the prescribed overs in.

What brought the game of cricket more into disrepute – Rabada’s outburst or the actions of the match officials in Durban in 2016 when a Test against New Zealand was abandoned in bright sunshine with both teams keen to play?

The ICC, in their ivory tower, are firmly in the corner of their officials even when they are ensuring there is no cricket.