Ken Borland

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.

Hilton Moreeng has completed his second term as national women’s coach with his reputation intact but whether he continues in charge of the Proteas or not will depend on how new Director of Cricket Graeme Smith sees the long-term future of the team. And captain Dane van Niekerk said on Thursday that she has full faith in Smith’s judgement, even if she may not entirely agree with his viewpoint that the women’s game requires specialist input.

Moreeng, who first became South Africa coach in December 2012, has led the team to the semi-finals of both of the most recent T20 and 50-over World Cups, in both cases losing narrowly to the eventual champions, Australia and England respectively. They have also already automatically qualified for the next 50-over World Cup, in New Zealand early next year, after the points from their postponed series with Australia were shared.

Smith said last week that the post of national women’s coach has been advertised and that he saw it as being “different to the men’s game so we need to improve the pipeline to the national side, as we grow, getting more players who have played for that national team”. The 42-year-old Moreeng is believed to have re-applied for the post.

Van Niekerk said, however, in a teleconference on Thursday that she did not believe in treating the men’s and women’s games differently.

“Graeme came to Australia to meet with me and Mignon du Preez during the ICC World T20, to see where the team was at and where we wanted to go. He’s certainly passionate about the game and we are excited to work with him. It’s more CSA’s job to decide on the coach and we will respect their decision, either to keep Hilton or to make a change. Our relationship with CSA is good enough that we can talk about anything.

“But I believe cricket is cricket, the principles stay the same, although in the women’s team you have to deal with different personalities and hormones, of course, while the men tend to be more cool, calm and collected. But I’m a big believer that looking at the men’s and women’s games differently is not the way to go forward, I would like to change that stigma because we train just as hard as the men,” Van Niekerk said.

The Covid-19 pandemic not only caused the series with Australia to be called off but it is playing havoc with South Africa’s planning leading into the World Cup starting on February 6. A tour of the West Indies scheduled for the end of May is almost certainly not going to go ahead, while the tour to England in August/September is also under threat.

“Hopefully we get back on the park sooner rather than later and the next World Cup is very important for us and our sole focus at the moment. We have unbelievable talent and I wouldn’t be captain if I didn’t believe we could win a World Cup, we’ve been very close twice and we just need to stay patient.

“But Covid-19 has affected the momentum we created at the last World Cup, which was so successful for women’s cricket in general, it would have been nice to continue that hype, especially since it was going to be us against the world champions a couple of weeks later. But we have the World Cup next year to create that hype again and I think there are a lot of special things still waiting for this team,” Van Niekerk said.

There is an unfortunate tendency in South African sport that a coach sometimes cannot win whether his team are losing or winning. We’ve seen it before with former Springbok coach Peter de Villiers and now with current Proteas coach Russell Domingo.

It’s the unfortunate attitude that if a team is losing – as the Proteas were for 2015 and the first half of 2016 – then it must be the coach’s fault, but if they are winning, as Domingo’s charges are currently and the Springboks did under De Villiers in 2009, then it must have nothing to do with the coach and be all the players’ doing!

If people are going to blame and criticise the coach during the lean times then they have to credit and praise the coach when things are going well. His influence cannot just extend in the one direction.

Domingo gets to be seen way less on television than the Springbok rugby coach, so perhaps he has less opportunity to convey his knowledge of the game, but it was disturbing last weekend when Cricket South Africa dropped what can only be termed a bombshell. They were going to be taking applications for his position and he would need to reapply himself. It’s like being in a relationship and being told “it’s time we see other people”.

I have been a critic of Domingo in the past, believing he was no longer able to get the best out of the Proteas, but their form in the last six months has been superb and clearly the coach has them all pulling in the same direction.

A 5-0 limited-overs whitewash of Australia and a Test series win Down Under, without AB de Villiers and Dale Steyn, rank amongst some of the finest achievements in South African cricket history, and so far Sri Lanka have been dealt with ruthlessly, save for the T20s when some experimentation took place.

But CSA believe now is the time to say we need to start looking for another coach!

I agree, depending on how results go in the Champions Trophy and the Tests in England, that August may be time for a change given that Domingo will have been in the job for four years, but what if he wins the ICC event and then beats the Poms on their home turf? If he wants to continue, surely he would be the obvious choice?

Sure, you have to plan ahead and put out some feelers to see who Domingo’s successor will be, particularly if things go badly in England. But you don’t have to announce to the whole world that you are no longer sure about the guy who is currently doing a great job with the team.

Having been told quite clearly that uncertainty about the future was a major reason for players and coaches leaving South Africa, you would have thought CSA would be doing everything in their power to reassure a Proteas team and management that they have security, given how well they have been doing.

The talk from official sources has been that CSA don’t want to create the impression that Domingo will automatically just keep getting contract extensions – it’s all to do with the fine print of the labour regulations apparently – but the gap between the end of the trip to England (the last Test ends on August 8) and the start of the new summer with the first Test against Bangladesh starting on September 28 is surely long enough to sort out whatever the decision is.

Of course the list of possible replacements needs to be sussed out, but why does the post of Proteas head coach need to be advertised? Surely the successor to Domingo should be headhunted?

Particularly since the obvious next coach is working just across the road from the CSA offices at the Wanderers.

It is not yet clear whether Frans Ludeke will be catching the next train out of Loftus Versfeld for a permanent exit, but the Bulls coach has stood down from his SuperRugby and Currie Cup duties with immediate effect after eight years in charge.