South Africa- More Questions than Answers

by Trevor Chesterfield

If reading between the lines of the new deal between South Africa's players and their board, anyone thinking these days of signing a Kolpak deal with an English county might be asked about his views of loyalty to flag and country.

It's a little different, you gather, from the previous option. This was, despite having talent you are told by the selectors that as you don't fit into their plans (or the team's management) – long-term or even the short variety – you have no future in the game in the country. In other words 'get lost – we really don't want you'.

How this is likely to change with a new national selection panel now headed by Joubert Strydom, is a matter for conjecture. A respected former captain of a successful Free State side of the 1980s as well as Hansie Cronje's first provincial captain, Strydom, who also captained Northern Transvaal (later Northerns) in the early 1990s, comes from a family rich in cricket history (as well as other peripheral sports).

Then again, if you have a quality man as Johan Volsteedt as your coach at your alma mater, Grey College in Bloemfontein, it also helps. It was Volsteedt who also had a hand in shaping the playing careers of Kepler Wessels as well as Cronje and more recently Boeta Dippenaar.

Because of his family background, Strydom's cricket culture, as you would find in cities such as Bloemfontein, runs deeper than most Afrikaans-speaking youngsters. Because of this he can so easily identify with the depth the struggle Afrikaners had to establish the game during the years when an English-speaking elite dominated.

Yet in this struggle, as with the growth of the modern game and its 21^st Century image, the identity factor needs certain examination. Serious questions need to be asked also of South Africa's administrators and the role they plan to play in the transformation cause. Is it about revolution or evolution?

Is this why also there are about thirty or so South Africans playing within the English county as well as Irish and Scottish systems? And this is not counting those in the various leagues, or recently retired because they feel there is little to no chance of them being selected, if talented and good enough, from the system. There is a paradox here, but I shall return to that conundrum later.

Marginalisation of players

Now the new president of Cricket South Africa, Norman Arendse, a Cape Town advocate, in his acceptance address at last week's annual meeting, made great play on the historical past of the game and its former English roots. Then what followed was the feeling, and this is all it is, that Mr Arendse was quiet happy that the game now had fewer players, or administrators, who were English-speaking.

In fact, there was this impression in the late 1990s and early into the new century that there are those in Cricket South Africa who would quite happily see the demise of English schools cricket or those coming from similar backgrounds.

It was 'find a career elsewhere' syndrome with the sort of sophistry you can expect from administrators who having already happily screwed up the careers of twenty or more top players were looking for other victims. Now those in charge of affairs might even wonder why players are migrating to other countries to follow a career and maybe win a Test, or at even a limited overs cap.

If you do a rough count of the number of wicketkeepers who were born in South Africa , or have some form of umbilical links with South Africa, and have moved successfully on elsewhere, there is the impression that as with Kevin Pietersen apart, Cricket South Africa were quite happy to allow their talent to pack their tepee and move on..

Apart from totally crass provincial selection policies, and this involves more than several cases in point, the national administration doesn't seem to particularly worry about the long-term and dwindling talent pool. After all, how many new faces are there in the emergent squad Kepler Wessels took with him to Australia? They may have won the tournament, but apart from about four players, the remainder are not part of the mainstream Test squad.

Cape Cobra's JP Duminy has sat on the periphery for several years and now that Vaughan van Jaarsveld has opted for a Kolpak deal, he gets a nod.

Not that South Africa's media are critical of the way administrators, or provincial selectors, have handled touchy issues. Apart from a few, the media has been decidedly mute when it comes to decisions by players to immigrate or seek Kolpak contracts. They seem to focus more on self-indulgent matters with their narcissistic views of affairs than about the game and the genuine long-term affects. They have, to a point allowed a foreign element to write what the South Africa media need to present.

This is also noticeable with some websites where certain British-based writers act as though they are deep in the know of South African affairs and are on intimate terms with the players. There's also a certain jingoistic attitude that has crept into their on-line chatter that is unmistakeably cliquish in presentation and a turn off when trying to follow commentary of the Tests and slogs.

Marshmallow event

A glance at the South African Twenty/20 squad for this version of yet another World Cup event, contains Roger Telemachus. How much longer are the national selectors going to keep this guy in the mix? Sure it's a marshmallow event, but he's become such a washy bowler that there is the impression he's making up the numbers.

And Neil McKenzie's recall to national arms after so long in the wilderness suggests its some form of compensation for A: deciding not to opt for a Kolpak contract; B: there is no one else. Having told players such as Martin van Jaarsveld, that he didn't have a future; ditto Hylton Ackerman, Jacques Rudolph and Dale Benksnestein. Ryan McLaren, now with Kent is about to join this collection of pale males, while Riki Wessels (that's the 21-year-old son of Kepler Wessels), is playing for Northamptonshire. But, keeping a close eye on the South African media, nary has a query been asked of Cricket South Africa about the continued talent drain.

While Cricket South Africa's chief executive Gerald Majola complained recently about Vaughan van Jaarsveld (no relation to Martin) taking up the Kolpak option, nothing was said about classy wicketkeeper Kruger van Wyk's immigration a year ago to New Zealand in search of international honours. Now joining him is his close friend Johann Myburgh, Titans franchise player who feels New Zealand offers him a better opportunity to achieve some form of international recognition.

Naturally the Titans franchise chief Andy O'Connor couldn't care less. From reports, he didn't consult either Van Wyk or Myburgh. But as O'Connor is East Rand-based it doesn't say too much for the future of the franchise long-term goals of keeping quality players. The question of whether, with Myburgh, we have another Kevin Pietersen situation developing also looms.

But look at it this way, in the case of Van Wyk, the more wicketkeepers who quit for foreign contracts with migration in mind, the longer it allows Thami Tsolekile to retain his national squad place. When he made his Test debut in India at Kanpur and a week later Kolkata, his flawed performances were a decided liability to the side.

Apart from Van Wyk there is Nic Pothas (Hampshire) and Gerad Brophy (Yorkshire ) along with Wessels. Brophy, from Welkom joined the English county from Ireland by way of Free State.

It was interesting that Arendse, is his acceptance address didn't mention once concerns about a talent drain. Is this because none of the formerly disadvantaged have been affected? Or in fact that it helps them as it lessens the talent pool? Had someone such as Ashwell Prince or Herchelle Gibbs opted for a Kolpak contract and not made themselves available for South Africa, it would be interesting to hear the howls of protest and accusations as well as heated comments emanating from such a personal decision.

Let us then, examine, Arendse's statement and see what lies ahead for Cricket South Africa over the next year.

Sport of winners

'I see my role as president (of CSA) as being there to lead the team ethos of Cricket South Africa as set out in its vision: namely to make South African cricket a truly national sport of winners.

'There are two key elements to this vision:

'Firstly, to make cricket accessible and to be supported by the majority of South Africans. This is why we will continue to have development and transformation as the driving forces behind everything we do.

And secondly, to make cricket a sport of winners we have to pursue excellence at all times. And to achieve excellence, we have to build capacity across all levels of cricket.

'It is important that we remain constantly aware that our sport is played in the context of a democratic South Africa and that we are a nation of diverse peoples and cultures. This does not mean that we don't share the same goal; it simply means that we must use our diversity as our strength because this makes us different from other nations.'

What he says in a sense is that it is about developing an identity through the environs of the game as an entity, which is important as Law 1 is clear enough in that it is about players; not race, creed, colour or religion.

Yet, within a generation, what we could also see is a South African team without a white player as the West Indian process take over. It could be the reason why there is muted CSA comment about the number of white players lost to the system. It seems to be the aim of those in control, to marginalise not only a growing English minority. It is a real danger and allows for the historical background as well as legacy to be lost.

(Born and educated in New Zealand, Trevor Chesterfield began his career in journalism on April 18, 1955 and is the author of four cricket books. He lived and worked in South Africa for 32 years, based mainly in Pretoria and Centurion. He is now domiciled in Sri Lanka where he lives with his Ceylon-born wife).

Fascinating Race of Unequal Equals!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Parallels are not often drawn across different sporting arenas. Yet sport, especially cricket is considered a great leveler. That being the case, England are beginning to question why they find themselves trying to save face on home ground. Across the field, or should we say tarmac, Fernando Alonso is asking pretty much the same question. In danger of being dumped unceremoniously, will Alonso play the same scapegoat card that England are holding tight in their pocket in the event that India should pull off the unthinkable?

It must seem an unlikely idea to even compare banalities of cricket with a sport like Formula One. After all the only time the two sports even came together was for a photo op between Sachin Tendulkar and Michael Schumacher. However, the situations in both sports are not as remote as one thinks. The conundrum of equality amongst teams, amongst men must all be queried, deliberated upon, if not downright dissected.

India finds themselves in a unique position, but not that uncommon. Times in the past have shown the team on the rise only to hand the initiative back to the hosts. It has happened in Zimbabwe. There is no reason why it should happen in England. But cricket has a way of both, elevating and humbling human spirit, in manner few can fathom despite years of studying the game. Sometimes about India this time though wants every Indian to believe it could just happen. England could well slip up in the face of an Indian resurgence.

On the same note, it should be rightly remembered that India could very well have found themselves in the hole that England find themselves today ahead of the third and final Test at the Oval. It took a couple of desperate innings and a massive let off from the weather gods for India to get out of the hell hole at Lord’s. Now finding themselves in a situation where one innings could have a telling and decisive effect on the series as it stands, perhaps England wants everyone to remembers the circumstances at Lord’s that deprived them of what they consider a rightful victory.

The way the whole jelly beans issue was blown over the top worked brilliantly into India’s hands while opening up England’s edged behavior dramatically. Suddenly the rambunctious lot needs to be tamed and told to get down to the nitty-gritty of trying to win the final Test and square the series. And really the odds should look pretty even, or should we say, equal. India’s batting should have outshone England’s. England’s bowling should have shown the Indian line up a thing or two. But where England’s batting has failed to keep up, India’s bowling has tottered between temperamental and tenacious. The teams do look equal, even when they should not.

It is hard to tell how much the jelly beans actually affected the outcome of the Trent Bridge Test. It will perhaps be arduous research subject no doubt. But it showed India in the plaintiff’s position and a naïve victim of an unruly bunch of schoolboys. England had not only lost the Test but also, come out looking like sore losers. It was easy to label that England’s despicable behavior threatened to throw the fine line between friendly banter and rivalry to outright bullying, bustling tactics into a tedious tantrum. But subtle tactics are far more fascinating to read. If memory serves right, India dished out almost eye for eye. This was not about being the righteous one. This was about putting people in their place and showing hospitality and etiquette at a foreign table were both better left for the bestsellers. This was a cricket field and there would be nothing gentlemanly about it. But it would be equal, about using the same tactic, one against the other. Fair, wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps the only thing cricket can be grateful for is that at least the game is not being sullied by dissensions within its own ranks (mind it; this is only within the boundaries in which this article is being discussed. The perennial muddles of the cricket are best left out at the moment.) Look across to Formula One and the fiasco is threatening to throw apart the whole system like a pack of cards. Forget a rival competition, Formula One is embroiled in a massive mess of embittered egos that a solution only leads to new complications.

The best solution for the rest of the overshadowed Formula One competitors would be for McLaren and Ferrari to take each other and breathing in a complete new world order that would turn Formula One on its head. But neither is McLaren nor Ferrari going anywhere. But that may not be the case on their camps.

Kimi Raikkonen seems contented enough to wrest the early glory that Felipe Massa soaked in with the timely displacement of Michael Schumacher. But clearly the battle is not where we expected it to be. Lewis Hamilton’s spectacular rise may have given a huge fillip to Formula One in Schumacher’s absence, but it has been nothing short of nightmare of the McLaren bosses, and Fernando Alonso.

The heir apparent and two time world champion is fuming. Worse still, he is beginning to feel disowned. The king wanted to be treated like one, unaware that a commoner was threatening by way of natural talent. While it became obvious that the 2007 season would be a more perceptible battle between champion and challenger, the scale is getting deceptive equal. It is hard to make out who is the veteran and who is the rookie and their rambunctious behavior has meant more headaches than on Ron Dennis can handle.

Handling Mika Hakkinen and David Coulthard must feel like a piece of cake for Dennis and the crack in his otherwise austere career may come with the news that Alonso has been offered open doors to walk out in the midst of a typical dirty boy tricks that made the McLaren team eat not humble pie but also the laughing stock meal. Yet unclear who’s telling the truth in the principal’s office. But Alonso has been billed trouble maker, Hamilton the cause for trouble and McLaren the team to take the punishment.

For Alonso, to command respect as a two time world champion is considerate. But to expect the team to deprive another of the same level of development only because he happens to be a rookie is preposterous. At the end of the day, it is a team and it is a battle of equals, of talent that is; of that there can be no doubt.

Holier than thou or eat cow? It is hard to tell one from the other. It is, in very clichéd fashion, the pot calling the kettle black. If Sreesanth is being outlawed for bowling a beamer at England by all of England and Kevin Pietersen, where do England get off for their slighting behavior? How can England maintain that we-could-do-no-wrong face and put up (a seemingly naïve but deceptive) Monty Panesar as the poster boy of England’s pristine gamesmanship when not so long ago a certain England captain lay his greasy hands on a cricket ball? It’s all equal, fair and square, if turned the other way around. Now let’s get on with the game, gentleman, please!