Strip Sydney Test of its Official Status!

Strip Sydney Test of its Official Status!

Australia: World beaters or World cheaters?

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

The only logical manner that cricket can now move on at a saner level is if the Sydney Test is stripped off its official status. It will not be the first time (remember the last time India, and Sachin Tendulkar in particular, was targeted by then match referee Mike Denness in South Africa). Consider the other options. Consider the magnitude of the repercussions. This is not about one-upmanship. This is about delivering justice, where it belongs.

Consider for the moment that not one or two but a good many instances where the umpires have botched up the rules of ruling someone out. Consider the impact where at least seven of the alleged bad decisions were declared wrong when all an opposition side needs is 20 wickets to win a match. This was simply not a case of the umpires getting it wrong. To err is human; to be bias, is to aid the opposition.

Admittedly India's batting on the final day of the second Test in Sydney was far from encouraging, especially given that India had done so well in the first innings to set the cat amongst the pigeons for Australia. Australia were determined to shake India’s morale. Instead they have only highlighted their bullying ways and ungentlemanly approach to the game, whose crown they wear but whose respect they have failed to command.

The guffaws must be really loud. How does one gentleman’s rule apply to India and not apply to Australia? Adam Gilchrist’s comments to a channel here in India spoke of downright double standards. When Gilchrist asserts that India should accept the umpire’s decision, why is it that on more than one occasion, Ricky Ponting has stood his ground in sheer arrogance? Had the tables been reversed, would Australia stand for this blatant one sided affair? If Ponting is acting dictatorial with the media about being questioning on his double stand on how the game should be played, does not a player of Sachin Tendulkar’s stature speak of a greater integrity when he claims Harbhajan made no racist remarks to warrant this punishment?

Ponting is asserting Michael Clarke has taken the catch cleanly when the replays clearly show that there is more than an element of doubt to suggest Sourav Ganguly was only given out under dubious circumstances. While the members of the Australian team had conveniently brushed it as Mark Benson’s oversight in not consulting with the square leg umpire (thought given that that gentleman was Steve Bucknor, would it have been any different?) , the fact remains that Ponting is claiming a significant wicket. Who gave him the authority to decide who goes (having seen as it can be so biased) just as who did give him the authority to decide how the media should report? How does anyone believe when the captain has claimed a catch when the captain himself stands blatantly despite being out? Is this honesty, or Australia’s meaning of honesty, like their interpretation of racism?

Gilchrist may have made walking a new phenomenon for Australian cricket but to claim mighty that he does not make appeals unnecessarily and that it is India who have gone over the top is foolhardy. Need we remind Gilchrist of his vociferous appeal against Rahul Dravid in the second innings when the bat was nowhere close to the ball? Australia were desperate for victory, and they did employ the sub continent’s tactics of vociferous appealing, and rather needlessly so. Did they not succeed?

The loopholes are many. Consider the fact that these nonsensical charges of racism were labeled by Ponting on behalf of Andrew Symonds and the testimony on which Harbhajan was slapped the three match ban came through Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke. In the same manner that without evidence, the committee decided to pass judgement against Harbhajan, why was the word of Sachin Tendulkar not taken into account? Does Sachin not command respect simply for the way he has played the game all these years, forget Ponting’s colourful past?

The result simply shows insensitivity in understanding such serious allegations of racism. Racism is not even a concept in India. Yes, casteism is understandable, although deplorable. But racism is a raging matter in Australia where the aborigines for long have been handed a raw deal. Perhaps the word has become rather loose to rattle at the first hint of disruption.

Symonds is playing cry wolf. When it didn’t work in India, he has done it again back home. Someone of his own background must be careful of not degrading the meaning of the word ‘race’, because the word soon loses its charged meaning when used so blatantly. What it once again shows is the divisive nature even in the ten nations that this ‘world’ game is played. Is Symonds the type who will stand still while he is childishly labeled a ‘monkey’? Would the pictures lie when they show that more words were exchanged by Symonds rather than Harbhajan Singh?

If conspiracy theories must abound, this was a well planned ploy. Australia have already had their sixteen match winning streak broken once. That too, humilitation handed by India. The way India bounced back in Sydney, another upset was on the cards. Whether the umpires were adhering to the white supremacy theory or if Bucknor has coloured his vision is subject to debate. But this was an obvious attempt to shift the focus and what could be more poignant that shaking the one man Australia thought was an easy subject? How else does one explain how the two teams appeared to make truce on the field only to have the issue take of racist allegations when the day’s play was done with?

The thing about Steve Bucknor’s age and vision is rubbish. His vision is just fine if he is giving only one team obviously disgraceful levels at the international team (in this case, India, in all cases, India) while the other team is allowed to get away. (the vision of the third umpire may need an optmologist though.) One wondered why Symonds was not sharing the ‘Man of the Match’ trophy with the other ‘men of the match’ Bucknor, Benson and company.

This was well thought out and executed to perfection. Kudos must be given to Australia, not only for playing the game hard, ruthless even in the face of obviously deplorable decisions, but also, bullying the game, the opposition and the ICC authorities to rule in their favour. Australia dare not touch Tendulkar. Dravid has his own grave to ponder over while Ganguly has come back raring stronger. Anil Kumble will fight fire with fire. Who then would make for an easy target and who could be provoked into playing the perfect ‘bakra’ (that goat for non-Hindi folks)?

It is no small matter that Australia have been smarting ever since India won the Twenty20, to even denounce the nature of the format of the game. That Australia nursed that grudge through their one day series in India became pretty obvious as the series progressed. Now it is the threat of the Test series becoming more formidable that set fear in the hearts of the Australian players. Australia has played a rather dirty game off the field, and revealed even the top world beating team is not exempt from behaving shamelessly under the threat of fear and humiliation.

(if anything should come from this, Harbhajan must learn to keep in tongue in check; Australia have just exploited his easily provoked nature to malicious intent.) Sunil Gavaskar hit the nail on the head when he said it was hard to accept the honesty of the players who claims a dishonest catch and who has the temerity to stand his ground when he is obviously out. There is only one way to solve Kapil Dev’s dilemma that five years hence on, everyone will forget the injustice delivered to India. Obliterate the result. India should accept that. Australia must live with that.

Just ask Australia if they would accept their sixteen match streak coming to a halt because of such poor umpiring decisions. Gilchrist says, India must accept the umpire’s decision. If India does accept the loss, who gains by the maladies of the Test? Ponder on that and Gilchrist’s assertions will become easier to understand. If the umpired have sullied the game, Australia have shown why despite being world champions all these years has not improved their reputation as unreasonable bullies for their blatant ungentlemanly conduct, unbecoming of a team and nation of their stature. Sri Lanka have suffered, South Africa have suffered. And it is easy to see why racism is such a ‘hot’ (disgracefully) term in their game. Education is required for Australia and the men who dictate the rules of the game to understand sensitivities of people better than they do the laws of the game.

The only decent way this game can go on is for Australia to get an educated lesson on what constitutes racism , for Harbhajan’s ban to be revoked, for Ponting a lesson on what constitutes the gentleman’s game and whether his authority as Australian captain ends, for Bucknor to bid goodbye to cricket, and for the Sydney Test to be stripped of its official Test status. In the game where so many decisions have been wronged; no other balm can effect a reversal of fortunes or stop the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (ignominious if Australia wins the Trophy on the basis of the Sydney Test) from being unfairly retained by the Australians on the basis of this Test.

If there was a time to rebel for the Indian team, it is now. There is integrity at stake and (not Ponting’s kind of integrity, please) and no sport can be a leveler that chooses to divide peoples of nations and people of one world and worse, promotes behavior that sabotages games by using these divisive forces. Neither the game has won, nor has the people who have followed it. Australia has scream from the rooftops; they did not shape this particular game on their cricketing acumen.

If a middle ground cannot be found, if such a champion beating side cannot decipher that their opposition has been handed a raw deal (which could also mean Australia is afraid to take on the challenge again in trying to retain the trophy), India must pack its bags. Forget financial repercussions; there is a lot more at stake here and it simply ain’t cricket, mate! Who wants to play a game like this, let alone watch it?

(As for public information, the author of this piece did not grow up as a fan of Indian cricket. As a sports writer-columnist, she has tempered an objective view about the game and it is from this that steams the anger at the obvious sullying of a game she so reveres. Again for the sake of those myopic to view this as anti-Australian, the author holds the game in reverence as does the champions, but not their unruly behavior. Besides, Australia is much too beautiful a country to be done in by a couple of their uncouth cricketers.)

free-website-hit-counters.com

South Africa revel in Pakistan’s haze!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Another Test series draws to a close and yet again Pakistan are unsure how much progress they have actually made. Shoaib Akhtar’s antics, Mohammad Yousuf’s change of heart and Inzamam’s winding career were the only stand out features of a Test series that should have brought home advantage to bear. For South Africa though, exceeding expectations with a team looking at becoming self-sufficient could not have had a sweeter reward!

Back-to-back were supposed to drain the tourists. Instead Pakistan appeared beleaguered even before the series got underway. With Akhtar’s behavior still hanging like a dark cloud, Pakistan forgot their pace potential and shockingly tried to force South Africa into submission with just Umar Gul and Mohammad Asif to bear the brunt. Flawed tactics cost Pakistan an opportunity to square the series in Karachi. Worse still, they failed to stem the swing of momentum that set the South Africans on a roll.

Jacques Kallis showed his defiance was not without conviction. Openly annoyed and disappointed at being overlooked for the Twenty20 championship, Kallis showed why he is rated as one amongst the few and rare all rounders with match winning ability. His double ton towering presence in the first Test was matched only by his fighting knock in the first innings of the second Test only to be backed by another century that put South Africa in the driver’s seat.

But South Africa backed up their batting with a bowling that they can be truly proud of. For long, South Africa’s bowling have had as much to do with their sometimes apparent sameness to the attack, pedestrian under assault as much as with the lack of a genuine world class spinner. At the height of getting over excited, South Africa may have rediscovered Paul Harris and in him, their spin hopes of the future.

Harris made a comeback of sorts to the South African side and standing taller than his skipper, he comes across as an odd career choice for a spinner. But Harris has wrecked havoc for Pakistan and scintillating positions for South Africa through the two Test series to ensure that he would have a major role in setting up South Africa’s subcontinent victory in seven years, the last being conquering India in India on that now infamous tour in 2000.

Harris nullified Pakistan’s batting with a five wicket haul in the first innings of the first Test and then, came back to break the crucial opening partnership in the first innings of the second Test as Pakistan’s openers made overhauling South Africa’s first innings a cake walk. More importantly, he showed patience, practice and perseverance that is required of a spinner at the international level. In sub continent conditions and against an opposition that is well versed in countering spin, Harris has earned kudos and deservingly so.

But South Africa had also gambled on another plan, one without Shaun Pollock. While Pollock was turned into a tourist in this series, Andre Nel and Dale Steyn were given the responsibility of making his absence seem as minimal as possible. While Nel played senior pro, Steyn vindicated the selectors’ decision with a victory sealing five-fer in the second innings of the first Test and what turned into the series deciding match.

Pakistan’s tactics were baffling from the point of view of understanding whether they were made with team interests in mind. While Pakistan relied on spin, they have had a history of fast bowlers and their current line up displayed none of that confidence and considerably reduced the strength of Pakistan’s match winning ability. It was almost as if they had no intention of winning.

Playing for a draw was meaningless in the second Test. And Pakistan rightly went after the colossal target with the right attitude on a gamely pitch. But Pakistan were underdone by the lack of a third pacer. South Africa fought to get out of a tightrope situation in the second Test and came out looking considerably comprehensive.

Mark Boucher’s 400 catches as wicket keeper proved the highlight. But he will also be remembered as the man who ended Inzamam’s career with a stumping. Inzamam may have missed out on Zaheer Abbas’ high score of 8332 runs by two runs but if Inzamam was unhappy only for missing out on that landmark, then it would reflect poorly on Pakistan’s interests. After all Inzamam’s presence in this match was secured with the agreement that he would call it quits at the end of day.

Another factor that caused considerably turmoil for Pakistan to show up with a consistently strong line up was Mohammad Yousuf’s side swinging stunts. Slated to join the rebellious Indian Cricket League, Yousuf disappeared from the public eye only to surface on the eve of the first Test. With changing lanes being cause for concern, Yousuf traded his place in the Pakistan side for the first Test for sorting out his loyalty conundrums. Yousuf did come back to play the second Test. But Pakistan had already let the initiative slip, much like they did everything else related to the serious game on the field!

Victory in Karachi, shocks at home...

Trevor Chesterfield

Anyone who has been listening to the Po-faced gloom and doom from some radio and television studious around South Africa, defeat loomed large for Graeme Smith's side in the build up to the first Test against Pakistan.

Why even polls in a couple of newspapers predicted defeat and suggested the tour a waste of time. This was after the earlier dizzying and frenetic ICC Twenty/20 Championship and South Africa's exit for the tournament in Durban before what was termed a largely 'unpatriotic' Asian crowd.

As it is, certain factors surrounding the team added to the Po-faced views of the critics, doubting media and general public. Andrew Hall had gone into retirement, a 'disgruntled' Jacques Kallis had quit as vice-captain to concentrate on his batting, Morne Morkel was injured and sent home and Shaun Pollock was axed for the first time in his career.

An added backgrounder was how rumours 'back home' were that new Cricket South Africa Norman Arendse was unhappy with the whole team management system and its 'non-quota' and 'non-target' stance.

Yet, on the day Arendse told a board meeting in Johannesburg that he demanded more say in selection of Test squads and teams, South Africa achieved what for many what was said to be impossible. They beat Pakistan at the National Stadium in Karachi by 160 runs.

Only as big win this one was it was not met with universal approval in South Africa by the media that was on tour with the team. The way it was spread around, a South African cricket reporter of Asian extraction, Durban-based Iqbal Khan, Pakistan are not supposed to lose in Karachi. Are they? His largely ineffectual stereotype news agency style reports of the Test in the country's largest newspaper group reflected the mood of the nation.

Anyway, it was he knowingly suggested that Pakistan sources said South Africa had the wrong team: that Dale Steyn was not capable of taking five wickets in a five match series let alone an innings and, Paul Harris was not an effective bowler, the team management had their selections all wrong.

But when for Pakistan the coach, Geoff Lawson, instead of the captain turns up to the post-Test media conference to field a lot of prickly questions, there is the feeling that something is not quite right. Hansie Conje pulled this stunt after the defeat to Zimbabwe at Chelmsford in the 1999 World Cup and Bob Woolmer fronted up to the media while the captain sulked in the showers.

When spotted afterwards, Cronje decided to duck again and refused to acknowledge a greeting in Afrikaans by one of his former Free State players in England following the series. It gave many an unpleasant illustration of how to accept victory and defeat.

Shoaib Malik, in his first Test as captain, it was said 'had a flight to catch'. That's a new one. So is the comment that the win by South Africa is the first victory against a major subcontinent team in more than seven years suggests that Sri Lanka are not major.

Lawson though took umbrage at the suggestion that Malik was too embarrassed to face the media. 'Respect the Pakistan captain,' he fired back. It appears there was none as the implacable view was how the new captain was embarrassed to meet the media.

It was the old story of 'ifs' and 'buts'. You know the one, 'if we had held a couple of catches' and 'but for Steyn and Harris taking five wickets for the first time in an innings' and 'but for a couple of centuries by Kallis, we too would have been in a better position'.

Naturally when you have five days to prepare for a Test as this one, and the background sniping was doing what it could to sap certain psychological points, to shove the win, and its size as well, under the noses of the armchair critics, was no doubt a good feeling for Smith.

Other Saf styled reporters and wannabe analysts on tour, boasting about dinner arrangements on the network and sucking up to the more important TV types (for some, being the sycophant goes with laptop, borrowed copycat phrases 'passed off as his own' image), lose touch with what is actually going on. Asking them what is their point of all this showing off and they wonder why they are suddenly being told impolitely to naff off by others.

Meanwhile, back in the CSA boardroom, Arendse is pushing his case of what he wants and how he wants it. South Africa beating Pakistan by 160 runs is waved aside. It's not important enough for the Cape Town advocate. He wants his thoughts to be heard and wants to bend the ear of anyone willing to listen.

Part of this planning (or that of a committee of which he was a member) are proposals of how to (re)structure cricket in South Africa to the benefit of all in the game. This, it is said, will form part of wide ranging discussions that took place the day Smith, Steyn and Kallis helped beat Pakistan on a fallow field far, far removed from Johannesburg .

The CSA governance structures, the (annual) review of the franchise system, national team selection policies and transformation are all part of the discussions. Part of this planning has it that the sport, below national team level, be re-organised. A lot of this is updating housekeeping arrangements.

But when it came to the CSA showpiece, the team (now in Pakistan) there was a reemphasis of the prioritisation of the Proteas, although some still questioned this approach. But the side did not lack for anything. There are the same management structures as Australia and England, 'despite them being First World and us not,' Arendse added.

But there came a problem when a national player, Johan van der Wath, announced on the day South Africa exited the recent ICC Twenty20 that he had signed for the Indian Cricket League, represented an attitude felt in some quarters to be reason enough to re-think the emphasis on the national side.

He was then quoted in a Cape Town newspaper as saying, in view of the decision of Van der Wath that it was time 'to question that logic' of the team's priorities. That as they have not won anything and players, black and white, are eyeing the more lucrative Kolpak contracts in England, the issue needed a rethink.

'Money was spent in bringing players through the system, but now money is being spent to promote English cricket,' he grumbled without looking at the causes that has created this position.

Arendse said there was no clear answer to the question of when CSA should scrap targets/quotas. This was despite the SA Players Association's memorandum calling for the system to be revamped.

'The players are regarded as one of the main stakeholder groups. They are entitled to their opinion. That opinion will be put on the table, like any others, and we will discuss it,' Arendse is quoted as saying.

All this is most interesting, but it doesn't get around to supporting the views of the players and why the identity tag is still one of colour and not one of players. The third generation since unity in 1991 and almost fifteen years since is almost on CSA; the amateur wing has burgeoning talent, but the thrust is going in the wrong direction.

To produce talent that wins Tests, limited overs events and trophies and raises the sport's and players profile requires a common goal: not one that is forced artificially on the system. If CSA want to move ahead, they need to take a close look at England where they have a natural development system and based on merit.

CSA chief Arendse feels heat at the top!

Trevor Chesterfield

Amid the fancy public relations act that followed Norman Arendse and his shoehorning into the post as president of Cricket South Africa to replace Ray Mali, now acting president of the International Cricket Council, there were a lot of grimaces as well that greeted the news.

Among those who didn't give it a second thought at first were the players and those members of the players' body, the SA Cricketers Association. Yet within weeks of Arendse taking over the post from Mali after a musical chairs duet, a few strange things have happened.

The first was how the decision by about 38 players to sign a moratorium that they were not in favour of so-called empowerment strategies and the dreaded quota system, as favoured by Arendse and certain others in the Cricket South Africa hierarchy, was leaked to the media. This had the president of the player's body, Ashwell Prince quitting. Little to nothing was said by CSA types. They were about to launch their bunfight, the ICC T20 Championship and didn't want disconcerting ripples to cloud the issue.

Nothing was publicly said either by CSA because they don't really enjoy it when players with a conscience take them on as they feel the system is marginalising others within the players' structure.

Prince was the first non-white South African to take over the role of captain in Sri Lanka last year. He is a humble enough young man with principles, and frankly, the strong egalitarian voice in me says that to use the term 'black' captain is wrong. Prince is the first from the previously disadvantaged society, group or whatever you want to call it, to earn the post. It is felt that he deserved it; labelling him 'black' because of his colour is wrong.

Anyway, calling him 'black' and not a South African is a mistake made by far too many South African journalists, reporters and so-called analysts and plays to the old classification gallery that displays certain lack of understanding of a nation still attempting to find a genuine identity. It would have been thought that after seventeen years since the formation of what is the United Cricket Board how such an egalitarian vision is still not accepted by all.

You don't read of people saying the white South African captain, Graeme Smith. And what is going to happen when an Asian is in line to become captain of the team?

There are a large number of critics in Asia of South Africa pushing the affirmative action line. One Mumbai-based writer said argued in a short message service (SMS) text before the ICC Twenty/20 Championship that in his opinion 'Proteans (sic) are liars, have no morals and are characterless'. If that is the view of an ordinary Indian, what would the new CSA president think of such a comment if it was sent to him? It would be interesting to find out.

Maybe it was, and perhaps why Arendse has found himself in the news again, allegedly shooting off his mouth over a second story leaked to an Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, which demanded comment. Whether this is a deliberate attempt to embarrass Arendse and his reaction begs questions about the accuracy of the comments he made.

Unlike the silence over Prince's decision to quit as president of the national players body when his opposition to quotas was made, this new disclosure caught Arendse wiping some sweat off his brow as the heat is turned up on his the statements he has since made.

Now he claims that his words have been twisted out of shape as much as the action of Paul Adams, and that he is not 'genuinely blaming at all whites for South African cricket's woes'.

This is all very interesting as there is the impression that Arendse didn't like one bit how the players association at large rejected the quota system and said so.

It is his view that criticism of transformation in cricket too often came from racist journalists, referring specifically to certain newspapers which had claimed that white English-speakers were being marginalised in all levels of cricket, while less competent blacks were placed in management positions. There seems to be certain paranoia creeping into this opinion.

'I'm not such a fool to think all our woes are the fault of whites,' he complains and says how many black, coloured and Indian people also do not believe in affirmative action, alluding no doubt to the views written in a report issued by the national players who met in a conclave and argued against such policies. But using classification as an identity label adds to the problem.

He wanted Cricket South Africa to talk about 'issues of patriotism' because though resources were being focused on giving the national team as much as those national teams of First World countries received, some players still left the country for greener pastures. Yet he uses ethnic labels to identify them: not as South Africans as it says on their passport.

Arendse said transformation since 1994 not only meant the promotion of more black and coloured players, but meant providing opportunities for women, the blind, the disabled, the rural poor and Afrikaners to advance in a sport that was traditionally dominated by 'privileged English boys from top high schools'.

This, however, did not mean that there was no space for white English-speaking players in the national team or management. Cricket SA is flexible about its transformation targets and would not enforce it in situations where it was inappropriate or impossible.

'I don't think there can be one white player who can say he has been denied opportunities,' he said, which flies in the face of a recent question sidestepped about why two talented players were said to be of the 'wrong colour' when asked why they were no longer in the mix.

Arendse had been aware from Makhaya Ntini, Herschelle Gibbs, Prince and about thirty others, who recently signed a memorandum against affirmative action how they were 'sick and tired' of being called quota players whenever the team loses.

Since then Tshwane Mayor Gwen Ramokgopa, which is part of the national capital Pretoria, suggests how Asians living in South Africa are 'adopted Africans without much of a voice'. That is an unnecessary xenophobic comment to make by a civic leader who should know better. This follows a row in some South African newspapers that Asians who supported India when they played South Africa in the T20 tournament at Kingsmead in Durban were being 'unpatriotic'. This is an ongoing argument in countries such as England, Australia and to a far lesser degree, New Zealand.

Yet when an fifth generation South African of Indian ancestry complains of being referred to as an Indian and not a South African, it requires not sympathy but a need to understand the hurt and feelings with the writer of a letter in a Durban Sunday paper about his identity.

No doubt as an advocate Arendse may have the same smart answer he gave to Heath Streak in early 2004 on what he should do when the dispute between Zimbabwe players and that country's cricket board over not only Streak's sacking as captain and the resulting players' strike because selection policy interference by the board, notably the bully Ozias Bvute, Zimbabwe Cricket's chief executive.

Bvute confronted me Queen's Sports Club in Bulawayo in mid-November 2003 during the second Test of the game against Zimbabwe and said, 'You whites from South Africa are not really welcome here. We only play with whites (teams) because we are told (by the ICC) that we have to.' This was after talking to a mixed group of mainly cheerful ten and eleven year olds and wanting to know their favourite Zimbabwe player(s). The chorus of 'Heath Streak' seemed to attract Bvute's attention and drew an immediate rebuke.

Recently, Ray Mali, former CSA president and now the acting ICC president uttered the words 'fairness, justice and equality'. They were not about the Cricket South Africa's current state of mind either. A quietly spoken, retired school teacher the words were offered at the start of the battle between Darrel Hair and the ICC about denying him his right to work. Mali was replaced as CSA president by Arendse and perhaps the words he offered might be useful for Arendse to remember.

SA’s worst dissection – as always at a World Cup!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Even the self-assured Graeme Smith appeared set aback by the stunning events of the just concluded encounter in the Super Eights of the World Twenty20 championship. This would be South Africa’s live nightmare at every cricket World Cup thus far. Just when it seemed South Africa had ridden over the storm, along came a hurricane and blew away the home team into bygone woe and piercing despair. Smith has a point. But the case hinges on more than his point. The host jinx stays; South Africa have once again missed the World Cup train!

‘Chokers’ is a cruel word, especially if you happen to be a fan of the team labeled so. However, if choking is a harsh word, it would be pretty hard to describe South Africa’s debacle against India on the sordid night. What would be fairer to say is that South Africa were faced with a scenario no one had foreseen. When the moment was upon them, they were plain too paralysed (and crippled by the early blows) to react, let alone salvage. When they realize they could lose it all, South Africa’s mind set changed – from staying crouched ready for an attack, the hunter suddenly became the hunted. Only in this case, it was not so much India that were preying on them, it was the burden of their sudden twist of fortune that proved to fearsome of one of the most ‘formidable’ teams of the tournament.

Graeme Smith seemed slighted by remarks that South Africa lost their virtual place in the semi final by virtue of their getting their equations wrong. Wherever that assumption came from, this time it did not appear South Africa were unaware of their target. It seemed a plain case of nerves making the tournament favourites stutter their way to another significantly shambolic World Cup loss.

Smith is a strong skipper and would not have let that predicament pass. But he is also shrewd to point out that the tournament that kicked out the team that had won all its matches thus far would have to be looked out. While he may have stated a thought provoking point, it must then create some cause for consternation that teams like Australia that have lost to the lowliest teams have made it thus far. The tournament has thrown open the doors such that most teams have scrapped through games and group tallies and perhaps, this must also be a case with Smith takes it all with a pinch of salt.

Smith was very aware of the loss of momentum. His fiery motivation in the middle of the Indian innings may have seemed like the tirade of a dictator. But Smith has his own way of gearing the team and leading the charge. In hindsight it would seem if the captain was not happy with certain mishaps in the fields (dropped chances, misjudged opportunities), he had every reason to be.

But just leafing back the articles in this column, one point was reiterated on the fateful night. South Africa’s top three never really fired in the tournament. There was no real charge from the start of the innings and if the law of averages had perhaps done their job, Smith would have been so aggrieved. But Smith has to take the blame for his own inability to see through the India’s resurgence and stayed on to impact the game more. South Africa were put to the ultimate test at thirteen for three. While in previous matches, the likes of Justin Kemp and Albie Morkel saw through the tough turmoil, to do it all over again was perhaps just a task too much.

It is all very well to boast of depth in the batting order. But to rely on the lower order while the top order does a lullaby is just not on, even in a short game like Twenty20. The recovery between Mark Boucher and Morkel did cause a few flutters for the Indians but it was another matter that held South Africa down while India motored on, right into the semi final.

Besides a difficult start to the chase, South Africa appeared paralysed. It was not just the possibility of loss, but also, rather the distant plausibility that they could go out of the tournament. Distant because all they has to chase was 126, a target not particularly frightening for a team of this depth and fortitude. What did them in was the sudden fear of an unanticipated scenario. The factor seemed to have crippled them beyond belief.

It would not have helped their chances that their prolific batsman of the tournament and their biggest connector of the ball, Justin Kemp, was felled by a run out. Some may even raise the issue of the dubious decision surrounding Herschelle Gibbs with the umpires coming increasingly under the scanner. But was it possible that the big three up the order, Gibbs, Smith and AB de Villiers, could have approached the innings differently? While it serves no purpose to ruminate on the past, these are perhaps the areas that the team should look at. It seems prophetic now when Kemp mentioned that there were a few more areas that South Africa could improve on.

But it is a matter to look into. Otherwise considered a formidable side, South Africa develop a sense of vulnerability about them when a World Cup comes around. Their fragility has bizarrely passed down even though significant personnel changes have come along as also a varied bunch of skippers, each more different from their predecessor. There is always next time, but South Africa are increasingly finding themselves reflecting more on their losses than setting their sights on significant victories.

This is nothing to take away from India’s plucky performance. Whether their batting faltered to reveal a rookie hero or one of their star bowlers proving wayward once again, India continued to fight. And that made all the difference. South Africa had the fate of this matches in their clutches. But when it was time to fight, the will and the might deserted them, with devastating effect.

Daniel Vettori openly said his team would support South Africa in the match against India in order to be able to go through. The match did turn on its head, and one does wonder, did New Zealand dare buy the Indians a round of beer knowing they could plausibly meet each other in the finals? Or did Vettori extend a conciliatory beer to the much disconsolate skipper of the home team? Not a pleasant treat, any which way one looks at it. New Zealand were fortunate, but South Africa have not ended the tournament a pretty sight. Ironically the team that first handed Australia its defeat in the warm up match, perhaps significantly of things to come, have to painfully look back only to realize they themselves had perhaps stymied their progress on the apparent road to victory!

NZ v SA: More Power to the Hosts!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

New Zealand have been the most amiable favourites to win the Twenty20 World Cup. Their performance over time has shown that they have a better sounding board on the game and the necessary artillery to deliver. One of the most prominent to show that spin by way of their skipper is not to be taken likely, they now face an uncertain future for the semi-final slot in the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup. South Africa have subdued the tournament favorites and ironically, are still their only refuge if New Zealand are to make it to the semi finals!

South Africa responded in style against a sloppy England and making it against New Zealand would virtually slot them in an invincible position in the lead up to the semi finals. Justin Kemp featured predominantly in leading South Africa courageously and majestically with the bat. The fall of the wickets at the other end failed to frazzle the tall all-rounder. Shaun Pollock and Mark Boucher had modest scores to show but their partnerships with Kemp was immensely substantial for the hosts to pull one over the ever-aspiring tournament favourites.

The defeat certainly hurt Daniel Vettori, whose pride would not have let him deflect from his primary objective as captain of New Zealand. Snide remarks were made in newspapers of New Zealand’s performance but they were harsh given their performance thus far. New Zealand begun well with the bat and threatened to take South Africa to the cleaners. Pollock seemed to come to grips with the game but threatened to lose it all once more in the face of the New Zealand assault.

Perhaps it would be better to say, it was South Africa’s bowling comeback that made a greater impact that New Zealand’s waywardness in batting. Once Morne Morkel (one of the two Morkel brothers who ominously stand to represent South Africa of the future.) came onto the scene, the entire scenario changed. Where Albie Morkel stuck in out at the sticky end of the previous game against England to subject the England bowlers to blistering blows, it was the turn of the other Morkel to steal the show and rightly so. He got South Africa back into the match when it seemed New Zealand had galloped out of the reach of the hosts.

The umpires are just going to face the brunt. Billy Doctrove denied a budding young bowler to right to fame. Morne Morkel, with four wickets already in the pocket, bowled out the batsman only to have to turn back and watch the umpire declare the ball a no ball. Resigned to it, he ended his spell. But the replays made for a horrific display as Morne seemed well within the bowling crease and his foot only half way over the line. Undoubtedly Morne will have many more moments to impact the game with the ball. Comparisons are already been made of Morne being the Shaun Pollock of the impending future.

But it a game where bombastic runs make heroes of batsmen overnight, this was a glaring oversight on the part of the umpire!

As Justin Kemp stated at the end of the game that South Africa still need to get a few more areas right in order to fully impact the Twenty20 game and their progress, South Africa have coped well in the absence of a spinner and in the constant presence of consistent criticism of their bowling appeared pedestrian and boasting of a sameness about them. However, if South Africa are to truly go the distance, one gets the feeling Graeme Smith will have to fire one significant innings at this final stage. AB de Villiers and Smith were on song in the warm up match where the hosts dealt the Australia a blow. But it is the top three that have to fire on all cylinders now and while Gibbs has only come back from injury, this is not the game that allows much time between recovery and achieving heart stopping glory. Perhaps Albie Morkel and Kemp would love to have a thunderous platform from which to shoot their cannon balls in the final important games.

A lot though will ride on the match between South Africa and India. India pulled one out of the hat against England although it took more than nerves to do it. Now India will have to attempt a Houdini act to help New Zealand pack their bags. The tournament would love a game of such proportions. Indian fans may just differ in their opinion. Daniel Vettori’s pride is at stake. He looked sheepish when he told the television commentator that New Zealand would support South Africa in the final game to go further. That was certainly not what New Zealand had in mind when they started out, and certainly not part of their original strategy. Who knew Twenty20 allowed time to switch to Plan B!

Settling Tall Scores in Hair Raising Affair!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

England knew their fate even before the game against India got underway. The England team piled up like school boys (a few even chewing their brittle nails) as they watched Justin Kemp stealing the show and the match for South Africa against New Zealand. That also meant, South Africa’s victory left no room for comeback for the men of cricket origin.

On the other hand, India found plenty of time between matches for controversies, not necessarily slanderous, but deviating from the event nonetheless. Could Dhoni handle the heat, of the change of guard back home and the fluctuating fortunes of the team in South Africa in a do-or-die situation? Undoubtedly all eyes were on Dhoni, as India’s new captain in more than one sense. But stealing the thunder seemed order of the day for the openers and for one middle order south paw, Yuvraj Singh.

England were considered tournament favourites, no by virtue of any form, but by the fact that they had perhaps played more Twenty20 matches in the domestic scenario than any other Test playing nation. But if there is one thing about England, apart from their brief success under Michael Vaughan and the Ashes victory of 2005, they have had little cheer over the last decade. Even that was considered a flash in the pan. All the talk of finding their mark and their balance was quickly rendered redundant and their team composition continues to flummox most cricketing brains.

If an example were to be cited, in the match of little consequence for England except perhaps playing for pride (whatever that means), England chose to hold back Andrew Flintoff and Dmitri Mascarenhas in favour of Owais Shah and Luke Wright even as England were running out of overs. The difference is telling considering the fact that England were neck and neck with India’s tally until that penultimate over when Yuvraj turned it on. Dmitri should have at least been given an opportunity to silence Yuvraj’s claims of the former being the cause of his grievance.

It has been precisely matters like these that have become the watershed of England cricket and the stalemate that England are finding hard to break out of. Their fielding has been paltry, given their own modest standards but it has done little to help their bowlers salvage something back for the team. Even in the game against South Africa, crucial misses such as that of Albie Morkel, resulted in South Africa getting out of the clutches and into a league of their own.

The Indian openers started awkwardly, particularly Virender Sehwag who seemed to try very hard to get out but the balls proving too good for the best of batsmen. Eventually the self-destructive streak subsided and a more vintage Sehwag looked to break through the clouds. It spelt great start for India as Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir got into a zone of their own and left England gasping thereafter.

That Twenty20 is a game relished by all batsmen was no more proved when Yuvraj and Dhoni tossed around thoughts as to who should follow whom. Eventually Yuvraj prevailed on Dhoni and then, on England with a might of near unmatched proportions. Dhoni went in first, but Yuvraj’s feats lasted through the night. Stuart Broad had no clue what he was getting himself into when he acceded to bowl the penultimate over of the match. Yuvraj Singh did not know either than he would soon be joining the likes of Gary Sobers (and Malcolm Nash), Ravi Shastri (and Tilak Raj), and Herschelle Gibbs (and Daan van Bunge) as he strode his way into the constellation of stars.

Yuvraj claimed that hitting the first four sixes of that over did not seem out of the ordinary. It was only when he caught sight of Dmitri Mascarenhas lurking in the outfield that his stinging pain when the latter blasted him for five sixes not so long ago in the series in England came back to him. Himself scarred from the treatment meted out to him in the aftermath of that effort, Yuvraj chose to inflict a few of his own on the young English lad as Broad could only watch as Yuvraj played six out of six textbook shots to set the ball sailing over the boundary every single time.

A first for Twenty20, and England had just been hit all over the town!

While Dhoni spoke all the right notes at the post match conferences, when he roared off that his team has finally put out the all-round performance demanded of them and that the bowlers bowled professionally, there had to be a few guffaws. Admittedly, it would be unfair to judge Joginder Sharma on his first outing in the tournament. But one had only to look back on the South Africa-New Zealand match to see what ‘professional’ bowling truly entailed. India managed to keep things on par. The only consolation for England lay in the fact that despite knowing that they were out of depth to actually win the match, they managed to stretch India more than the latter would have liked, especially with back-to-back do-or-die encounters, the following night against a resurgent South African side!

West Indies Ignite T20; Spontaneously Come-Bust!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Count on the West Indies to initiate the art of swashbuckling into a terrain that would make novices of veterans. Yet it would seem they do not know their own strengths and their entire body language lacks conviction. Their demise within three days of the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is as much an upset as Australia being made to eat humble pie for dinner in their first outing!

Is it a mere coincidence that once again a World Cup lung opener in South Africa involves a duel between the West Indies and the hosts? West Indies threatened to do to South Africa what they did in 2003. But hold on. Somewhere there seemed an element of doubt, a slack in momentum but it was all that was needed for South Africa to come through the flames unscathed. In the end, it all seemed a breeze. Shouldn’t South Africa buy their counterparts a round of beers for their efforts? Not only did the West Indies undo the hard work for the first session, they went through the entire length to entirely humiliate themselves, even alienate themselves from being taken seriously, especially when they looked good for the taking.

It is always a sad affair listening to a disappointed Tony Cozier. It felt worse still for the West Indian commentators, who could do little but surmise with the rest of lot of the dismal antics of their home team. Having played and carried the pride of the nation on their shoulders, they seemed weighed heavier still to watch the present state of affairs. (A warning to Australia to never let their guard down. The fall from the perch is not only hard on the bones; it is heavier on the heart for those that carry the feelings of the nation long after they have served their duty.)

Tony Cozier could not have been more apt when he spoke of how West Indies showed the world how to play the game in the first half and how not to play in the session after the break. And that was all that there was to the West Indies on the inaugural night. Last time round, South Africa bowed out of the World Cup on the face of an onslaught from the struggling West Indies. The status for the West Indies did not change neither did the context in which they batted. But the result would not have been to any one’s liking, even neutrals watching the game.

It was not the defeat but rather the manner of defeat that was jaw dropping. Where Chris Gayle’s whirlwind innings, a record by the way for Twenty20 (what a start!), should have elevated the team, the errors in the field rose astoundingly and the bowling was a shamble. Not a few months ago, West Indies shared the two match Twenty20 series with England in England. But on this day, they played like they have never played cricket before!

Many hailed Gayle’s inspired captaincy for the turnaround of fortunes in England at the fag end of the tour. Gayle’s innings should have furthered that impetus. But with captaincy resting now with the recovered Ramnaresh Sarwan, perhaps all is not well after all. Gayle looked visibly perplexed by how the second session shaped up.

The only reason no one raised a whisper about match fixing is because (and this is a sad observation) that the West Indian ability to self-destruct is something the world is getting accustomed to. Having said that, it still seemed hard to fathom how any team could go so low as to actually concede a match after setting a terrific target to chase. The slipping bit is difficult to comprehend; however, that once the slide starts, the road can get awfully slippery as the West Indian found out to their disdain.

What hurt the West Indies can be capped off in three points: they lost the momentum after Gayle was dismissed; they dropped key catches; and they bowled with far too much indiscipline that cricket (and a punishing game like Twenty20) can tolerate.

While Gayle was in full throttle, no one could stop the force that seemed to be thriving on South Africa’s seemingly one paced attack. But with his dismissal, West Indies could not sustain a third of their momentum up to that point. They lost their way on the road to making history in Twenty20 in setting a mind boggling target. While the eventual target was still telling, they had lost the momentum and the drive and simply failed to finish on a high.

The point is: more matches have been won by teams that have finished on a flourish than those that have painstakingly gained momentum only to fizzle along the way. Initiative one handed back to the hosts! More importantly, a fair bit of fragrance of hope was sent along with the parcel.

There are times when even the most fanatical fan will empathize with the drop of a difficult catch. However, West Indies dropped sitters, well, sitters at this level any way. It was shocking to say it mildly that teams come to this level and yet players, even good players with established reputations, succumb at the first sign of pressure. How costly did these lapses prove? Herschelle Gibbs and Justin Kemp took South Africa home, against a daunting challenge. That was conceding what the West Indies could ill afford!

Twenty-seven wides may seem negligible. But besides those twenty-seven runs (a decent innings had it been scored by a batsman in a Twenty20 match), it was the down pour of rains that followed in consequence of West Indies having to bowl twenty-seven additional deliveries that sealed their fate. Scathing as it may seem to dissect a team for its obvious defects, innumerable are the times when teams have lost not because of another team’s flamboyance but for want of doing the simple things right, things they train repeatedly for and one that memory should make second nature to the player’s repertoire of skills.

And don’t forget the other factor. South Africa were in trouble straight away. West Indies must have had a cold because they did not smell blood. Guts were all that skipper Graeme Smith was willing to reveal. Grimacing with pain, he played with intuition and he played a strategic game. No drives, a slog at the slighted hint. Daren Powell and Fidel Edwards should have been fired up and enticed to inflict a few more blows. Instead the team turned blind, to add to their misery and to the opportunities that literally fell in their lap. Gibbs hobbled, Smith groaned. Yet South Africa rode home on a high! If it were a mathematical equation, that should never have happened!

It was not surprising to watch the West Indies go down to Bangladesh. Nothing surprising there. If an outstanding innings by one of their team members (correct that: not just one of their team members but a recent leader who led them to a famous and inspirational victory) fail to inspire the West Indies to lift their game and their convictions, nothing will!

Zimbabwe Topple Australia; Rattle England!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

This was more than the tournament organizers bargained for! Did they get their money’s worth? Who knows, judging by the many empty seats? Perhaps Ricky Ponting’s statement, “We should respect the game more,” should have applied to the local fans that missed out on an enterprising feast. It was a night where Australia’s nightmares began even before they went to bed. For the rest of the world, it was a day neither Zimbabwe nor the rest of the cricketing world would forget in a long time to come!

What a night! This is the kind of game the World Cup in the Caribbean would have needed to set it on fire. It certainly is burning hot, just check under Ponting’s collar. For the world champions to be trounced completely by the supposedly meekest Test cricket playing nation in the world would not have gone down well with any self-respecting Australian.

Only about three days, Australia made headlines, having lost the warm up to hosts South Africa. Apparently it did not concern them, not enough to think they could be upstaged by the long standing team who has not been able to shake off the minnows tag. If the first defeat did not wake them up, this will only push them into a realm, potentially dangerous for their forthcoming opponents.

But few in the rest of the world would have any empathy for the self-proclaimed connoisseurs of the game. Ruling the roost always attracts enemies and the sadist in every person bares his fangs at the prospect of the most glittering team in the world cowering into submission. But given Australian high handed cockiness, they derive even lesser sympathy than any other team around the world. Even the proud Ian Chappell had to make a scathing remark (this time not against a non-Australian team) that the team in red (Zimbabwe) looked and played like champions and the team in red (Australia) looked like minnows to an outsider. Well said.

This should be called a shock defeat. Instead the only people truly shocked (and defeated) are the Australians. The whole world is rejoicing Zimbabwe’s success. It is true, “Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and the other guy has an even better sob story.” Zimbabwe’s political turmoil sullied their sport, and the dirt on the hands have been hard to scrub off. Plunged into darkness, their Test status in limbo, and a team looking ever more vulnerable than at any other time in history, Zimbabwe were the last team to make a fist of the battles thrown their way.

Playing a tough draw at the very beginning of the tournament is not easy, even for the so called pros. But Zimbabwe approached it in a manner than is inspirational to all and sundry. Zimbabwe held an aura of fearlessness that saw them through even when they briefly appeared to lose their way. Standing tall took on a whole new meaning.

People fear Brett Lee not because of his speed, but because of the precedence in being known as a speed demon with the ball in hand. But the way Zimbabwe took on the challenge, Lee’s blade seemed blunt and the likes of Nathan Bracken and Mitchell Johnson, mere swords of paper and glue!

Zimbabwe did not come without a game plan. In fact theirs seemed a structured approach, ironically so when Twenty20 is being hailed as a game with no time to think. Vusimusi Sibanda went fro carnage while Brendan Taylor stayed put, determined not to leave the field until he had sealed the deal for his team. It took some rain, some drama, a potential miss by three runs if Messrs. Duckworth and Lewis had anything to do with it.

But it was Zimbabwe’s night. It had begun that way and even they needed half a dozen in the final over, they chose to remain undeterred. On the day fortune did favour the brave. But it also favoured men of steel, and also, hard working, indigenous men who refused to be intimidated by the reputation of their opponent.

Losing can become a mental trap, and one can easily forget that a door is all it takes to step out of it. Had Zimbabwe lost this game, no one would have held them responsible. To put it in a better way, had Zimbabwe fallen placidly, no one would stir, or even shed a tear. Being trampled upon had become a romp, at the sound of sounding highly euphemistic. Zimbabwe rose over their own obstacles, and it certainly took a lot out of them.

Like Kepler Wessels, former South African captain, said, it would be hard to repeat their triumph twice in successive days simply because the victory would have taken a lot from them, the realization of it even. To earn recognition as world beaters from becoming virtual nobodies was no small feat. If anything, it should spur them on not only in future victories but in future defeats as well. The comeback road is usually uphill. But the hike becomes a little easier recalling what led them this far in the first place.

Zimbabwe could not quiet relieve the magic from the previous match in the game against England. But they are on the road of redemption. There was plenty of gust and gumption, even as they went down to England. Make no mistake. Zimbabwe was not an easy opponent to negotiate for England in their first match in the tournament. Zimbabwe still have slim doors open for them to go through, but their have done more than stamp their attendance. They have made this journey counts and for the sake of cricket, one hopes their journey is less obstacle ridden and bears more their exuberance and fearless determination (courage in one word) on their road to recovery.

Australia are a different kettle of fish. Australia do not take kindly to defeat, any defeat. The fact that they went down so insipidly must have been a difficult night to sleep on but a more difficult morning to wake up to. But if there is anything we have learnt of the Australia is that they do not take defeat lying down. That only means England will need to play with more authority than they did against Australia if they are to shut the door on their Ashes nemesis. England would do well to play out of their skins, not just for themselves, for the survival for a feisty Zimbabwean team. Come what may, Zimbabwe celebrated like they had won the World Cup! The rest of the world joined them as if they had, if only for a day!

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).