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

The Day the Twenty20 Champs beat the World Champions!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

He is not the first. And he certainly won’t be the last. Ricky Ponting may be an aggrieved batsman. But at the end of the day, his grievance as a skipper would have only been graver with India beating Australia in a one day match in a very long time. More importantly, the Australian juggernaut needed a super special effort to be brought to a halt. The brakes are red hot from the Herculean task. Can they now last the distance? Or was it a mere minor dent?

As gaudy as the headline sounds, that is precisely how the ongoing series has been billed. Much has been said and written and for Ponting to correct the Indians that they were not world champions was like Australia saying – don’t ignore us just because we make a habit of winning! Incredible as that sounds, that has precisely been Australia’s bane. Victory for Australia has become mundane; victory for everything else, out of this world! It only naturally follows that celebrations are louder, words more garrulous, the tantrums more annoying or delightful, depending which side of the fence one is sitting on.

After looking inept to take on the wounded Australians, India staged a revival by winning the fourth one day international in Chandigarh. In the three games preceding, Australia bludgeoned the Indian ego with the bat and a few garbled words. Their garish behavior further added to the tag of sore losers that Australia have portrayed themselves to be. It could not have easy swallowing the exit from the inaugural ICC World Twenty20. It would have been far worse still to be camping in the country at a time when feting the Indian cricket team had become the norm.

Ponting- all agony.

The cameras continued to trail Ponting much after he was declared stumped. The reason was the rather magnanimous gesture from the third umpire in a rather close affair and one whose benefit should have been given to the batsman. Ponting stood his ground in disbelief, trudged off the field willingly, and stood defiant and menacing in the team area. The visuals painted the anguish of every batsman who has been unfairly sent back to the dressing room.

But to think what has happened to Ponting is a rare phenomenon is preposterous. The tour to England has shown that the Indian team, and in particular Sachin Tendulkar, has been at the receiving end of some rather unfair decisions. In the match in question, umpire Suresh Shastri refused to send back Andrew Symonds even though Dhoni, Harbhajan and company had a confident appeal for a neat piece of caught behind. Would Australia complain about that?

The match was set on a knife’s edge, perhaps even tilting Australia’s side while Matthew Hayden was on song. But his departure caused a wobble that India were smart to capitalize on. Arguably the turning point of the match was R.P. Singh’s bowling in the 47^th over taking Symonds out of the equation. The double wicket bonus in the follow up delivery showed Australia could topple in the pressure just as easily.

Triple retirements? Think not.

Ponting does like to face the embarrassment of finding excuses for his team’s loss. But even he would have to admit that the Australian team allowed India to get away from a wobbly start. The Indian think tank may be openly exchanging opinions that create divisive distractions. But on the day Mahendra Singh Dhoni played another masterstroke by giving credit to the seniors within the team. It always helps to keep former skippers, and three powerhouses at that, in one’s pocket. Dhoni acknowledged that the opening pair set the match up for the Indians.

While it was not small feat to face the brute of the Australian bowling, Sourav Ganguly appeared to nurse the Indian opening while Sachin Tendulkar fought off an uncharacteristic inability to see through the opening overs with grace. Far worse, the way the bowlers constantly beat his bat, it would have given any number eleven hope. But only a man of Sachin’s stature could come out glorious with gumption from such an awkward situation. It certainly would have not sat pretty with chairman of selectors, Dilip Vengsarkar, especially after being criticized in public for his thoughts of the triumvirate by none other than the team manager, Lalchand Rajput. But Sachin came out unscathed and with team India glorious, tensions are expected to ease ever so slightly.

Pressure –another matter.

Notice it or not, Dhoni appeared a little older than he did a week ago. While his batting has not been affected ( if anything, captaincy has only added to his aura), Dhoni is fighting a few many battles that have little respite with the bat in hand. His forthright, no-nonsense talk has meant he has openly talked out of the role of the seniors with the juniors while also, stating firmly that he has a mind of his own that is far more reasonable than those that rule the BCCI.

How long the dream run will last before the BCCI will want to reel the young hand is subject to speculation! (Besides the fact that the BCCI may have to first wake up to realize that Dhoni has grasped the matter with both hands on two occasions- the Ganguly episode and the balance concerns- already in the course of this match.) Will Dhoni be able to take his straight talk into making the business of cricket on the field a straightforward matter? These are interesting times for Indian cricket, not to mention accompanied by a certain fragrance of freshness even in defeat. But can it be powerful enough to overcome the stench of cumulative bureaucracy?

Without being rambunctious.

There was one person missing. But how many did miss him? There is a fine line between being hyperactive and downright annoying. Contrary to belief that he is a product of nurtured environment of Gen next, Sreesanth has decided to market himself as the flamboyant player on the field and a charmer off the field. His smile and guile fool no one, not even those innocuous looking glasses. People rejoiced and mocked him for his jig against Andre Nel in South Africa last year.

His McEnroe antics were interesting initially. But once the novelty effect fails, nothing else works. Sreesanth has gone from being aggressive to becoming obnoxious. And when the Australians think that, it really is telling! Everyone knows of Australia’s bully behavior but Sreesanth makes them look holier-than-thou. After looking at Australia, no one would be blamed for thinking there is a method in madness even for the Australian behavior. To stand up is one thing. But Sreesanth, of late, has become a case of empty vessels make more noise. That is unfair. Perhaps it would help him recall that his jig in South Africa was only funny because he had tonked the previous delivery for six. Would Nel have taken it on the chin otherwise? Grow up, Sreesanth, have your day in the sun, then rejoice, wait, rage!

Make no bones: Three years and eleven one day matches of defeats against Australia, victory had nearly slipped away from India. It took everything up till the final ball for India to recover to a hard earned victory. Everything hinged on India believing there was a little more in the tank. It was an uphill climb before this game. They won’t forget that. Ponting certainly will make sure of that.

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.