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!

Formula One and Hamilton – A Heady Affair!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

The season is about to end just the way it started. Lewis Hamilton stormed his way into stardom and now the fate of the championship hinges on his! Who would have thought that Formula One would have such a sensational season in the very first year since Michael Schumacher’s retirement? Yet the season has roared on, ingloriously or otherwise, and no one could have predicted this kind of down-to-the-wire scorching finale! And Hamilton will, one way or another, determine who wears the crown made exclusive by the Ferrari’s phenomenal icon!

“Hamilton who?” was not only the banner held up by a Fernando Alonso fan. It was also on the lips of most racing aficionados. Would McLaren gamble on a rookie? Was this not the same McLaren that had two Finns heading their line up? Mika Hakkinen may have hung up his boots, but Kimi Raikkonen moved on. But both of them had sufficient star power even as they climbed into the prestigious seat. What was McLaren trying to pull off?

But Lewis Hamilton shrugged challenges of races, culture and a sore, vengeful past champion to make his entry into Formula One not only dramatic but also, one that history would feel proud to be have chronicled. Even Ferrari fans, who felt lost in the absence of their colossal icon, tried to stay loyal to two stars in Felipe Massa and Raikkonen, could not help but acknowledge Hamilton’s presence, admire even.

This is not an ode to a McLaren player against a Ferrari. (The author of this piece has moved where Schumacher has travelled and has ended up showing loyalty where Schumacher left her, in the Ferrai pit garage!) But this is a curious reflection on how a debut driver stands not only on the verge of being crowned champion but also, holding the fate of other established drivers, including a two time world champion in his nimble but firm fingers.

Hamilton went from one ‘fluke’ victory to a champion-like stand repeatedly. Causing consternation for Fernando Alonso was not on the agenda. But causing the world championship to change hands was. Alonso has gone from being heir apparent in Schumacher’s presence to a grouchy, bitter, and embattled and surprisingly aging champion. Empathy would perhaps best describe the emotion one feels for Alonso.

It is apparent Alonso has moved on from being reserved to being

McLaren have fallen from grace and ironically, in the same season they should have been hailed to take considerable risk on a debutant, one that would go on to challenge the world order, nay, turn it on its head.

The two week wait (a normalcy between races in the Formula one race season) seems suddenly interminable. The Brazilian Grand Prix, always a race held with fascination and trepidation, will now also hold the key to the suspense. No matter what happens, Hamilton will have a say. This page of the history of the Formula One season 2007 hinges on Hamilton. Go on, turn the page, Hamilton! Can’t wait to see what’s on the other side!

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.

South Africa- More Questions than Answers

by Trevor Chesterfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marginalisation of players

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marshmallow event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sport of winners

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

'There are two key elements to this vision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascinating Race of Unequal Equals!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winds of Change Sweeping across the Globe?

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Turmoil and transfers. Retirements and relegations. Sacked or silenced. Sport across the globe has seen mindless methodologies and expeditious, not to mention exorbitant, endorsements and sponsorship deals. Questions keep a-begging: if football transfers can be money raisers and club saviors, why can’t money spin for cricketers? The world order constantly threatens to undergo a change. But will it? It just might.
It is only appropriate coming out of a weekend that Formula One comes prominently to the mind. Even more so when the wet start to the day in Ireland has ensured that there be plenty of time to deliberate on sporting events across the globe happening at the same time or thereabouts.
With Michael Schumacher finally hanging up his boots (or did I speak too soon?), boring was writ large all over Formula 1. There was only one heir apparent. How was Formula One to keep up the tempo in the absence of arguably its most rambunctious, furiously fast, and a ruthless inspiration in Michael Schumacher? Kimi Raikkonen did burst on to the scene a little earlier on the scene. But not much else has gone his way. Where the Ice man’s career has been frozen, a Spaniard’s has been ignited. All that seemed to be missing was the obvious coronation of ‘King’ Fernando Alonso.
But then there was the familiar case of “Was that a bird? Was it a plane?” Only in this case, it was a certain coloured (unheard of in Formula One, shocking so) young individual who stole Alonso’s thunder from right under his nose! Lewis Hamilton could not have timed his entry into Formula One any better. The exit of one champion has most certainly heralded the coming of another. To have finished at the top of the podium in all the races of the season thus far, Hamilton has stolen the (McLaren) team’s limelight, relegating the world champion to the backstage (Alonso certainly felt like it).
In all the Hamilton euphoria which could only have enhanced the fierce competitiveness of Formula One racing, another power struggle was brewing within the Ferrari camp. Raikonnen should have been the outright star induction in the Ferrari camp. Instead Felipe Massa has already shown in the earlier part of the season why he has been a worthy understudy to Schumacher. He had been waiting in the wings, unlike Reubens Barrichello who will go down in history as Schumacher’s most worthy team mate and an exemplary right hand man but a talent controversially unharnessed. Call it the price you pay for a seat in the Ferrari!
The personality of Schumacher may be hard to replicate. Formula One has plenty of characters at the moment to ensure that Formula One is not an endangered species any time soon. But there is no cutting in between with Michael Schumacher. It was either love him or hate him. Some things never do change.
But there is a third angle to another gentleman. You can love him, hate him or ignore him. Ignore him, except at Wimbledon. That though can be quite tricky. Agreed that Wimbledon takes a day off on a Sunday. However, how can this weekend in the year be left bereft without a thought for one of the most arguably lavish tennis tournaments anywhere in the world? Why this weekend becomes more important than most other Wimbledon weekends is the fact that week two of this year’s prestigious Grand Slam will not see Britain’s favourite (and perhaps only real hope at best) Tim Henman. For a decade now, all of Great Britain has attached romance to Wimbledon as their (only) knight in shining armour thrived on the surge of euphoria at home to put up a performance of a lifetime. Judging by Boris Becker’s apt comment that wild card entries should have been served out on a platter keeping the future of the nation in mind, Wimbledon will perhaps struggle a little bit harder his time in the years to come to draw the same deep emotions that have seen crowds throw their hearts behind their one realistic British hope.
The reason why this Wimbledon is going to feel more damp and cold than at any other time in over a decade is due to an impressive Feliciano Lopez showing the subtle nuances of a defeat handed swiftly, perhaps bringing home a few key points to bear of where the future of British tennis stands. To Henman’s credit, this will not have been an uneventful exit, having survived a marathon five setter to trounce Carlos Moya in the opening round. Sadly his ecstasy and that of the home ground will be a short lived affair, at least this year. Britain’s dry run continues.
Well by the time the idea for this article formulated, the rain decided to stay away after all and soon Ireland, or at least a little stadium down in Belfast, was abuzz with a decider that India so desperately needed to win and South Africa had no intention of losing. A slugfest would best describe the happenings back in Belfast. In the end, it was a case of the team who withstood the punches and actually had strength enough to dish out the final knockout punch.
The match after a six hour wait was well worth it as both teams showed triumph through toil. South Africa’s early debacle called on Herschelle Gibbs and Justin Kemp to pull out the final heroics for the series. It nearly proved the series clincher. But for Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh, India found themselves in a similar hole that needed some serious digging to get out of. The match teetered to a nail biting finish, though it should never have given than India had six wickets in hand.
Mickey Arthur may not have found all the answers he was seeking on this tour. One of the few coaches to have survived a rocky World Cup, Arthur may well head back home with the same nagging, lingering worries about a bowling attack that can decimate the opposition on one day and look woefully pedestrian when the opposition determines to take it apart. India will have fewer worries for the moment, at least till they touch English shores. The boys may have just earned themselves a little more free rein in the absence of a coach. For the time being, it’s an age no bar party, led by none other than Sachin Tendulkar!

Time to Play that Forgotten Series

By Trevor Chesterfield

Ten months ago, well . . . a little less now as we are nearing the end of June, there was mayhem and a lot of finger pointing going on in Colombo.
South Africa, led by Mark Boucher, were caught in the middle of what turned out to be an assassination attempt on the Pakistan High Commissioner, and decided enough was enough. Home, with its hijackings and daylight robberies, came the suggestion was felt to be a lot safer.
This was, of course, despite police suggesting armoured protection, wearing bullet vests, and other extreme safety precautions. Forgotten was that despite the deluge at the end of the monsoon season, a triangular series was about to be played.
No matter all the good intentions, dressing up players in garb designed to stop your every day chandiya (thugs) from causing disorder is going to be the first indication that while they are here to play Sri Lanka and India, cricket has become an incidental part of the visit.
Now, if you read the itinerary South Africa have agreed to on their tour of Pakistan in a couple of months to play in Karachi, where they riot over exorbitantly long power cuts and storm banks and wreck restaurants in the process. Pakistan is a nation where extremism leads to journalists being beheaded.
In fact, a quick check of failed states has Pakistan in the top 10 bracket and Karachi is not a city where tourists of any sort willingly tread. But typecasting cities and stereotyping its citizens as betel chewing terrorists is a generalising insult to the country, Karachi as a city, and its teeming population.
Even in Colombo, you won't find Chandiyas lurking at every street corner and trishaw jockeys are fair-minded types. They may try and wheedle the extra few rupees out of what tourists there are, but that is part of the fun in hiring a trishaw. Living in this part of the world, by choice, is what you make of it.
Even in New Zealand, an email from a relative suggests that in the city of my Alma Mater, Wanganui, they now have drive-by shootings. Yeah. Sure it gets scary.
The point here is that South Africa owe Sri Lanka a postponed limited overs series. If the Safs (the name Proteas, a spiky flower without any genuine scent, is one that has never sat comfortably in my thoughts), can go to Karachi in Pakistan, what is wrong with Colombo?
Oh, okay . . . If they insist on playing it in Dambulla, fine. Let's go to Dambulla and visit the Rock Temple on a day off. Even climb the world cultural heritage site of Sigiriya, if my legs can take it.
As part of the agreed future tours programme, and not something that has been sneaked as an extra (as the West Indies Cricket Board had the cheek to do), the Unitech Series is still an event that has to be played as part of the general programme.
No doubt, while they are at Lord's, in London, before sitting down to the annual dinner with its foie gras patê starter and chilled Chablis, with discredited types as Zimbabwe's Peter Chingoka and his chief executive side kick, Bvute, Sri Lanka Cricket's chairman and CEO, Jayantha Dharmadasa and Duleep Mendis might remind the South African delegation of their obligations.
Just a tap on the shoulder would do. They have, it is understood from sources in the Caribbean, already met and discussed the issue of the shelved series. Emirate sources also suggest that if the South Africans are still concerned about playing in Sri Lanka, there are alternative venues available.
Remember if you will that Australia went this route some years ago and borrowed P Saravanamuttu Oval for the first Test all because of the riots in Pakistan. At least Colombo is far safer than Karachi. They may hold demonstrations, and protest about certain aspects of life, but you don't get riots, even over power cuts.
There is nothing wrong with South Africa playing the series here this time of year; or any time of year as long as it doesn't coincide with the worst days of the monsoon. Security is pretty good. So, what's the beef? If it’s scheduling, the games can be played before the Pakistan tour as Sri Lanka, until the marshmallow twenty/20 event in South Africa in September, have a free period. So, what's wrong with an extra slog series being added to the programme?
The only complaint here is that hopefully visiting journalists won't be used to try and get in on the act and urged by others, tell me what I should and should not write, as happened last time.
Cricket South Africa have come out in support of the International Cricket Council's decision to ban officials who were involved in the World Cup final debacle, Rudi Koertzen among them.
The CSA chief executive, Majola, talking from London, said the decision to suspend the five officials from the World Twenty20 Championships in South Africa was to 'be applauded'. This was despite the suspension 'of South African cricket's favourite son, Rudi Koertzen, we feel that match officials need to be punished, like captains and players, for transgressions. We at CSA took a decision at our last meeting to request the ICC to adopt this approach after several major blunders by match officials. Captains are fined and face suspensions for relatively minor infringements of the regulations such as slow over rates, yet officials get away with errors that change the outcome of matches. We believe they, too, need to be held accountable for their actions.'
Ironically, Koertzen and match referee Jeff Crowe, in Sri Lanka for the Tests against Bangladesh, are two of the officials who have been banned for that tournament. Not that they'll miss it. Like rugby and football, Twenty/20 is about as palatable as sucking on an after dinner mint: tacky and forgettable.
While Crowe shouldered the blame for the World Cup final fiasco, the former New Zealand captain wasn't the only one at fault. No doubt when he's next back in South Africa, he will enjoy a bottle of one of the world's great wines, Warwick 'three ladies' from the small estate in the Mulder's Vlei (river) Valley. It has been ranked along with that of some of the best Medoc wines of which Chateau Margeaux comes at a much higher price.