A sweet guy: Faf du Plessis has a smile and a pat for umpire Aleem Dar.
Dismissing the controversy of sugarcoating the cricket ball in order to assist with shine, and therefore swing, as a “laughable joke” sounded like arrogance of the highest order, but that is what the Proteas players and management genuinely believed.
The practice of applying saliva soaked with the sugar from various gummy and minty sweets has been going on for well over two decades and was first introduced to the South African squad by late, great coach Bob Woolmer in 1995, following his outstanding success in the English county championship with Warwickshire.
Faf du Plessis, by his own admission on Wednesday this week, has been doing something similar with “every team I have ever played in”. So when close-up footage of him doing exactly that with a clearly visible white mint in his mouth caused him to be charged with – and found guilty of – ball tampering, it was no surprise that he was upset.
A week of siege followed. Gutter-trained television reporters stalked him at every turn and the team’s in-house security guard allowed emotion to overrule training and protocol, aggressively tackling a reporter and shoulder-charging him into a glass window at Adelaide airport.
Du Plessis finally addressed the media on Wednesday, explaining that he had never intended to “disrespect them” by not talking following the charge, but that he was not allowed to.
“I was found guilty and I still totally disagree with that finding,” he said. “Ninety percent of the time we have sugary saliva in our mouths. It’s just a such grey area in the laws of cricket. It’s obviously something now to be looked at. Us cricketers, we think it will make a difference to the ball but we’re no scientists; we are not sure if it even does make a difference,” he said during a 25-minute conference with 60-plus journalists and 13 television cameras.
“I just think it’s opening up a can of worms,” he said.
Asked whether he thought he would be “sledged” by the Australian team, or the public, about the scandal during the third Test, which began on Thursday, Du Plessis said: “I don’t think the Aussies will talk about it at all because they know it’s part of their team as well. This has not been driven by the cricketers. You don’t expect to walk in to bat against Australia with a clap and a welcome to the crease, but no …
“As for the public, I’m not sure. I’m hoping cricketing sense will prevail. If you’re a cricketer, you’ll understand it’s not that big of a deal. It’s good media.”
It’s fair to say that some, if not most, local media were not convinced that Australian captain Steve Smith would be quite so forthright about ball-shining techniques, or even forthright at all. But he could not have punctured the story more dramatically, or earned more respect worldwide, if he had been coached to do so for a month.
“Every team around the world shines the cricket ball,” he said calmly. “I have seen Faf’s comments in his press conference [20 minutes earlier] and, from my point of view, and I make it very clear, we haven’t come out and said anything about Faf or about how he was shining the ball. We, along with every other team around the world, shine the ball the same way.” Gulp.
The vast majority of Australia’s media have been entirely decent, fair and even lauding of this South African team. A few pockets of tabloid hullaballoo have “gone hard”. To see their bombast come down in flames was undeniably enjoyable.
Nonetheless, it remains true that Du Plessis pleaded not guilty when he knew that he was, technically, guilty as charged. Applying an “artificial” substance to the ball is altering its natural state. David Becker, Du Plessis’s brilliant defence lawyer, argued that the International Cricket Council needed to prove that an altered state had occurred. The ICC chose the court of public and television opinion, the casual evidence of the eye.
Had the ICC charged Du Plessis with “attempting” to change the condition of the ball, they would have had no reason to doubt their case. But by pursuing, laying and finalising a charge of actual ball tampering without scientific evidence, they really have opened a can of worms.
“There is a big academic debate around this,” said Cricket South Africa chief executive Haroon Lorgat. “I’m aware of the pervasiveness of this issue. It’s not something new, but it’s something that needs to be looked at. We owe it to the fans, we owe it to the players, that the game is properly administered and consistently all of the laws are applied,” Lorgat said.
“We want to define the rules more carefully, and then it must be applied properly. Labelling people in the fashion that is being attempted is an unfortunate outcome. If they’re playing within the rules and doing what is necessary to maintain the shine on the ball, then that’s part and parcel of the game.”
Du Plessis was calmly assertive that the scandal would positively affect his team and scoffed at notions that they would be distracted. He also admitted that the “chaos” within the Australian team, which had six squad changes and three debutants for the final Test, was “pleasing”.
“I didn’t want to miss out on this,” he said at the prospect of a one-match ban. “We have played very good cricket; we have got something special going. Also, it’s a pink-ball Test, new to everyone. I don’t know how many pink-ball Tests will be played; this could be our first or our last. It’s special to experience; it’s what our lives are all about.”
History now beckons – a whitewash on Australian soil, just eight years after winning for the first time in a century of trying, and a hat-trick of wins to boot.