CRICKET
Peter Robinson
Along with soaring sales of pool chemicals and taxi blockades (although this last tends to be an event for all seasons), one of the rites of the South African spring is to watch the national cricket selectors trip over their own feet as they stride purposefully towards the new summer.
Two years ago they contrived to axe Daryll Cullinan from the one-day team to visit Kenya and left him to learn of his omission on the radio. At the same time they gave a less-than-wholehearted endorsement of Hansie Cronje’s captaincy by appointing him to the position only until halfway through the series against England.
With the benefit of hindsight, you could argue that the selectors knew something we didn’t. Equally, though, you could say that this equivocation might have helped turn Cronje’s thoughts towards Marlon and Banjo and MK and whoever.
Last year Neil McKenzie was taken to Nairobi for the Knockout 2000 tournament, didn’t get a game and was promptly dropped. None of the selectors travelled to Kenya; neither did they consult coach Graham Ford who was left to explain to McKenzie exactly what it was he was doing wrong.
This week the selectors announced the squad for the Test matches and one-day internationals against Zimbabwe next month. As expected Shaun Pollock was named captain. What was not expected was the look of bemusement that crossed selection convener Rushdi Magiet’s face when he was asked whether Pollock had been appointed for the whole season. “I’m sure there should be no problem,” Magiet eventually ventured.
In which case, why not give Pollock the job for the season? As Magiet conceded, there is no problem with Pollock’s captaincy (apart from a rather annoying habit of emitting a high-pitched cackle in moments of great excitement). So where is the ringing endorsement? Put simply, why couldn’t the selectors have come out and said that Polly’s our man and we’re with him all the way?
What is suggested is a lack of conviction, a state of mind that seems to have gripped the United Cricket Board (UCB) as an organisation for some time now. The UCB appears to be conscious of the need to move forward, but not entirely clear in its own mind of the direction to take.
Which brings us around, finally, to Jonty Rhodes. Rhodes is in the side for the one-dayers against Zimbabwe, but not the Tests. He was available for the Tests, said Magiet, but not chosen.
At approximately the same time that the Zimbabwe squads were announced, however, Rhodes was busy telling the Daily News in Durban that he still didn’t want to play Test cricket. He reiterated his two long-standing concerns his commitments as a father and a husband and his worry that playing both forms of the game might not see him last until the World Cup in 2003 and added a third: that by choosing his Test series he might disrupt the dressing room.
The official UCB line is that in terms of his contract Rhodes has to be available for Test and one-day cricket, as is the case with Allan Donald and, probably, will be for Cullinan.
With the South African middle order in a state of flux, it is hardly possible to believe Rhodes would not add experience and fizz to the entire side, and the real point is that you can’t look at the Zimbabwe tour without the spectre of Australia at the end of the year looming into view.
There is barely a person in the country who believes South Africa can do without Rhodes for the Test matches in Australia. Among them are Ford and Ali Bacher, who have both said publicly in recent weeks that Rhodes and Donald would be invaluable to the South African cause.
As it stands, though, it’s not that straightforward. If the selectors leave Rhodes out for the Tests against Zimbabwe and perhaps for those against India and ask him to play against Australia, then effectively the panel will be allowing him to pick and choose his series, precisely what the UCB says it’s trying to avoid.
There could be a way around these convolutions, and that would be for the UCB to offer separate Test and one-day contracts with a substantial bonus added on for those who accept both packages. At least that way everyone would know exactly where they stand, on both sides of the fence.
Let’s put it another way: what do you imagine the reaction of the Australian board would be if some of its most senior players said “we’re quite keen on the one-dayers, but not too interested in the five-day stuff”?
Peter Robinson is the editor of CricInfo South Africa