Forcing unequipped black players into a national side cannot be the answer, writes Drew Forrest One might think from the comments made by Department of Sport and Recreation spokesman Graham Abrahams that South Africa’s cricket establishment is crawling with unreconstructed racists bent on keeping black players out of the national side. Racial motives are imputed to white selectors and former players who attacked United Cricket Board (UCB) president Percy Sonn for forcing Justin Ontong on the South African squad in the third test against Australia. Hence Abrahams’s reference to the role of Clive Rice, Graeme Pollock and others in apartheid-era “rebel” tours. What are the facts, as distinct from crude political smears? The six-member selection panel that omitted Ontong includes just two whites Pollock and Mike Procter. And as the UCB itself seems to accept, their decision to field Jacques Rudolph was based on cricketing considerations. Blown away in two previous tests, the side desperately needed one or two big totals to regroup for the series in South Africa. Above all, it needed to prove to itself, and the opposition, that top leg-spinners Shane Warne and Stuart MacGill could be kept at bay on a Sydney wicket that favours spin. Ontong is a one-day specialist whose only previous international experience had been in the limited-overs game. But more significantly, Rudolph is a left-hander, making him less vulnerable to leg-break bowling. It is no accident that South Africa’s top scorer in the match, Gary Kirsten, is also left-handed.
Into these intricate calculations blundered Sonn, an administrator not famed for his diplomatic skills and who is responsible for broad policy, not operational detail. As a courtesy, he could have discussed his objections with the selectors. Instead, they learned of his decision from the television screen. What the episode really illustrates is the weakness of the selectors’ convener, Rushdi Magiet, rather than racist machinations. It was up to Magiet to resist pressure and justify the choice of Rudolph to the UCB bureaucrats.
There is no way of knowing how Rudolph would have done, but Ontong contributed a total of 41 runs a failure for a number six batsman by any objective standard. More importantly, Warne dismissed him in both innings. Ontong is a good player and may kick on if he is retained in the test squad but that is not the point. He was wrong for the circumstances and the decision about who was right should have been left to the former players on the selection panel appointed precisely for their expertise. One response may be to say that political symbolism is more important than maximising the chances of national sporting success the overwhelming majority of South Africans are black and national teams must register the changed political order whatever the consequences. This is, in the first place, a macro-concern that takes no account of the interests of individual players. Sonn did Ontong no favours by blooding him in a side with its back to the wall, against the greatest living spin-bowler on a turning pitch and in front of a baying Australian crowd. Assuming he has test potential, why not introduce him against Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka rather than arguably the best team in history or when South Africa has a series under its belt? Makhaya Ntini is an object lesson in the dangers of continued selection on political grounds when a player cries out to be rested. Ntini went steadily downhill with each test series last year, bottoming out with 3-184 in two tests against India and 0-77 at Adelaide. His confidence is manifestly shot and after cumulative poundings may now be much harder to rebuild. But the larger question is: Can South Africa afford to be so cavalier about winning? Never mind all the Olympic guff about international goodwill and clean-limbed athleticism. World sport is about individual and national glory. Nations that excel like Australia and the United States feel better about themselves than those that do not. It is often assumed that ordinary black South Africans are far more interested in the racial complexion of a cricket side than its rate of success. But how do we know this? Certainly, there seems to have been keen black interest in South Africa’s progress at the last World Cup and disappointment at its last-hurdle stumble. High national morale during the Nelson Mandela era was bound up with such highlights as gold in the Olympic marathon and success in the Africa Cup of Nations and Rugby World Cup. Subsequent setbacks in football, rugby and now cricket seem similarly linked to the country’s post-Mandela slump. It is winning and national pride, not the maintenance of racial privilege, which preoccupy people like Pollock and former selector Rice. They are outraged both by the series loss and the form it has taken. They cannot bear South Africa’s abject surrender to the cocky Australians. As former internationals, they understand the merciless pressures of world cricket, where no quarter is given and no concessions are made to players from disadvantaged backgrounds. They have experienced at first hand the gulf that separates the provincial and inter-national game. Where they have identified potential black stars who can further South Africa’s test cause, they have been willing to field them despite little first-class experience witness Mfuneko Ngam and persist with them despite early failures. Herschelle Gibbs went to the wicket 15 times before making his first test 50. This does not mean the demographics of the national side are irrelevant. It is true, but pointless to argue, that cricket is subject to political pressures from which other team sports like bowls and showjumping are exempt and that the racial make-up of the national cricket side merely reflects the sporting traditions of different communities. South Africa is not a politically normal country. Cricket is a major representative sport that collaborated with apartheid and can expect political heat. But the ideal, as the Guardian newspaper asserted this week, lies in “South Africa one day being represented by a team chosen on the basis of talent alone while accurately representing the country’s ethnic composition”. Forcing black players into the national side when they are not ready or suitably equipped, and continuing to pick them when they are hopelessly out of touch, cannot be the answer. The proper focus should be on why our provinces are turning out so few black players of test potential, despite racial quotas. Players of African origin Viv Richards, Gary Sobers, Michael Holding, Curtly Ambrose are among the greatest the game has known and their South African counterparts must be out there.
The excessive number of provincial sides in South Africa must be revisited, together with coaching and other technical services far inferior to those in the developed world. The emphasis on affirmative coaching appointments, to the exclusion of many whites with international experience, represents a perverse disservice to rising black players. It is here that Sonn should be directing his attention. His empty grandstanding in Australia at best missed the point, at worst did active harm to the deracialisation of cricket.