Whatever his real or imagined shortcomings as a leader, the dignity with which Shaun Pollock dealt with his dismissal as South African captain at the weekend raised his stature as a man and a cricketer.
Pollock is self-evidently the highest-profile casualty of South Africa’s failure to progress beyond the preliminary round of the World Cup. While he, and the South African team management, have been vilified for the side’s failure to score one more run in the tied match against Sri Lanka, both he and, apparently, the selectors and the United Cricket Board’s UCB) general council believe that it was his lack of management skills that finally cost him his job.
He was offered the option of resigning on Saturday, but declined to do so on the grounds, he said, that it would have been taking the soft option. Because the selectors cannot dismiss or appoint a captain, the general council and the national cricket council were hastily convened on Saturday afternoon. Shortly after the dinner break at Kingsmead during the match between Australia and Kenya it was revealed that Pollock had been relieved of his position. Shortly after that, the present of the KwaZulu-Natal Cricket Union, Logan Naidoo, inadvertently named Graeme Smith as his successor.
Insofar as the manner of his dismissal was concerned, Pollock limited himself to saying that he felt a decision had already been taken before he met the selectors on Friday evening.
Behind all this was persistent speculation about Pollock’s inability to mould the South African team, and particularly a coterie of senior players, into a cohesive whole. At his press conference at Kingsmead on Sunday morning, Pollock dismissed the persistent rumours of a rift in the team. The fact is, though, that it is widely believed that players such as the vice-captain Mark Boucher and Jacques Kallis failed to support their captain.
If anything the form of South Africa’s senior players during the World Cup was the greatest cause for concern during the campaign, rather than the failure to inform Boucher that he still needed one more run at Kingsmead. No team can hope to win anything if senior players fail to come up to expectations. They are senior players in the first place because of their past records, but in this World Cup too many of them appeared to be playing from memory and reputation.
It may be that the sacking of Pollock was a knee-jerk reaction, but captains have to live with the possibility of becoming scapegoats. At his press conference, Pollock alluded to the powers enjoyed by Hansie Cronje before his fall from grace and the fact that the UCB had not afforded his successor the same degree of control. The UCB’s line on this is that Pollock was given all the powers he needed to run the team, but failed to use them.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but it ought to be born in mind that it was not necessarily the amount of power wielded by Cronje that brought about his downfall, but the fact that he abused this power. No matter that in the eyes of many Cronje remains some kind of hero, the decline of the national side stems directly from the betrayal of trust that led to his disgrace. Sadly, too many of the current side have neither accepted nor come to terms with the fact that Cronje let them down.
With Pollock pushed aside, however, the question of Smith’s ability to succeed him looms large. At 22, with only a handful of Test matches and one-day internationals under his belt, Smith’s appointment is either a bold step into the future or a massive gamble. Or possibly both.
Many who know Smith believe he has the mental toughness to pull a splintering side back together. Against this stand his alarming lack of experience and a number of fairly obvious technical deficiences. He will lead the team first to Sharjah and Bangladesh, but this will almost certainly make up his honeymoon period. A five-Test tour to England lies ahead this year that might make or break him, both as a captain and an international player.
The greatest cause for concern is that Smith could find himself struggling for his own form on seaming pitches. He has not played in England before and like almost all South African batsmen before him may take time to adjust to the conditions. The problem is that he may not have time. If he is to gain the complete confidence and support of those who have toured England before, and he it is likely that he will need to score a significant number of runs to win this confidence.
The Australian method is to pick their best team and then appoint a captain from within the side. South Africa appear to have gone in the opposite direction by choosing a captain before assembling a team. Just seven weeks ago Smith was not among the 15 chosen for the World Cup. Now he is in charge. It is an elevation that has happened with disturbing speed.
Since readmission South Africa have toured England twice, drawing a three-Test series 1-1 in 1994 and losing a five match series 2-1 in 1998. On both occasions South Africa were led by experienced captains, Kepler Wessels and Cronje. On both occasions, too, they probably had stronger squads than is likely to be given to Smith.
This may all be to paint the bleakest possible picture of Smith’s prospects, but South African cricket is beyond the point where optimism and wishful thinking will solve the immediate problems, let along those lurking beneath the surface. What should be apparent to all is the immensity of the task Smith has been asked to do. Only time will tell whether he has the strength of purpose to succeed.