Reassurances about selection will create atmosphere of trust
Steve Smith and his Australian team arrived in SA on Saturday and the captain admitted to being “really, really excited” about the four-match Test series, which starts in Durban at the beginning of March.
“It is a fantastic country to play cricket in. It’s most similar to Australia of all the countries we play in and it’s a tour we all look forward to,” Smith said.
“I don’t know what sort of pitches we’ll get, but both teams have plenty of fast bowling so it’s going to be a challenge for the batsmen… But that’s what gets the adrenaline flowing and I’m looking forward to it.”
Smith singled out Kagiso Rabada and Morné Morkel as the two who posed “special” challenges but also admitted to being impressed by what little he had seen of Lungi Ngidi.
One of South African cricket’s most divisive issues came to an end a decade ago when the Cricket SA president’s selection veto was abolished. It was regarded with deep suspicion by the players, who felt it was archaic and served no modern purpose.
Frustrated by the slowness of transformation, Percy Sonn found a purpose for it six years earlier when he vetoed the selection of Jacques Rudolph in favour of Justin Ontong for a “dead” Test against Australia in Sydney.
Norman Arendse, too, used the veto in the same cause, notably when jettisoning Andre Nel for the inclusion of Charl Langeveldt (the more skilful bowler anyway).
In 2008 the players stated their case to the Cricket SA board. Then captain Shaun Pollock assured their employers that they were all committed to building a winning culture and a transformed team, in equal measure, but the veto undermined their best efforts.
“It is a crack, a faultline that runs right through the middle of everything we are trying to build,” he said.
The official veto was subsequently removed from the Cricket SA constitution but there remain plenty of ways for administrators, not just the president, to influence the selection of national teams.
All former Cricket SA CE Haroon Lorgat had to do before the 2015 World Cup semifinal, for example, was to “remind the selectors of their responsibility”.
Nothing creates instability and insecurity within a team as much as compromised selection. Cricket SA and its administration may be going through yet another period of upheaval and alternative agendas, but the players can still remain largely unaffected on the field — provided the selectors, captain and coach are still in charge of the starting XI.
Recent indications are contrary to that vital premise. Two things make it harder than ever for the players to digest: the first is that, unlike in the days of Sonn and Arendse, the ground rules for selection are now perfectly clear.
The second is that there is no question about the merit of any player in the squad.
So if the selectors, captain and coach agree that an extra batsman is required to balance the team, but a bowler or all-rounder makes the starting XI instead, for non-cricketing reasons, the entire squad is undermined.
To beat the Australians, Faf du Plessis and his players must have faith that they are being left alone to do what they do best on the field, just as the groundsmen must be left alone to do what they do best.
Smith may be interested to know that none of the curators at Kingsmead, St George’s Park, Newlands or the Wanderers has been contacted with “requests” for the Tests.
And with all but three of the 21 Sunfoil Series matches ending in draws, it may be less of a fast bowlers’ series than Du Plessis expects.
If the Cricket SA board wants the series to result in the first post-isolation victory against Australia on these shores, they would be well advised to recreate the atmosphere of trust that has characterised every period of success for the national team.
Starting with reassurances about the sanctity of selection would be good, and so would a guarantee that no effort will be made to abandon the revenuesharing model between Cricket SA and the players.