Juniors’ unilateral axing not cricket

FOLLOWING on the article about the Springboks written by Dougie Oakes and published in Weekend Argus, October 7, I thought it appropriate to share experiences and views on transformation issues in sport which are still affecting disadvantaged communities.

Soon after the unification of cricket in 1991, our cricket club was invited to participate in a junior tournament, the Cape Youth Cricket Festival, with schools from the Western and Eastern Cape. These schools were from previously advantaged communities.

At the time, junior cricket in the non-racial SA Cricket Board was organised by clubs and not schools. We presumed this was one of the reasons our club had been invited and also because we had a thriving junior division at the time.

The tournament has continued regularly since then and we have been a part of it for 24 years. It has become an event that the club and especially the juniors look forward to.

This year, we were asked by these schools to withdraw because they had “issues” with the behaviour of our team. We asked them to specify in writing what these issues were, but this has not been forthcoming.

They subsequently made a unilateral decision to go ahead with the tournament without us and invited someone else to participate in our place. The request for us to withdraw is an interesting strategy. In the case of any repercussions, their position could have been that we “voluntarily” withdrew.

We also experienced issues of questionable behaviour from some of these schools over the years. We, however, consider this part of the juniors’ development which needs to be addressed as such. In the absence of a written list of complaints, how do we know how serious the concerns are and whether they can be resolved or not?

It also needs to be noted that the experience of playing for a school with resources and financial backing is different from that of a communitybased club that relies on its members and community. A number of issues arise.

The school principals, who unilaterally decided on this course of action, show little or no understanding of the communities and backgrounds these youngsters come from, or they choose to disregard this. The unilateral action by these principals smacks of an apartheidstyle mentality. There is no place for this in our new dispensation.

What are we expected to conclude from this process? That now we have “served our purpose”, we can be summarily discarded? When we were initially approached, the profile of these schools was “too white” in terms of transformation requirements, but they probably now have a good mix and perhaps no longer need participation from clubs like ours.

What about the black kids at these schools, some of them on sports bursaries? Will they also be summarily discarded if they are of “no use” to these schools?

One of the major problems facing kids at this type of school is the transition when completing school. If you are taken up by one of the franchises, other CSA structures or get college bursaries, all is well and good.

The rest, talented as they are, run the risk of getting lost as their circumstances do not enable them to participate in luxuries such as sport.

Even if they are lucky enough to get assistance, managing a professional or work situation which might differ from that of home remains a challenge for many.

Do these principals understand what pressure and expectations (sports, societal and other) these black kids have to deal with and what difficulties they experience?

This is one of the major problems faced, not only by school kids, but black sports people generally. We wonder if these schools realise that, given our history, they are not doing any favours to these kids and that there is an expectation that people in their position address these issues in a holistic manner.

More than 20 years into our democracy, it does not seem that these principals have an understanding of the social and other dynamics that have an impact on people from previously disadvantaged communities.

The gap between previously and recently advantaged and previously disadvantaged remains an area of concern. It needs time to address effectively and requires the participation of all citizens.

However, one would have expected better from people who work with these dynamics almost every day.

The sad part remains that young minds will be influenced by this type of thinking from their teachers and mentors and this will affect the pace of real transformation.

This does not augur well for the future and needs to be addressed effectively.

PICTURE: LEON LESTRADE Prepaid electricity meters are great, but what about the water, asks the writer.