south africa fight a potent cocktail
Tim Wigmore on the four major causes that are creating a lack of strength in depth in the touring South Africans
For anyone interested in the state of South African cricket, the most revealing part of the English summer has already been and gone.Yes, the Test series will show the strength of their Test side.Yet, for the long-term vitality of South African cricket, their A team tour was in many ways more significant, for what it hinted at was a hollowing out of South African talent, and a system with less depth than at any time since readmission.
Resilience and tenacity have always been hallmarks of modern South African teams, regardless of the talent on display – which, in any case, has normally been formidable. For the A team in England this summer, it has been conspicuous by its absence. South Africa A were thrashed by England Lions by 257 runs and, even more ignominiously, were crushed in their previous match by an innings and 50 runs – to a Sussex team that amounted to their second XI with a couple of first team ringers thrown in. That’s the second XI of a Sussex team languishing in Division Two and, for the second year in a row, unlikely to win promotion back to Division One. It is a malaise that requires explanation, driven by a potent cocktail of four factors that are working against South Africa’s onfield playing strength: the balance of power in world cricket; the quota system; the weak rand; and Brexit.
First, the International Cricket Council. The reforms last week to the revenue structure and constitution were welcome, even if they amounted to considerably less progressive change than was mooted at the start of this year.
But they cannot conceal how South Africa – traditionally one of the world cricket’s ‘Big Four’, along with Australia, England and India, on the pitch, have long been left behind off it. Consider how India shortened their tour to South Africa in 2013/14, contravening a previous agreement seemingly largely because they did not like Haroon Lorgat, Cricket South Africa’s chief executive. India’s actions cost South Africa an estimated $11 million, which they will never recover.
Then there was the Big Three takeover in 2014, which amounted to Australia, England and India ganging up on the rest of the cricket world – even South Africa, who were Test world number one at the time. While these reforms have partly been peeled back, their legacy lives on. Even now, India will receive $278 million more than South Africa from the ICC between 2016 and 2023; England will receive $11 million more which, as their new £1.1 billion TV deal fro 2020-24 proved, is cash that the ECB simply doesn’t need. Perhaps most egregiously to South Africa, all six ICC global events from 2016-23 are being held exclusively in Big Three countries, depriving South Africa of a home event – increasingly important in international cricket – and the chance to galvanise the sport that hosting a major international tournament provides. In world cricket’s interminable power struggle, South Africa remain second-class citizens regardless of how they perform on the pitch.
And their on-field performances have also been undermined by quotas, which were made more aggressive from 201516. In many ways this was with good reason – at the time, only seven of the 90 Test players selected by South Africa since readmission had been black Africans, who account for 80 per cent of the country’s population; Lorgat has admitted that the board was “complacent” after the emergence of the brilliant Makhaya Ntini.Yet in the short-term, quotas are having a profoundly damaging impact on South Africa’s depth. They have encouraged a raft of white players, including Kyle Abbott and Simon Harmer, both thriving in county cricket, to leave South Africa; Abbott was controversially omitted for the 2015 World Cup semi-final for Vernon Philander. They might prove deleterious to team morale, if there is a perception that players classified as being of colour are not picked on merit. And they might also damage South Africa in another way. The requirement to meet the quotas target, worked out as an average of six players classed as being of colour, including two classed as black African, over a year means that the selectors risk being put off resting leading players when they need a break: Kagiso Rabada, then, could be flogged into the ground for political reasons.
As if that is not enough, factor in the weak rand, which renders life on South Africa’s domestic circuit unattractive for cricketers who could play abroad, and, combined with the balance of power in world cricket, means that AB de Villiers can earn far more playing in domestic T20 leagues than for his country. Then there is Brexit, which mean that South Africans fear their right to sign contracts to play in county cricket after 2019 are at risk and so are encouraged to do so now.
It adds up to the sense of a system under attack from all sides. South Africa have won their past two Test series in England, and might yet add a third consecutive victory this summer. Just do not mistake it for a sign of strength in depth.