Bosses should stop meddling and listen to cricketers
Mark Boucher, Temba Bavuma and the team have remained top of mind in the past fortnight. I realised how lucky and privileged I was to play in the amateur era. It was as competitive as today’s with its conflicts but without the intense responsibility, elevated media hype and focus, and the pressure to win at all costs. In those amateur days, the game was the thing.
The only commission of inquiry in my playing career was orchestrated by the Natal players themselves after a disastrous season in 1973. Our proposals included changing the selection panel, introducing team managers, improving the Natal Cricket Association (NCA) administration and having open dialogue with them. The NCA implemented all our proposals, and we won the Currie Cup the next year. The players invariably know the solutions.
Amateur or professional, the players at the coal face know the changes required and the Proteas voices need to be heard during the Cricket SA commission of inquiry.
Being called an amateur in those days was a compliment as it implies playing for the love of the game and playing fairly. The word, amateur, aptly, is derived from the Latin “to love”.
Today, the term amateur indicates being second rate and an underperformer. To be professional is the ultimate goal and that infers controlled behaviour and top performance. Alas, we humans want it all — victory with a touch of amateur, creative flair. There’s the rub.
GOAT
Today, statistics define careers. The definition of GOAT (greatest of all time) is statistically based. Novak Djokovic is considered the GOAT of tennis. Yet, to me, it is Roger Federer who inspires so many. Watching him play was akin to watching Rudolf Nureyev dance. This was artistry under pressure. Federer is my GOAT, as are Garfield Sobers, Muhammad Ali and HO de Villiers.
American poet and activist Maya Angelou wrote: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” GOATs inspire us to go beyond our dreams.
The art of the game excites, not the statistics. Denys Hobson treasured the art of wrist spinning. Hobson’s purpose was to bowl perfect leg-breaks and googlies. Oh, he was competitive too. His 14 wickets in one day at Newlands, against Natal, attests to that. Yet there was a child at play when he bowled.
On that fateful 14-wicket day, my reckless attempt at a lofted drive over extra cover was caught. Denys looked at me, not in glee, but with disappointment and exclaimed, “oh, Vincent”. There was no satisfaction in dismissing me with that abysmal shot. This kind of reaction epitomised Denys Hobson, the amateur.
The professional game gifts players financial stability, yet sometimes at the cost of freedom of play and expression, as we all sit in judgment. Constant media attention acts like a limpet mine, adding another layer of pressure. Boucher, Bavuma and the team have certainly been victims of that.
England have broken free from these restrictive professional shackles with their Baz Ball approach, so named after English coach Brendon McCullum’s destructive batting.
They believe they can win from any situation; they feel they can belligerently chase down any total. Common sense in the ICC men’s T20 final however prevailed. England shed the cloak of aggression at any cost as Ben Stokes restrained himself to play a perfect, controlled professional innings. He is a seasoned player used to winning trophies and is able to adjust his game accordingly. Trophies give the team real belief and Stokes, unusually, built a tournament winning innings in a T20 final.
CHOKER LABEL
The Proteas, by contrast, have the burden of the choker label. It makes winning in these ICC events twice as hard. The slightest nudge upsets a team’s equilibrium, as the Proteas found in the now infamous 2015 semifinal of the ICC ODI World Cup against New Zealand.
In Faf du Plessis’s frank autobiography, Through Fire, the meddling in that team selection is explained in detail. The team was unsettled by the intervention which crossed the wishes of coach, captain and team. Meddling in team affairs is costly.
When the Proteas eventually open up as to the reason for their poor performance against Pakistan and the Netherlands, it will be fascinating to uncover exactly what unsettled them. This needs to be understood to learn from these constant early ICC event exits. The selection panel’s decisions need to be analysed and honestly addressed. The Cricket SA commission of inquiry must strongly commit to this task.
The two new Protea coaches, when chosen, need to understand the undercurrents that produce poor performance. These are deep seated and require focused attention, before a new, positive fresh chapter unfolds. The players and captains can assist in the writing of this new thriller, but only if their voices are heard and the politicians stay out of the debate.