What’s in a batting order? Too much opinion, not enough fact

Ray Jennings sent Andrew Hall out to open the batting in Kanpur in November 2004. South Africans, cricket’s flat earthers, thought Jennings was mad. Hall scored 163. South Africans still think Jennings was, and remains, mad.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

HOW many players have batted in all 11 positions in men’s Test cricket? Out of the 2 989 who have taken guard in the 2 365 matches yet seen, three.

Syd Gregory, Wilfred Rhodes and Vinoo Mankad are the only members of maybe the most exclusive club in the game. They are the top 0.100368016058883 percentile.

Cricket being the anally obsessive silliness it is, that’s hardly surprising. The bounder! How dare he assume, just because he swats an old ball and tired bowlers about down there at No. 6, he is also capable of opening the batting? Has the man no idea of his station in life?

What is surprising is that as many as nine players have bounced around 10 spots in the order. You could see one of them looming large behind big sunglasses and an even bigger moustache in India’s dressingroom during South Africa’s tour.

Ravi Shastri, now India’s coach, began his career as a No. 10 against New Zealand at the Basin Reserve in February 1981 and ended it as an opener against South Africa at St George’s Park in December 1992. Somehow, over the course of 11 years and 121 Test innings, big Ravi never made it all the way down to No. 11.

None of the nine, as indeed the three, are South African. That, too, is hardly a shock. South Africa could win awards for staidness, for refusing to believe there is a world outside the box. They are the flat earthers of cricket. When plan A doesn’t work, they are all out of plans.

Consequently, South Africans don’t like people who think they’re special. Gregory, born on the site of what is now the Sydney Cricket Ground, and with his father, uncle, brother, brother-in-law and cousin all either first-class or Test players, would have been far too tall a poppy for us to take seriously.

Rhodes was, most famously, an ace left-arm spinner. So that’s him done for in the South African way of looking at these things, even though he had a streak of fast bowler’s mongrel. A proper Yorkshireman, Rhodes refused to crack a smile when the Marylebone Cricket Club awarded him honorary membership in 1949. Instead he raised a suspicious eyebrow and said, “I don’t rightly know what it means yet.”

Mankad added his name to cricket’s lexicon by pulling up in his delivery stride while bowling for India in Sydney in December 1947 to run out non-striker Bill Brown, who was stealing ground by advancing up the pitch before the ball had been delivered. Mankading, the practice was instantly named. Too bloody special by half, this fella.

Remember when Ray Jennings sent Andrew Hall out to open the batting in Kanpur in November 2004? South Africans thought Jennings was mad. Hall scored 163. South Africans still think Jennings was, and remains, mad.

So what happened in Ranchi in the third Test against India represented a spark of revolutionary thinking. On the Saffer scale, at least. Quinton de Kock was in South Africa’s XI, as usual. But he wasn’t keeping wicket! Or batting at No. 7! Or even at No. 6!

He was opening!

Stru’s bob. There was Dean Elgar. And there, with him, daring to believe he was an opening batter, was De Kock. If you blinked you would have missed him: he lasted six balls in each innings. That’ll teach him. Know your place.

De Kock had opened before — at Centurion in August 2017 — and scored 82 and 50. But that was an emergency measure taken after Elgar stood on the boundary and twisted an ankle.

This, too, was a desperate move, prompted by what became South Africa’s worst performance in a series in 83 years. Before their routing in Ranchi, not since March 1936 had they lost consecutive Tests by an innings.

But De Kock’s elevation could serve to start a conversation about whether the batting order, as we have come to accept it, remains fit for purpose. Consider what happened across the dressingroom divide: neither Rohit Sharma nor Mayank Agarwal had opened the batting in India before they walked out to do so together in the first Test in Visakhapatnam. Four innings each later they had scored five centuries between them, including a double ton apiece.

So much for specialisation, which unlike specialness South Africans take too seriously for their own good. That’s why they tied themselves into knots about which of Temba Bavuma or Faf du Plessis should bat at No. 4. Opinions on this non-issue flew as frequently as the sixes Sharma kept hitting off the South Africans’ flaccid bowling, and came mostly from blowhards who offered little except their unsubstantiated views.

Cricket is beset with know-it-alls who confuse the rest of us with people who care what they think. Social media has only encouraged them. You could avoid them in the pub, but refusing to let them catch your attention on Facebook is more difficult.

Rather than put up with bores droning on about why whoever should bat wherever, we could shut them up by knowing how whoever has fared at every stage of every innings in terms of the number of balls that had been bowled when they arrived — taking into account the match situation, the conditions, and the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses.

So if Du Plessis has scored four centuries in six innings when he has taken guard with three wickets down and South Africa 200 runs behind on a turning pitch against attacks that feature more than one spinner, he should bat ahead of anyone who has been less successful in that situation. Bar nothing and no-one.

And if Elgar hasn’t had much success against left-arm quicks on greentops, and the opposition unleash two southpaws with the new ball, he shouldn’t come in before the ball is 45 overs old.

Batting orders should be fluid enough to be chopped and changed at a moment’s notice, not stuck in a linear logjam based not on hard data but on some swami’s say-so.

We’ll need a cricket crazy 12-year-old to design the algorithm, but the world isn’t short of them. Then we’ll need to convince the fogeys. Or get Jennings’ buy-in, which probably wouldn’t be difficult.

Syd Gregory, Wilfred Rhodes and Vinoo Mankad would, you hope, see the sense of this, even if others won’t.

Maybe that’s why they’re the top 0.100368016058883 percentile.

First published by Times SELECT.

CSA say SACA saga prompted suits’ suspension

History of sidelining those outside dominant cabal could be repeating itself.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

CRICKET South Africa (CSA) say the latest impasse in their fractious relationship with the South African Cricketers’ Association (SACA) is why they suspended three senior staff members.

But insiders regard that explanation with suspicion. Asked whether a rat should be smelled, one well-placed source said the reporter had “an immaculate sense of smell”.

TMG Digital broke the news on Tuesday that interim director of cricket Corrie van Zyl, sponsor and sales head Clive Eksteen and chief operating officer Naasei Appiah had been removed from their positions.

Van Zyl confirmed that as fact but declined to comment further. Eksteen and Appiah did not respond meaningfully.

A CSA release on Wednesday said the organisation had “recently become aware of an unfortunate situation involving players and player contracts, through player intermediary [SACA] in which speculation and indeed allegations of dereliction were levelled against CSA, following alleged non-payment of player fees, stemming from the Mzansi Super League [MSL] arrangement, in 2018”.

SACA lodged a formal dispute last Wednesday over the failure by CSA to pay R2.4-million into their players’ trust — the terms of the contract the player body signed with CSA for the use of their commercial rights for the MSL.

“CSA is in the process of investigating this matter to determine the extent to which certain CSA employees were or were not derelict in fulfilling their duties,” the release said.

“This is in line with the effort of ensuring that the principle of accountability is applied equally, fairly and without fear or favour throughout the organisation. 

“Whilst the investigation of this matter is in progress employees who are alleged to have been involved in this matter have been placed on precautionary suspension until the investigation is completed, following which disciplinary action could be instituted against the affected employees.”

The move has taken significant experience out of CSA’s knowledge bank at a time when the organisation can least afford it.

Van Zyl and Eksteen played for South Africa, and Van Zyl coached the national men’s team before being appointed CSA’s general manager for cricket in December 2011. Appiah arrived at CSA in October 2010 as chief financial officer.

Beleaguered by legal battles on three fronts, awash with interim appointments, and embroiled in a transformation squabble over the Cobras’ decision to field only two black Africans — instead of the target of three — in their four-day match against the Warriors at Newlands this week, CSA can ill afford another scandal.

That’s especially true with the national men’s Test team still under the cloud of their worst performance in a series in 83 years.

Faf du Plessis side were beaten 3-0 in India, the last two losses suffered by an innings.

The last time South Africa were as heavily defeated was by Australia in March 1936.

Eksteen, who joined CSA in October 2015 as their commercial manager, has been in trouble with his bosses before.

During the St George’s Park Test in March last photographs of him posing with fans trying to antagonise David Warner by wearing Sonny Bill Williams face masks emerged on social media.

Before she was involved with Warner, the Australian’s wife, the then Candice Falzon, had a brief but well publicised liaison with All Blacks star Williams.

That saga, which prompted the resignation of then communications head Altaaf Kazi, who was also in the photograph, was seen as part of an effort to rid CSA of figures not in the dominant cabal.

The same scenario unfolded in September 2017, when Haroon Lorgat left his position as chief executive over what CSA said was his poor handling of arrangements for the T20 Global League, which became the MSL.    

The current controversy is laced with similar undertones, with figures within the game fearing the drama is an attempt to clear the decks of opposition to the powers that be.

Even so, the fate of Van Zyl and Appiah is surprising.

Van Zyl has seemed central to powerful chief executive Thabang Moroe’s brave new direction for CSA, while Appiah is a long-time Moroe ally. But insiders say Moroe and Appiah had a major fallout about two months ago.

SACA, the players’ trade union, are in the throes of a high court action against CSA for plans to restructure the domestic system than could see 70 players lose their jobs, and will no doubt have taken note of being downgraded in Wednesday’s release to a mere “player intermediary”. 

The Western Province Cricket Association are also in CSA’s queue of court cases, having sought an interdict against the latter for their decision to put the province’s board under administration.

At some point, surely, CSA will be fighting more fires than they could possibly put out. 

First published by TMG Digital.

CSA suspend senior suits

“With Corrie [van Zyl] and Clive [Eksteen] gone they really don’t have cricket expertise in their senior management ranks.” – a source on CSA’s shock move

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

THREE of Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) most senior staff have been suspended, Bulletproof Truth has learnt.

Interim director of cricket Corrie van Zyl, sponsor and sales head Clive Eksteen and chief operating officer Naasei Appiah have all been removed from their positions.

That the action was taken against them was confirmed, off the record, by a high-ranking senior official. Staff were informed at a meeting.

Asked why the decisions were taken, CSA spokesperson Thami Mthembu said, “CSA will issue a statement tomorrow morning.”

Van Zyl declined to comment, while Appiah and Eksteen did not respond meaningfully to requests for comment.

Several sources contacted didn’t know the reasons for the action, although the fallout from the South African Cricketers’ Association’s formal dispute with CSA over R2.4-million still owed the players from last year’s Mzansi Super League has been mooted as an explanation. 

“With Corrie and Clive gone they really don’t have cricket expertise in their senior management ranks,” a source with knowledge of the situation said.

Eksteen has been in trouble with his bosses before, notably during the St George’s Park Test in March last year when he was photographed with fans trying to antagonise David Warner by wearing Sonny Bill Williams face masks.

Before she was involved with Warner, his wife, the then Candice Falzon, had a brief but well publicised affair with Williams.

 The fate of Van Zyl and Appiah is more surprising. Van Zyl has seemed central to powerful chief executive Thabang Moroe’s brave new direction for CSA, while Appiah is a long-term ally of Moroe.

But insiders say Moroe and Appiah had a major fallout about two months ago, which could be why Appiah has lost Moroe’s support.

CSA, beleaguered by legal battles on three fronts and strewn with interim appointments, can ill afford another scandal — especially with the national men’s Test team still under a cloud of their worst series in 83 years.

Faf du Plessis side were beaten 3-0 in India, the last two losses suffered by an innings.

The last time South Africa were as heavily defeated was by Australia in March 1936.

First published by TMG Digital.

SA players struggle to make first-class impact

The argument that the franchise system is where South Africa’s problems start is not as sound as its proponents would have us believe.

TELFORD VICE at Newlands

SOUTH African cricket’s domestic competitions are in as sharp focus as the national team in the wake of the latter’s disastrous Test series in India.

And the former are ahead on the bigger picture’s scoreboard in the current round of franchise first-class matches.

Only six of the dozen fit players who shambled to a 3-0 loss in India are playing for their franchises.

None of them made an impact on the first day’s play on Monday, although only four had the opportunity.

That asks questions of the prevailing view that the quality chasm between domestic and international cricket is an important reason why South Africa were so disappointing against Virat Kohli’s team.

Heinrich Klaasen and Zubayr Hamza did not bat for the Titans and the Cobras on Monday, and in Tuesday’s first session, in their games against the Knights and the Warriors. *

But Senuran Muthusamy did for the Dolphins against the Lions, and managed only 23 off 58 balls in almost two hours before he skied a pull to midwicket.

Lungi Ngidi bowled 13 overs for the Titans and took 1/59.

Dane Piedt had a similar day at the office for the Cobras, claiming 1/57 off 23.

Teammate George Linde went wicketless in nine overs that yielded 22 runs.

None of those performances were particularly poor, but they also didn’t illustrate why the standard in the domestic arena is so far below what it needs to be for South Africa to perform better at international level.

Piedt took another wicket in the morning session on Tuesday, when Linde went to lunch with figures of 3/67.

But Ngidi found no more success in the five overs he bowled, in which he went for 25 runs.

Muthusamy bowled only one over before lunch and conceded three runs.

While all that wasn’t happening, Raynard van Tonder, the Knights’ 21-year-old opening batter, was busy scoring 204.

Five other allegedly lesser lights banked scores of between 61 and 70. 

No doubt the South Africa players are re-adjusting to their home conditions after weeks in the sub-continent, and perhaps they are still recovering from the physical and mental aspects of the beating they took there.

But the argument that the franchise system is where South Africa’s problems start is not as sound as its proponents would like us to believe.

Could it be the other way around — that because South Africa’s players consider themselves so superior to what is seen week in, week out on the country’s major grounds that they don’t pay the domestic game the required respect?

And that, consequently, they are being exposed as arrogant and complacent when they can least afford it?

That’s too neat an explanation, but it deserves to be part of the conversation that cricket in South Africa must have with itself if it is to improve.

* Klaasen was eight not out at stumps, Hamza was caught behind for a fifth-ball duck.

First published by TMG Digital.

SA players conspicuous by first-class absence

“I don’t know a lot about domestic structures because I don’t spend a lot of time in domestic structures.” – Faf du Plessis

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

ONLY six of the 15 players who featured for South Africa in the men’s Test series in India are in action for their franchises in the four-day matches that started on Monday.

Aiden Markram, Dean Elgar and Keshav Maharaj have valid reasons for not playing: they’re injured.

But the rest of the squad who delivered South Africa’s worst series result in 83 years — they lost 3-0, twice by an innings — have a case to answer.

When a team have performed as poorly as they have, in all departments, they least they can do is be seen to be finding answers for their problems.

And especially so when their only available avenue to give a better account of themselves in the series against England, which starts in Centurion on December 26, is to play for their franchises.

But only Heinrich Klaasen, Senuran Muthusamy, Lungi Ngidi, Dane Piedt, Zubayr Hamza and George Linde reported for duty on Monday.

That leaves Faf du Plessis, Temba Bavuma, Theunis de Bruyn, Quinton de Kock, Anrich Nortjé and Vernon Philander up the creek without the paddle of an excuse for not being on the field.

They would have done well to use the downtime to watch Dale Steyn in a television interview on Monday and take seriously what he said: “If you get off that wheel you lose your fitness, you lose your competitive edge and it’s something that I’ve tried to hold on to during the rains here in Cape Town.”

Steyn was talking about the relentlessness needed by players in T20 tournaments, but his words apply as much to South Africa’s current situation.

On his return from India on Friday, Du Plessis told reporters that “I don’t know a lot about domestic structures because I don’t spend a lot of time in domestic structures.”

Whose fault is that? And why did Hashim Amla spend the India series sitting on a couch in SuperSport’s studio rather than playing franchise cricket to make the game stronger? 

“Unfortunately, in South Africa right now, players that retire from international cricket are not going to stay and play domestic cricket,” Du Plessis said. “They will either play overseas or retire completely.

“Hashim Amla and those guys, you can’t expect them to go back and play four-day cricket because they won’t. They won’t do that.

“They’ve been in the international game for so long, they are either going to move on to different pastures — not necessarily greener pastures — but then they will also completely stop.

“I don’t think it’s a real expectation to have, to say those guys must go and play domestic cricket because I don’t think it’s a reality that will most likely ever be met.

“India was a really tough tour mentally, and to just say to the guys, ‘Now you have to go and play’, won’t be the right way to go about it.

“If a guy doesn’t want to go and play what’s the point of him playing. There will be no benefit.”

There has to be a better argument for players not turning out for their franchises than “because they won’t”.

If their bosses — Cricket South Africa — order them to play who are they to say they won’t? 

David Warner had almost a month off after the Ashes. But then he played two Sheffield Shield matches and a one-day game for New South Wales and, four days after that, turned out for Australia again in a T20 against Sri Lanka.

That’s not to suggest Du Plessis doesn’t have a point. Indeed he is his own supporting evidence.

South Africa’s captain was on the field for more than 60% of all the overs bowled in the India series — a heavy physical workload that doesn’t begin to measure the psychological and emotional toll taken on a team so thoroughly beaten.

So maybe South Africa’s players should be cut some slack for their invisibility this week.

But, in the same few days in which their rugby counterparts have scrapped their way into the World Cup final, they can’t expect an easy ride in the public eye.

First published by TMG Digital.

Wanted: a new captain. But who? And when?

“We should be praying he doesn’t pull the plug after the England series.” – an insider hopes Faf du Plessis isn’t about to retire.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

ONLY Graeme Smith and Hansie Cronjé have captained South Africa in more men’s Tests than Faf du Plessis, and the wear and tear is starting to show.

Smith, now a television commentator, is three years older than Du Plessis. But, in cutaway shots during the series in India, he looked the younger of the two as events lurched from calamity to catastrophe to car crash.

“It’s been the toughest part of my captaincy journey; not even captaining, playing,” Du Plessis admitted to reporters in Johannesburg on Friday.

If the series was a bad movie, South Africa were the heavies in the cheap leather jackets who keep getting shot in the opening scene.

Smith led South Africa 108 times and Cronjé 53. Du Plessis has done the job in 32 Tests. How many more might he have left in a tank that could have been hit by a stray bullet in that bad movie?

“The easiest thing would be to run away,” Du Plessis said. “As a leader of the team it’s important that you set the example that you are here to fight.

“Even when it’s the toughest time and even when everyone else sees no light, you still fight for that light.”

He is raging hard. But the light is dying. Words like “process” and “transition” have seeped into his explanations for why things have gone so wrong. For some, those sound like excuses and are a long way from a plan to improve.

Du Plessis has been every inch what a captain should be; a man of grit and gumption who is eminently followable. But is he still the best choice to lead South Africa against an England team eager to emulate their one-day success? 

We’re likely to find when the series starts in Centurion on Boxing Day because all indications are Du Plessis will still be in charge, even if that seems a duty more than a decision. 

“The easiest thing for me, even after the World Cup, would have been to say I am going to press the eject button and I am going to go.

“But it’s not where I am at that the moment. I still feel that it’s important for me to fight for this team.

“It’s not about me. It’s about me serving the Proteas team. So as long as that fire is still burning strong inside me I will try and continue for as long as possible.”

Would a clean break for the England series be a better approach? It’s not as if South Africa’s performances could get worse. Or would that be a fatal shock to the system of a team already on life support?

Herschelle Gibbs is never afraid of treading boldly, but even he demurred in the face of the suggestion that a change of leadership now was a good idea: “Nobody deserves to be captain or is making a claim for it with their performances.

“All of the players are fighting for a place, except the usual candidates.

“So I’d say make a decision on the captaincy after the England series.”

If not Du Plessis, who? Answering that question isn’t helped by the fact that he is, notwithstanding Quinton de Kock’s elevation for the T20 series in India, South Africa’s all-format skipper. 

Sources inside the relevant structures have told the Sunday Times that Temba Bavuma is likely South Africa’s next Test captain, that Aiden Markram is being lined up to take over the one-day reins and is also part of the Test debate, and that De Kock is the first choice as T20 captain.

Rassie van der Dussen has an outsider’s chance of being tapped in one of the white-ball formats and Kagiso Rabada’s ability to “form a rapport with guys — when he talks, people listen” could see him formally elevated to a vice-captaincy.

But, for now, Du Plessis isn’t going anywhere.

“We should be praying he doesn’t pull the plug after the England series,” an insider said. “We need him more than ever.”

First published by the Sunday Times.

Leading Edge: Lies cloud path of progress

We need to tread warily amid the dangerous agendas that have stolen into the narrative, and that don’t care much for the truth.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

FOR South African cricket, it’s the worst of times. Or is it? Yes. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Newspapers being the physical things they are, the space allocated for this column isn’t nearly big enough to list all the reasons why only people at least 90 years old could remember a time when South Africa’s men’s Test team have been as properly outplayed as they were in India these past few weeks.

If you’re 90 and cricketminded, as well as still of sound mind, you might recall dear old Herby Wade’s side being smacked 4-0 in a five-match rubber by Vic Richardson’s marauding Australians in 1935-36.

Why is that the benchmark? Because it’s the last time, before the series in India, South Africa have crashed by an innings in consecutive matches. There’s a lot more evidence besides, measured from the start of readmission, to prove that they hit rock bottom against Virat Kohli’s juggernaut of a team.

But, in this era of fake news, opinion has elevated itself to the level of fact. So we are expected to take seriously nonsense like, “It’s not that bad …” and “Sport works in cycles …”, and, wrongest of all, “We can’t blame Cricket South Africa (CSA) for this …”.

The correct responses to the above are, unarguably, “It is”, “Not like this”, and “Like hell we can’t”.

We need to tread warily amid the dangerous agendas that have stolen into the narrative, and that don’t care much for the truth. And hold them up, mercilessly, to the withering light of proper scrutiny.

Because the people who propagating this poison aren’t doing so in good faith. They are bloody agents in the service of those who want to convince us that what isn’t nearly good enough is indeed good enough; that right and wrong aren’t as distinguishable as we’ve been led to believe.

Swallow that and you’re on your way to swallowing that it’s OK that nobody — including international players — cares about the domestic structures, that it’s fine if the job of too many people in cricket is simply to have their job, and that despite all signs to the contrary, not least in financial, governance and player relations terms, CSA act in the best interests of the game.

At play here is the same kind of unthinking that would have us accept that we should trust in a government that is efficient only when it is reaping our taxes, which we never see put to good use. Do so and you might also respect an opposition party that reacts to losing voter support to a right wing rabble by reinventing itself as, wouldn’t you know it, a right wing rabble. 

If that’s a touch higher grade for the sport section on a sleepy Sunday, pretend you’re a frog in a pot of water that seems to be warming, gradually but steadily …

These are difficult times to be South African in all sorts of senses, cricket not excepted. Teams will lose, sometimes badly — especially when their opponents are as good as India are undoubtedly. But that’s not why South Africa were so soundly beaten.

Neither is Faf du Plessis losing all three tosses in India to blame. Three of South Africa’s five victories there have been achieved after they lost the toss and fielded first, two of them by an innings.

That nobody thought twice about the optics of reducing Temba Bavuma to a mascot by wheeling him out at the toss in Ranchi tells us how badly South Africa have lost their way. Bavuma is a lightning rod for criticism from dog-whistling racists, even when — or especially when — he performs. So why expose him to their ridicule in a clumsy, tone deaf stunt?

These are the worst of times for cricket in our country, or at least for the time most of have been alive. That must be our point of departure if we want to help take the game forward.

If anyone tells you otherwise, they’re not wondering why the water is getting warmer. They’re lying.

First published by the Sunday Times.

Seven centuries offer SA hope

Three were scored by No. 3s, two by openers, and one each by a No. 4 and 6 — the players who should bank the bulk of the runs, which didn’t happen for South Africa in India.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

THERE were no positive results in the latest round of franchise first-class matches, but there were potential positives in the search for batters who can stay at the Test crease long enough to make a difference.

South Africa returned from India on Friday to face the music in the wake of their worst series in 83 years — a 3-0 thrashing punctuated by two consecutive innings defeats.

What with the South Africans averaging only 21.95 per wicket, it can be no bad thing that seven centuries were scored in Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg and Port Elizabeth this week.

Most notable was Reeza Hendricks’ undefeated 168 for the Lions against the Knights, a career-best effort of more than six-and-a-half hours.

Nicky van den Bergh was around for just more than three hours of the same innings for his 116 not out, and shared 200 with Hendricks.

He wasn’t in the centurions’ club, but Rassie van der Dussen’s 75 in almost three-and-a-half hours stuck out in the Lions’ second innings.

Grant Roelofsen spent more than five-and-a-half hours on his 133 for the Dolphins against the Cobras, who celebrated Janneman Malan’s 118, which took him more than four-and-a-half hours, and Matthew Kleinveldt’s 175, which endured for close on nine hours.

Yaseen Vallie’s 137 for the Warriors was the product of just about five hours of hard graft against the Titans, who had Grant Thompson’s 101 stretched past four-and-a-half hours.

Three of those centuries were scored by No. 3 batters, two by openers, and one each by a No. 4 and 6 — the players who should bank the bulk of the runs, which didn’t happen for South Africa in India.

There wasn’t much to report from the bowling side of the fence, although considering the failure of South Africa’s spinners to make an impression in India, Tabraiz Shamsi — whose 5/66 for the Titans against the Warriors was the only five-wicket haul of the round — may beg to differ.

First published by TMG Digital.

CSA sink deeper into trouble with players

“We have been trying to resolve this with CSA for many months but have now reached the point where formal steps have to be taken as players remain out of pocket.” – SACA chief executive Tony Irish

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

CRICKET South Africa (CSA) are in more trouble with their lifeblood: the players.

Already being dragged to court over a proposed domestic structure that could cost 70 professional cricketers their jobs, CSA now face demands from the players to settle an unpaid bill from last year’s Mzansi Super League (MSL).

It’s not a good week for the game, what with the men’s Test squad on their way back from India having delivered their worst performance in 83 years.

The South African Cricketers’ Association (SACA) said in a release on Wednesday that they had lodged a formal dispute related to a breach of an agreement, signed last November, that granted CSA use of the players’ commercial rights for the MSL.

The price, TMG Digital has learnt, was R2.4-million, which was to have been paid into SACA’s players’ trust.

“Unfortunately CSA has persistently refused to pay an agreed amount relating to the use of the players commercial rights, and consequently the players have yet to be paid for these,” the release quoted SACA chief executive Tony Irish as saying.

“This has occurred despite CSA having benefited from the use of the rights in last year’s MSL.

“We have been trying to resolve this with CSA for many months but have now reached the point where formal steps have to be taken as players remain out of pocket.”

The saga will now move through a mediation and arbitration process. The latter is binding, so a player strike is unlikely.

On the other front, SACA’s high court action, launched in May, hasn’t made much progress.

“In normal circumstances one would have expected the court application to be heard in or around October this year,” Irish was quoted as saying.

“However failures on the part of CSA to comply with the time periods provided for in the rules of court have led to unnecessary delays.

“CSA also failed to respond for a long period to attempts to establish a process aimed at resolving the issues around the domestic restructure. All of this has obviously been very frustrating for SACA and it creates uncertainty for the players.”

SACA, Irish was at pains to point out, hadn’t been overly keen to call their lawyers.

“SACA remains committed to the court application as this is necessary to deal with CSA’s decision to unilaterally impose a new domestic structure on the players without consultation and in clear breach of signed agreements between SACA and CSA.

“This imposed structure, if allowed, would lead to a very significant number of provincial players losing their careers as professional cricketers and it would also give rise to the likelihood of substantial cuts in the earnings and benefits of franchises players.

“In addition we believe that it will weaken the standard of our top flight domestic cricket across playing formats, at a time when we can ill afford to do this.”

South Africa were thrashed by an innings for the second consecutive time by India in Ranchi on Tuesday, the first time they have sunk so low since 1936.

CSA, who SACA estimate could record losses of up to R1-billion by the end of the 2022 rights cycle, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

First published by TMG Digital.

What the Faf are SA going to do for a captain?

Faf du Plessis is a more successful skipper than Graeme Smith, who criticised South Africa’s leadership in India

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

WHAT happens when good captains’ teams do badly? Faf du Plessis is finding out.

South Africa’s men’s side have won only half of the 26 completed matches, regardless of format, they have played under Du Plessis’ leadership this year.

That’s well under his career winning percentage with the national team: 63.89.

So far this is Du Plessis’ worst year at the helm since 2014, when he captained South Africa to three wins and three losses.

He will have a chance to tilt the balance into positive territory in his team’s next match, which is also their last game of the year — the Boxing Day Test against England in Centurion.

That’s if Du Plessis is still in charge in nine weeks’ time.

Before the Test series in India that was not in doubt.

Now, in the wake of South Africa’s worst performance in a rubber since 1936 — hammered 3-0, twice by an innings — it is.

They failed in all departments, and the buck stops with Du Plessis.

“It does feel like a lot of responsibility lies on my shoulders; to try and make the runs, to try and build the team,” Du Plessis said in Ranchi on Tuesday.

“But that’s the time and place that I am right now. It’s unfortunate that someone has to do it and that falls on my shoulders, so that’s OK.”

Du Plessis first led South Africa in a T20 against New Zealand at Kingsmead in December 2012, and 108 games into his tenure he has presided over 69 wins and 35 losses.

That’s an impressive record, but the first step on the path to the sorry place South Africa find themselves in now was taken in the months before Du Plessis took the reins.

In July 2012 — weeks ahead of South Africa becoming the No. 1-ranked Test team — Mark Boucher played his last game, thanks to a tumbling bail that took out his left eye.

Since then, Jacques Kallis, Graeme Smith, AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla and Dale Steyn have also retired.

And those are only the cream of a bumper crop of quality cricketers who, for various reasons, are no longer available.

That means South Africa constantly have to find ways to stay ahead of their ever shifting reality, and it seems they are fresh out of ideas. All they know is change is coming, ready or not.

“Graeme Smith was a successful captain for a very long time and then after that it was like, ‘What now? Who is going to captain the side? What’s going to happen?,” Du Plessis said.

“This period is to try and make that process a little bit smoother, identifying the next leaders, identifying the next captains, working with them, and then when that time is right, that time will be right.

“For the time being, it’s just about the process unfolding.”

Did that mean he was still the person for the job?

“It’s a very young leadership group, so for right now, yes.”

Besides, if not him, who? It’s not as if a ready replacement has presented himself.

“It’s a rebuilding phase,” Du Plessis said. “The way forward when you go through real tough times like this is to start identifying candidates that will drive the team forward.

“You look for personnel that’s within the team we see in three, four, five, six years to come. Then the process starts.

“It’s a tough to start right at the beginning. Obviously, in a perfect world you will start somewhere in the middle — change one or two players and in a period that’s a little bit shorter.

“But the position we find ourselves in now, with a lot of experience out of the Test team, [means] that process will probably take a little bit longer.

“Right now it’s about identifying the person that you believe will drive this team forward.”

Does South Africa need another Du Plessis? Or another Smith? Or someone to take them in a different direction?

Those issues aren’t easily settled, but Du Plessis’ reference to Smith is pertinent.

The latter spent a significant amount of his time on air as a television commentator during the India series criticising Du Plessis’ decisions and approach.

Turns out Du Plessis is the more successful captain, both overall and in two of the three formats. T20, in which Smith won exactly two-thirds of the time and Du Plessis has a mark of 63.51%, is the exception, would you believe it.

Does that make Du Plessis a better captain than Smith?

Better question: who’s next?

First published by TMG Digital.