“We’re in a sort of half-pregnant state and we don’t know what the birth will be.” – Andrew Breetzke, SACA chief executive
Telford Vice | Cape Town
WHICH will come first: judgment in Graeme Smith’s arbitration process, or the announcement that he no longer wants to be CSA’s director of cricket? But, regardless of what the arbitrator decides, Smith would appear to be on his way out.
The hearing, which started on Monday, was set to conclude by Wednesday evening. It is confidential and the evidence isn’t available to be reported upon, but CSA and Smith have agreed that the arbitrator’s findings be made public. That could take two weeks.
Smith has been in the position since December 2019. His current contract expires at the end of March. Cricbuzz understands he will not seek to renew it. The disaffection appears mutual: on February 8, CSA chairperson Lawson Naidoo was quoted as saying the job would be advertised. That remains the case but has yet to happen, a CSA spokesperson said on Wednesday. But a sure-fire way to let people know they are not wanted is to tell them to re-apply for their posts.
The upshot is that, come the end of the month, CSA are set to be without a director of cricket. Unless, that is, they appoint someone in an acting capacity — which has become a frequent occurrence at the troubled organisation — or don’t bother with interviews and head hunt a suitable candidate, which they are entitled to do. CSA could also choose to restructure the role, assigning different duties to different people. That could open the door to consultants, Smith perhaps among them.
Or to someone like Ashwell Prince, who is back in the country after resigning as Bangladesh’s batting coach last month. Asked on Wednesday whether he was interested in becoming CSA’s next director of cricket, Prince told Cricbuzz his focus had shifted: “My time with Bangladesh allowed me to do quite a bit of soul searching and, to be quite honest, whatever I decide to do next will depend heavily on how much time I can spend with my family.”
Besides, who would want to throw in their lot with CSA? Despite the suspension in December 2019 of Thabang Moroe as chief executive — he was subsequently sacked — to end more than two years of chronic catastrophe on the fiscal and governance fronts, major sponsors who cut ties during that sorry period have not returned and replacements have not been secured. While the removal of a derelict and delinquent old board in November 2020 was widely welcomed, faith in CSA has not been restored. Not even the establishment in June last year of a majority independent board, which was heralded as a great leap forward, hasn’t done that. The pandemic, of course, hasn’t helped the game stay on its feet.
All the while, uncertainty has been snowballing. And South African cricket’s only revenue generators, the players, are looking on in alarm. “Players want stability, and irrespective of the merits of the case they see issues like this as a major disruption to the game,” Andrew Breetzke, the chief executive of the South African Cricketers’ Association, told Cricbuzz. “We’re in a sort of half-pregnant state and we don’t know what the birth will be.”
Smith’s obvious value to CSA is in his solid relationships with the BCCI — based on his friendship with Sourav Ganguly — and with broadcasters SuperSport. It is not a reach to say both of those associations, which are vital to South African cricket’s financial wellbeing, would suffer, at least in the short term, should Smith go.
The details of the action being taken against Smith have not been released, but they have been based on the tentative findings in the Social Justice and Nation Building (SJN) project’s report — which implicates him in several instances, both as a player and an administrator.
The conclusions in the 235-page document, which was released in December, could be dismissed as a hodgepodge of sloppy conjecture and narrow-minded assumption that fails miserably to do justice to the courage of those who came forward to testify about their experiences of racist treatment in cricket. The report also falls pathetically short in offering CSA constructive ways to make progress with combating and eradicating the undoubted, longstanding and ongoing presence of racism in the game. As such, it is difficult to see how it could fairly be used to help determine the rights and wrongs of anyone’s actions.
Even so, given that high hopes for a more just reality for black and brown people in South African cricket were quickly attached to the SJN hearings, CSA’s board could hardly assign the deeply flawed report to the shredder. Allowing an independently appointed arbitrator to decide the issue, in Smith’s case, is the board’s only viable option.
Ditto Mark Boucher’s disciplinary hearing, which is also tied to the SJN report and is set for May 16 to 20. But there are key differences. Long before the report was released, Boucher admitted to and apologised for some of the allegations made against him during the hearings — albeit that he left many dissatisfied with what he said. Maybe that’s why CSA’s board have said they are seeking his dismissal.
The case against Smith is risibly weak, and the outcome is likely moot in real terms. Perhaps all that matters, to him, is clearing his name. Not least because an adverse judgment would surely not sit well with prospective employers. The case against Boucher is stronger, although far from conclusive. But, should he be cleared, would he want to continue knowing that the forces ranged against him since his appointment in December 2019 — almost seven months before the SJN hearings started — would not be deterred in their sometimes unfair, other times irrational, disapproval of him? It’s a question only he can answer, and only if he gets the chance.
First published by Cricbuzz.
Bulletproof Truth 