Adrian Holdstock – Bulletproof Truth

Dear Bangladesh: grow up

“We don’t want to think too much about what happened in the opening game.” – Mominul Haque talks sense.

Telford Vice | Gqeberha

PLEASE, Bangladesh, don’t blow this. You played far better cricket than South Africa in the one-day series to not only win it but also earn the respect of all who watched you, the locals included. But you’re losing that respect as we speak by reducing yourself to a mess of unseemly squabbling in what looks a lot like an immature, emotional attempt to deflect the blame for your dismal performance in the second innings at Kingsmead. It’s time to grow up and get on with the game.

Many cricketminded South Africans — and surely also Bangladesh’s more serious, less blindly nationalistic supporters — would want to tell Mominul Haque’s team something of that sort as they prepare for the second Test at St George’s Park. If the visitors don’t pull themselves out of their damaging downward spiral of negativity about matters they cannot change, what started as their most successful tour of South Africa could end in ignominy.

Yes, the umpiring in the first Test was below par for officials of the calibre of Marias Erasmus and Adrian Holdstock. No, that doesn’t mean they are biased because they are South African: their overturned decisions were evenly split between the teams.

Yes, the South Africans came hard at them, as every team do in every match they play. No, that isn’t automatically cause for complaint: match referee Andy Pycroft, who is not South African and has shown no hesitation in taking action against South Africans in the past, has said nothing about unfair sledging.

Yes, taking first strike on South African pitches is challenging. No, that doesn’t mean you should win the toss and refuse to bat — particularly when your South African head coach, who knows better than you do about these things, advises you to bat. That way, you are at the crease in the third innings of the match and not the fourth, when conditions will be more difficult still.

How the Bangladeshis cannot see that they are undermining their own cause by distracting themselves in these poisonous ways is difficult to fathom. They are purposefully taking their eye off the ball and could pay a high price for refusing to take responsibility for failing themselves in Durban.

Do they honestly want to go home in the disarray that would take hold if they deliver another abjectly poor display? Do they want the fine memory of their ODI triumph to be erased and replaced by increasingly damning evidence of alarming insecurity and an utter dearth of self-belief. And all the while the home side are smiling in smug disbelief at rivals who seem hell bent on beating themselves.

That said, South Africa didn’t get everything right at Kingsmead. They lost their last six wickets for 187 in the first innings and the last nine for 88 in the second dig, albeit that they were then batting with the security of a growing lead. Their bowlers allowed Bangladesh to score 115 more runs after they had been reduced to 183/6. They put down four catches in the field, not all of them difficult.

But those kinds of issues are paved over with happiness when you dismiss your opponents for 53 using only two bowlers. And especially, in South Africa, when those bowlers are spinners. The selection of Simon Harmer and Keshav Maharaj, who took 14 wickets between them, marked the first time South Africa picked two specialist slow bowlers in a home Test since 1970.

Might that spark a revolution in their thinking, or was it merely a nod to the prevailing conditions? We won’t have a proper answer even if, as expected, both are deployed again in Gqeberha — where the pitch is not unlike Kingsmead’s. But it should be interesting watching the argument for more spin in the country gain currency.

It would be even more interesting if Bangladesh remember they’re here to play cricket, not behave like over-indulged children.

When: Friday, 10am Local Time

Where: St George’s Park, Gqeberha

What to expect: A slow surface and rain on Sunday, but the easterly wind that has been forecast to blow for the entire match will bring moisture from the Indian Ocean to help seam and swing bowlers.

Team news

South Africa: Similar pitch as Kingsmead, same XI who won handsomely at Kingsmead.

Possible XI: Dean Elgar (capt), Sarel Erwee, Keegan Petersen, Temba Bavuma, Ryan Rickelton, Kyle Verreynne, Wiaan Mulder, Keshav Maharaj, Simon Harmer, Lizaad Williams, Duanne Olivier

Bangladesh: Tamim Iqbal is over the stomach problem that kept him out of the first Test, and should replace Shadman Islam. But Taskin Ahmed’s absence because of a shoulder injury will hurt the visitors. The sensible option, considering the likely conditions, would be to fill the vacancy with Taijul Islam.

Possible XI: Tamim Iqbal, Mahmudul Hasan Joy, Nazmul Hossain Shanto, Mominul Haque (capt), Mushfiqur Rahim, Yasir Ali, Litton Das, Taijul Islam, Mehidy Hasan, Khaled Ahmed, Ebadat Hossain

What they said:

“Even though we were bowling spinners, the ruthlessness and relentlessness that they showed was world class.” — Dean Elgar on the performance of Keshav Maharaj and Simon Harmer at Kingsmead. Both are likely to feature at St George’s Park.

“We will play for a win and we don’t want to think too much about what happened in the opening game.” — Mominul Haque talks the talk to put the Kingsmead catastrophe behind him and his team.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Elgar to Bangladesh: ‘harden up’

“I didn’t see any bad sledging out there, even from their side. This is Test cricket, and we need to dry our eyes sometimes.” – Dean Elgar

Telford Vice | Gqeberha

DEAN Elgar has denied and dismissed Bangladesh’s allegations of untoward sledging during the Kingsmead Test, and told the visitors to “harden up”. His comments are sure to inflame tensions ahead of the second match of the series, which starts at St George’s Park on Friday.

Asked at a press conference on Thursday what he made of Bangladesh’s claims, Elgar said: “I don’t think they’re justified whatsoever. We play the game hard, and if anything we were just giving back what we were getting when we were batting.

“By no means did we swear or use foul language towards the Bangladeshi cricketers, because we respect them. I think they need to harden up and play the game at a level that maybe they’re not used to.

“One of my messages to the players is that we do everything with dignity, and we don’t throw our badge or our name away. I didn’t see any bad sledging out there, even from their side. This is Test cricket, and we need to dry our eyes sometimes.”

The Bangladeshis have said that the South Africans targetted 21-year-old Mahmudul Joy Hasan, who was playing just his third Test, for abuse. Elgar refuted the assertion: “We wouldn’t go out there and intentionally try and intimidate a young player. We’ll play the game at a hard level, but we’re not there to use language to try to intimidate guys. We’d rather try and intimidate by our skill.

“But, also, this is Test cricket. When I started playing it [against Australia at the WACA in December 2012], the environments were a lot harsher. You were told everything that you didn’t want to know about yourself.”

Asked at a later press conference on Thursday about Elgar’s view, Mominul Haque said: “In cricket, sledging happens and you have to absorb it. I never complain about it.” That differs from what Mominul said immediately after the Durban Test: “Sledging is quite normal, but the umpires didn’t seem to notice it.”

Indeed, Bangladesh seem to have a bigger issue than their claims of sledging with the performance of Marais Erasmus and Adrian Holdstock, who had eight of their decisions overturned on review — four of which went in South Africa’s favour and four in the visitors’.

“I don’t think the pitch helped, especially with the variable bounce, which can challenge the umpires,” Elgar said. “I feel for them because they’re good umpires. Marais is the umpire of the year [for 2021, 2017 and 2016]. Adrian [who stood in his fifth Test] is just starting off in the Test arena, and he’s definitely not a bad umpire. They are human beings — they do make errors, as do the players. But I’m pretty sure they’re going to learn a hell of a lot out of that. Hopefully in the second Test we can have a better show.”

The visitors failed to refer two other unsuccessful appeals, all of which DRS revealed would have earned wickets had they been sent upstairs. “Whatever the umpire decides, we need to respect that,” Elgar said. “Technology is there for a reason. If you don’t use the technology, then you’re holding yourself accountable for [the umpires’] decisions.”

One of the sources of Bangladesh’s ire will be moved sideways at St George’s Park, where Allahudien Palekar will replace Holdstock, who will move to the television official’s booth in accordance with appointments made before the series. But Bangladesh won’t be able to escape the home side’s intensity and competitiveness.

“We’re representing our country and we want to win, and if you’re playing a little bit of a mind game on the opposition, why not,” Elgar said, and hinted that the Bangladeshis’ overly dramatic response to events on the field made them party to their own downfall: “Maybe they got caught up in the moment, which played perfectly into our hands. That’s what comes with gamesmanship. You’ve got to outsmart and outplay and outwit your opposition. That’s the total emotional and mental side of Test cricket that people forget about sometimes. If you incorporate your skill and tick the boxes to the best of your ability, that’s what sums up Test cricket.”

Elgar’s skin would seem significantly more difficult to get under than that of South Africa’s opponents in this rubber. But even one of the toughest cricketers in the game was no match for a slip in the shower in Durban on Monday night.

“I’ve got a few stitches in my forehead,” Elgar said about a visible gash above his right eye. “It wasn’t my proudest moment, but these kind of accidents happen. I batted today [Thursday], which was a concern because of where my helmet rests. But I seem to be OK.”

That’s bad news for Bangladesh’s hopes of recovering from being bowled out for 53 — their lowest total in this country — in the second innings at Kingsmead to seal South Africa’s 220-run victory. Because if they thought Elgar and his team came hard at them in Durban, they ain’t seen anything yet.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Kingsmead comes in from the cold, and prompts Bangladesh’s bizarre blame game

“If you have someone who knows the ground like the back of their hand you need to understand that he knows what he’s talking about.” – Ryan Rickelton implores Bangladesh to trust Russell Domingo.

Telford Vice | Gqeberha

WHAT had gone so wrong, Graeme Smith was asked. “It’s just …” He paused to try to think of a less direct way of saying what he was about to say, decided to stay true to his damn straight self instead, and completed his sentence: “… Durban.”

It was December 29, 2011 and Smith was trying to explain to a press conference how and why his team had lost a Test to Sri Lanka at home. The result jolted South African cricket. Being beaten in their backyard by an Asian team was rare but grudgingly accepted if that team were Pakistan or India. Sri Lanka? Don’t joke. Even so, Rangana Herath, who took nine wickets to seal the Lankans’ first win in nine Tests in the country, saw the funny side: “That’s why we are laughing at you.”

That loss followed defeats at Kingsmead by Australia, England and India. South Africa beat India there in December 2013, but then went down to England, drew a rain-ruined match with New Zealand, and were beaten by Australia and Sri Lanka. In the same period, they lost only five of the 41 home Tests they played at other grounds. Even St George’s Park, where surfaces are also slow, had come to the party: played six, won five, drew one.

Maybe it really was just Durban. South Africa’s players had long since decamped from the beachfront hotel where they had usually stayed — less than 2km from Kingsmead — to another 29km away in Umhlanga, a sanitised seaside suburb to the north. Perhaps they were scared away by the rude realities of Durban’s gritty urban environment, which would only have been exacerbated by playing at the country’s only inner-city Test venue.

So South Africans will hope that their team’s emphatic victory over Bangladesh at Kingsmead on Monday will serve to reclaim the ground from foreigners who have felt too welcome there for too long. And open a new avenue of thinking about how to win there. South Africa’s only other success in their last 10 Durban Tests was built on the standard procedure for getting the job done in this country: Dale Steyn and Morné Morkel claimed 15 of India’s 20 wickets in December 2013.

This time, Simon Harmer and Keshav Maharaj took 14. Only once has spin grabbed more wickets for South Africa in their 245 home Tests, and that was more than 112 years ago — Bert Vogler and Aubrey Faulkner snapped up all 20 against England at the Old Wanderers in January 1910.

Much has changed about South African cricket since their Test attack comprised Vogler, Faulkner, Reggie Schwarz and Gordon White; wrist spinners all. Kingsmead has changed, too, particularly in recent years. And for the better. The pitch for the Bangladesh match offered assistance for seamers and spinners alike, and batting on it was challenging but far from unfair. The surface was relaid two-and-half years ago. That play started on time on Sunday after Saturday night’s deluge of 50mm — two-thirds of what falls on average in Durban in the whole of April — was a minor miracle, and no small tribute to the efforts of the groundstaff and the world-class drainage system, which was overhauled four years ago.

Kingsmead has come in from the cold in several senses, including financially, under the direction of a young and innovative chief executive, Heinrich Strydom, who has been on board since August 2017. And thanks to the dedication of his hardworking staff, who buzz with an enthusiasm not often seen among CSA’s also industrious but demoralised managers and executives.

A symbol of that difference was the stuck sightscreen that held up the start of the series for 33 minutes, which was one of the few aspects of what might otherwise have been a flawless occasion. The buck for that problem stopped with CSA and one of their service providers, not with Kingsmead.

Some 900km down South Africa’s east coast in Gqeberha, staff at St George’s Park would have been watching with interest. The second Test starts there on Friday, and in some ways the ground is what Kingsmead was until not long ago: emblematic of a fragile economy worsened by the pandemic and the chronic and intensifying flaws in South African society. It’s also a ground where South Africa have lately struggled to perform — they lost here to Sri Lanka in February 2019 and to England in January 2020.

Dean Elgar played in both those matches, and in South Africa’s last five at Kingsmead. He has one win to show for all that. Small wonder that, even in the afterglow of Monday’s thumping victory, he said: “We still want to play the Highveld kind of cricket, where you’re playing three seamers and a world-class spinner, where fast bowling is our prime source of attack.” He will have to hold that thought until next season, what with St George’s Park and Kingsmead cut similar conditions cloth. But the two grounds are also different.

“Get ready for a fucking brass band in your ears for five days,” one of the television camera operators working on the series said to another at Durban’s airport on Tuesday as they waited to board a flight to Gqeberha, a reference to the providers of St George’s Park’s perennial soundtrack — which is beloved by some and detested by others.

“We know the wind howls here, which makes it difficult in all areas; those are the challenges you have to deal with,” Ryan Rickelton said in media material CSA released on Wednesday. The wind is an important element of the conditions. The easterly comes off the Indian Ocean just more than 3km away, and brings with it moisture that makes seam bowling more threatening. The westerly blows in from the hinterland, which has been stricken by drought since 2015, and dries the surface — making it better for batting. On Wednesday, a blustery westerly pumped at between 50km and 74km an hour. If you’re at the ground, the “bowling wind” comes over the main scoreboard. The “batting wind” flies from beyond the grandstand to the west.

But the Bangladeshis won’t have to do all this homework. Russell Domingo was born and raised in the city, and no-one knows St George’s Park better than the former Warriors coach. But that can only help the visitors’ players if they take Domingo’s advice. On the evidence of what happened at the toss in Durban, that seems unlikely.

“I was very surprised that they bowled first, because at Kingsmead you generally bat first,” Rickelton said. On Wednesday, Cricbuzz confirmed with BCB president Nazmul Hasan that Domingo had indeed wanted Bangladesh to bat first should Mominul Haque have won the toss at Kingsmead. But Mominul chose to field, and will thus have to bear a large portion of the responsibility for his team being dismissed for 53 — their record low in South Africa — in the second innings.

Rickelton all but implored South Africa’s opponents to do better next time by listening to the expertise they have at hand: “With Russell being from here and Allan [Donald, the bowling coach] having played a hell of a lot of cricket here, there’s valuable insight they need to exploit. It will be an unknown ground for a majority of their players, so if you have someone who lives here and knows the ground like the back of their hand you really need to invest in what they have to say and understand that he knows what he’s talking about.”

But the Bangladeshis seem determined to self-destruct and are blaming everyone except themselves for the mess they made of the first Test, including the umpires and, bizarrely, the malfunctioning sightscreen.

BCB cricket operations chair Jalal Yunus has been quoted as saying: “There hasn’t been impartial umpiring in this Test match. It started on the first day. We were held up for half-an-hour at the start of the game due to the sightscreen. We were deprived of the initial advantage. To make up this half-an-hour, they extended the lunch session, instead of starting early, which we usually see. It is definitely at the umpire’s discretion, but generally we see them making up for lost time by starting early.”

If Yunus has been quoted accurately, his comments are at best farcical and at worst dishonest. To try to besmirch the impartiality of Marais Erasmus and Adrian Holdstock — who are both South African — because of a sightscreen glitch is scandalously wrong. Nobody on a cricket ground is more intent on getting play going at the earliest opportunity than umpires. And Yunus would surely have been party to the memorandum of understanding agreed by CSA and the BCB — which clearly states that lost time will not be made up on subsequent mornings.

Other Bangladeshis have implied the umpires made biased decisions, including Shakib al Hasan — despite him being thousands of kilometres away in the US. None of the complainants has yet interrogated the unimpeachable fact that, of the eight calls that were overturned on review in the match, four favoured South Africa and four favoured Bangladesh.

The Bangladeshis have also alleged that their players were unfairly sledged by the South Africans at Kingsmead, despite Ebadot Hossain having been central to the only obviously unsavoury on-field episode. Seemingly annoyed by a fielder not being where he wanted him, Ebadot took out his frustration on Elgar, who was safely in his ground when the fast bowler hurled the ball in the South African’s direction. Still not satisfied, Ebadot launched an emotional verbal tirade at Elgar that required Holdstock’s intervention to restore calm.

Aggression is part of the game. Impotent rage for no apparent reason is not. The Bangladeshis would do well to remember that, and this, too: when they look for reasons why matters went so badly wrong for them, they can’t blame Durban.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

The unfairness of umpiring

“I think it’s time for ICC to go back to neutral umpires.” – Shakib al Hasan casts aspersions recklessly.

Telford Vice | Kingsmead

WHETHER he is meeting dictators or descendants, Marais Erasmus wears the same smile. It is wide and warm, spreads in a gentle curve below his twinkling eyes, and suits his generally genial demeanour like the ring of a bell does a bicycle. He has the comfortable bearing of a middle-aged cherub plainly content with life, love and everything else.

Erasmus is also the world’s best umpire, maybe the finest of his generation. He has won the David Shepherd Trophy, awarded by the ICC to the year’s best official, in 2016, 2017 and 2021 — as many times as Aleem Dar and Richard Kettleborough. Only Simon Taufel, who reeled off five consecutive wins from 2004 to 2008, has claimed the prize more often.

Erasmus stood in the quarter-finals at the 2011 and 2015 men’s World Cups. He was the television official in the semi-finals and final of the latter tournament, and on the field in the semi-finals and final four years later — as he was at the men’s 2017 Champions Trophy, 2016 World T20 and 2021 T20 World Cup, and the 2010, 2012 and 2014 women’s World T20s. Since he made his international debut in a men’s T20I between South Africa and Australia at the Wanderers in February 2006, he has featured in 71 Tests, 105 ODIs and 53 T20Is.

Clearly, besides being a thoroughly good bloke, the man knows what he’s doing. So what’s happened at Kingsmead these past four days? Five of Erasmus’ decisions have been overturned on review, and three of the four that have remained intact have survived only by dint of umpire’s call. Another, a not out after an inswinger from Khaled Ahmed rapped Keegan Petersen on the back pad before lunch on Sunday, wasn’t sent upstairs. DRS said the ball, untouched by Petersen’s bat or gloves, would have nailed the stumps.

Before this match, 69 of Erasmus’ 264 reviewed decisions in Tests had been reversed — or 26.14%, around average for elite umpires. So far at Kingsmead, he’s got it wrong five times out of nine, or 55.56%. Only two of the nine — those that weren’t put in the umpire’s call category — can be considered conclusively correct.

Adrian Holdstock, Erasmus’ partner, who is standing in his fifth Test, has been more successful. Five of his eight reviewed decisions have stuck — one of them thanks to umpire’s call — and two have been undone. He also decided Najmal Hossain Shanto had not edged Simon Harmer near the end of Sunday’s play. South Africa did not review. Again, the gizmo proved everyone wrong. Holdstock fell victim to the same thing in the first innings, when DRS showed Petersen had edged Taskin Ahmed.

Even so, there is cause if not for concern then for questioning. In all in this match, that’s 11 incorrect calls — including the three that fooled the umpires as well as the fielding team — and three others that were only marginally right. Erasmus and Holdstock are fine umpires, but they are both South African. Were they guilty of making hometown decisions? Shakib al Hasan seems to have thought so. From his home in the US, he tweeted: “I think it’s time for ICC to [go] back to neutral umpires as the Covid situation is OK in most cricket-playing countries.” That was after Erasmus had given Dean Elgar not out on Taskin Ahmed’s leg-before shout after lunch on Sunday — and had to change his decision on review.

Shakib should have known better: the number of overturned decisions in the match is evenly split at 4-4 in respect of which team they have favoured. Thus Erasmus and Holdstock are owed an apology by Shakib. Given his troubled, sometimes downright awful history with umpires, they should not expect it to arrive anytime soon.

Asked during a press conference what suddenly fallible umpiring, by two of the best in the business, no less, did to players’ confidence, South Africa batting consultant Justin Sammons offered an impeccable forward defensive: “Everybody’s human and everybody in the changeroom respects them. It’s not an easy job. We’ve just got to get on with our business. We’ve got to control what’s in our hands and block out any uncontrollables. That’s an uncontrollable. It’s important that we focus on our job at hand.”

He’s right, of course. If players’ blunders are accepted as part of the game, why not umpires’? Instead, officials get the short end of the stick. After the world has seen they have got it wrong they are required to keep calm and continue as if nothing untoward has happened. Contrast that with the solace Wiaan Mulder was able to take on Thursday after he edged the first ball he faced, bowled by Khaled Ahmed, to gully. Mulder retreated to the shadows of the dugout, where he remained for 20 minutes and more with the look of a jilted lover on his face.

Like players, umpires are also subject to the swings and roundabouts of poor and good form. Erasmus and Holdstock also stood together in the pivotal Newlands Test in January. Of the 11 decisions Elgar and Virat Kohli reviewed, only four were changed. Maybe they aren’t having the best of games at Kingsmead, but that doesn’t make them bad umpires. Indeed, Holdstock has had just six of the 19 decisions that have been referred during his Test career declared invalid. That’s a success rate of 68.42% — well above average.

None of the errors committed at Kingsmead have been blatant. But, especially in the case of the more experienced Erasmus, who has been a model of umpiring excellence for almost his entire career, they have stuck out.

With Bangladesh having lost three of their top four for eight runs in pursuit of a now near impossible target that will be 263 runs away when they resume on Monday, the umpires’ mistakes are unlikely to have a serious influence on the outcome of the match.

And Erasmus’ smile, the same one he wore at a reception hosted by, in the words of the invitation, “His Excellency Mahindra Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka” in Colombo during the 2007 men’s World Cup, and the same one he flashed in Cape Town airport’s arrivals hall at a couple of disembarking acquaintances while he waited for one of his sons to appear through the doors, will shine on. So it should.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Rishabh wears the pants, DRS exposes itself

“Reactions like that show frustration. Sometimes teams capitalise on that. You never want to show too much emotion, but we could see clearly that emotions were high.” – Lungi Ngidi on the Indians’ reaction to Dean Elgar’s DRS decision.

Telford Vice | Newlands

HOW to write about Rishabh Pant without writing about Rishabh Pant? The modern method of analysing a match for publication, especially online, is for one reporter to consider matters from a single team’s perspective while another looks at things conversely. Usually, that works just fine and readers are presented with a choice of angles, thoughts and theories. But what happens when events are dominated by a single player?

Welcome to the third day of the Newlands Test on Thursday, when Pant wore the pants, scared the pants off South Africa’s supporters and seemed to channel his inner Navjot Singh Sidhu, who said: “You’ve got to choose between tightening your belt or losing your pants.”

Pant chose the latter, in the most respectable way, and belted South Africa’s bowlers to all parts to score a breathtaking 100 not out that had everything to do with India taking their lead to 211. He batted through six partnerships after arriving at 58/4, and 48 of his runs boomed in boundaries. India made almost three-quarters of their total with him at the crease, and he would surely have scored more runs had he not refused ones and twos when batting with Mohammed Shami and Jasprit Bumrah, the Nos. 10 and 11. Or he might have made fewer: he was dropped three times.

A scene in the eighth over after lunch captured the mood. Pant launched Keshav Maharaj for consecutive sixes, sending Kagiso Rabada and Duanne Olivier beyond the long-off boundary to find the ball after the second blow had sailed out of the ground. They looked like schoolboys searching the bushes after a big hit at some nondescript ground on a random weekday afternoon.

But some of us are not supposed to be writing about Pant and his storied innings, remember. What else was there? Before the 21st over of South Africa’s bid for a target of 212, that question had no viable answer.

By then, Aiden Markram had become the first wicket to fall for the sixth time in his last eight innings, and all six times inside 10 overs. So far, so expected. Then, with Dean Elgar and Keegan Petersen having taken the score to 60, R Ashwin had Elgar plumb in front with a delivery that pitched on off and did not turn. It was bound for the top third of the stumps before it smacked the pads. Marais Erasmus agreed, and raised his finger.

Umpires of Erasmus’ calibre don’t get too many decisions wrong, and certainly not those as straightforward as this. Elgar reviewed, no doubt more in hope and the knowledge that he is South Africa’s batting fulcrum than serious belief he would be reprieved. He had started the sad walk back to the dressing room before the decision had been handed down. He knew he was out.

And then, shockingly, he wasn’t: Hawk-Eye alleged the ball would pass over leg stump. The most telling reaction, relayed via the stump microphone, came from Erasmus: “That is impossible.” He wasn’t alone in that opinion. Ashwin loomed over the stump mic, and said: “You should find better ways to win, SuperSport.” Virat Kohli had another go at the broadcasters: “Focus on your team as well and not just the opposition; trying to catch people all the time.” Then it was KL Rahul’s turn: “The whole country playing against 11 guys.”

Maybe Rahul hasn’t noticed the empty stands all around, as demanded by the BCCI. So he might be surprised to learn that South Africans are turning away from cricket in significant numbers because of catastrophes off the field and problems on it. A won series would lure some of them back to the game, but it was folly to think the “whole country” was watching or even interested in what was going on at Newlands, much less “playing against” India’s team. Certainly in South Africa, cricket doesn’t work like that.

But cricket shouldn’t depend on broadcasters to do its electronic umpiring. That the ICC hands the integrity of an increasingly important element of their match officials’ duties to outside parties is a damaging anomaly in the modern game. Would Ashwin, Kohli and Rahul have said what they said if they were talking about ICC-appointed umpires or referees, knowing what would they have been in for in terms of the code of conduct? Consequently the broadcasters were sitting ducks for the Indians’ anger. To take action against them now would add injury to the original insult. And if the players are to be punished, what of Erasmus?

A SuperSport spokesperson told Cricbuzz that the broadcaster had noted “comments made by certain members of the Indian cricket team”. And that, “Hawk-Eye is an independent service provider, approved by the ICC, and their technology has been accepted for many years as an integral part of DRS. SuperSport does not have any control over the Hawk-Eye technology.”

Lungi Ngidi had something like empathy for the Indians, telling an online press conference “Reactions like that show frustration. Sometimes teams capitalise on that. You never want to show too much emotion, but we could see clearly that emotions were high. That tells us maybe they were feeling a little bit of pressure. That was a good partnership, and they really wanted to break it. I think those feelings ended up showing. Everyone reacts differently to different situations, and what we saw there is probably how those guys were feeling at the time.”

Did he trust the DRS system to do its job properly? “Yes. We’ve seen it on numerous occasions being used all around the world. It’s the system in place, and that’s what we use as cricketers.”

Nine overs after all that, with what became the day’s last delivery, the Indians thought Bumrah had had Elgar caught behind down leg. Adrian Holdstock said they hadn’t. Kohli reviewed, and this time DRS landed on his side of the argument.

Elgar and Petersen shared 41 runs between the two DRS decisions. That’s worth twice as much in a match featuring two fractious batting line-ups. A stand that might have been snuffed out at 35 grew to 78, and took South Africa to within 111 runs of victory at a ground that has seen only two successful chases of more than 200.

That it is Elgar who was, belatedly, dismissed was some kind of justice for India. Petersen has proved himself a tough nut to crack, and will doubtless do so again when he resumes on 48. But South Africa’s opponents would far rather see the back of the talismanic captain than anyone else in the side. He wears the pants in that dressing room.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Diamonds on the soles of Bumrah’s shoes

Time was when South Africans would will away approaching thunderstorms, not wish that they would break over their heads immediately.

Telford Vice | Centurion

AT a minute to 10 o’clock on a crystalline Highveld morning, all that moved on Centurion’s perfectly green outfield was Jasprit Bumrah. He shuttled this way and that both sides of his mark as he waited restlessly, arms whirling low and loose with eager energy. Presently, Adrian Holdstock lowered his left arm, and Bumrah set off from the West Lane End on that now famous hold the egg carefully, mind the speedbump, homage to the Statue of Liberty, herky-jerky run …

Only to be halted a few steps in by Temba Bavuma’s not quite readiness at the Hennops River End. Bumrah glanced behind him to see if there was a sightscreen issue. Satisfied there wasn’t, he held an upturned hand towards the batter and jutted his chin at him. As if to say, “Dude!”

Bavuma dug in once more. Back foot. Bat upturned against his aft clavicle, like an unadorned flagpole leaning on a fence. Front foot. The gentlest of kisses from bat to pitch. A respectful address of the front shoulder towards the onrushing bowler. A pointy backlift. A barely perceptible bounce of the knees. A coiled presence. And … defended. Bat met the first ball of the day as surely as the sun had dazzled the horizon hours earlier. Bumrah’s irresistible flurry was met by Bavuma’s immovable calm, and the defused delivery trickled harmlessly to earth.

Twice more in his first spell Bumrah was interrupted after he had leaned into his lurch toward the wicket. The first time it was movement near the sightscreen in an ostensibly empty ground that disturbed Dean Elgar. Bumrah acquiesced. The second time it wasn’t clear why Elgar had pulled away. Whatever the reason, it wasn’t good enough for Bumrah, who reacted by underarming the ball along the ground and up the pitch. Officially, he was asking for it to be shined. Unofficially, he was spitting mad. There was no mistaking neither the anger with which he slung the ball in the direction of the cordon nor the fact that he had aimed it at Elgar.

When Bumrah came round the wicket to trap Elgar in front, a shriek escaped his violently shuddering body as he catapulted forward; every muscle torqued to surely a dangerous degree. The slow motion replay revealed a white butterfly floating, zen-like and out of focus, high above the scene.

Doubtless by then Bumrah had been forgiven his petulance. His strike meant India were locked and loaded for victory, and even those who have diamonds on the soles of their shoes break a lace now and then. The soles of Bumrah’s shoes should be insured for vast amounts. To watch him bowl, and not bowl, is to see the human spirit distilled into tangible form. It is a rare privilege.

Less so seeing South Africa shamble to another defeat, their third in the six Tests they played this year. And their fifth consecutively to India, a barren run that started at the Wanderers in January 2018 — when Virat Kohli’s team overcame close to impossible odds to launch their rise to the top of the world.

There is no shame in losing to cricket’s finest team, but playing below your own standards is another matter. South Africa did that on the first day, when the three wickets they took came at the outrageous cost of 272 runs. Their bowling was listless and directionless, and the extent of the damage caused was apparent when they took 7/55 once play resumed on Wednesday after the washed out second day. India’s last 17 wickets fell for 43 fewer runs than South Africa squandered in claiming the first three. Then they shambled to a reply of 197 — the only time they had been dismissed for fewer than 200 at this ground, until Thursday’s effort of 191 — with the first wicket tumbling to the fifth ball of the innings and the last five going down for 64.

By then, the Indians knew they could switch to cruise control. So there shouldn’t be any heart taken from the fact that South Africa bowled them out for 174 in the second innings.

That left Elgar’s team a target 56 runs bigger than any yet reeled in at Centurion. About that: this was only South Africa’s third loss at a ground where they have won 21 of their other 26 Tests. There was, then, something shocking about the keen interest from onlookers in the build-up of cumulonimbus clouds in the distance. Time was when South Africans would will away approaching thunderstorms, not wish that they would break over their heads immediately.

Elgar was out 46 minutes into the day’s play for 77 and Bavuma spent 133 minutes defying and delaying the inevitable and leaving unbeaten with 35 hard-fought runs. In the 84 minutes of play that started when Elgar got out and ended when Ravichandran Ashwin snaffled Kagiso Rabada and Lungi Ngidi with consecutive deliveries to seal India’s win by 113 runs, South Africa lost 6/61.

Among those unfortunates was Quinton de Kock, who played his second poor stroke of the match and edged Mohammed Siraj onto his stumps. In the first innings, he did the same facing Shardul Thakur. Few South Africans would admit it, but it’s another indication of how much things have changed that there is unspoken relief that De Kock, their only world class batter, will take no further part in the series because the birth of his and his partner’s first child is imminent.* Rather let Kyle Verreynne have a go. He, at least, is not in a funk. At least, as far as we know.

South Africa’s New Year will not be happy. They have just three days to figure out how to stop India from winning at the Wanderers — where Kohli birthed his dynasty almost four years ago, where he will go to try to lead an India team to a series victory in South Africa for the first time, and where no India side have yet lost.

And where Bumrah, the bejewelled bowler, will again wait restlessly, arms whirling low and loose with eager energy.

* De Kock announced his retirement from Test cricket after the match.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Darkness descends on Dutch tour, and on South Africa’s season

For the fourth time in less than a year, a tour to South Africa could become a Covid victim. For the Netherlands, a scarce chance to play against major opponents could be lost.

Telford Vice | Cape Town

PRIMROSE yellow polka dots on a cornflower blue background. If the socks David Miller batted in at Centurion on Friday was the sum total of what you knew about the first ODI between South Africa and the Netherlands, you would have assumed all was well. Nothing would have been further from the truth.

The game itself was a nondescript canvas for the Jackson Pollock picture of chaos being painted on and all around it. For the first time in their five ODIs against each other, the Dutch kept South Africa to a total below 300. The home side looked listless against innocuous bowling, and needed a stand of 119 by Zubayr Hamza and Kyle Verreynne, and a late blast of 48 off 22 balls by Andile Phehlukwayo, to reach 277/8.

Two overs into the visitors’ reply, umpires Marais Erasmus and Adrian Holdstock had the good sense to clear the ground. Minutes later the unnerving calm of a steadily leadening sky was cracked by a jagged, blinding light and the fury of a hard-hearted Highveld thunderstorm was unleashed on the scene. Perhaps Pollock, who died in 1956, flings his crazy painting from above these days. Two hours of deluge later, the match was abandoned.

While that was happening, at the other end of the country in Cape Town, thunder rocked Table Mountain itself. Soon the streets were silvery and soaked. It’s not supposed to rain in Cape Town in November, and thunder there at any time of the year is as rare as someone working in the city after 3pm on a Friday. These are interesting times, and far from normal.

By then, the tour itself was in jeopardy. To many of us, B.1.1.529 wouldn’t have meant much before Tuesday, when it was identified as the newest variant of Covid-19. It spreads faster and bristles with more mutations than earlier versions of the virus. It might also dodge the billions of doses of vaccine that have been administered worldwide. And another thing: B.1.1.529 is southern Africa’s early Christmas gift to the stricken planet. Cue the imposition of travel restrictions, and flight cancellations.

The Dutch are due to play again on Sunday and Wednesday and go home next Friday. But, given the circumstances — and the quarantine they are likely to have to serve, and pay for, once they return — you wouldn’t blame them for wanting to take a bus to the airport immediately. Not so fast.

“Both boards can confirm that following updated information, it is highly unlikely that the visiting team will be able to fly out of South Africa over the weekend,” a CSA release said. “The KNCB [Koninklijke Nederlandse Cricket Bond] is reviewing all of its options, while prioritising the physical and mental well-being of its players. A decision on the continuation of the series will follow in the next 24 to 48 hours, while all flight options are being considered.”

This is an awfulness all round. For the fourth time in less than a year, a cricket tour to South Africa could become a victim of coronavirus. For the Netherlands, a scarce chance to play against major opponents could be lost — only 39 of their 169 ODIs and T20Is have involved ICC full members who are not Afghanistan or Ireland. Last year they had a T20I against New Zealand in Rotterdam and three ODIs against Pakistan at Amstelveen cancelled because of the pandemic.

Friday’s result earned each team five points in the World Cup Super League standings; not enough to put either of them in line for direct qualification for the 2023 tournament. A clean sweep of wins for the hosts would have lifted them from ninth to third. Now the best they can hope for is to rise to fourth — if the last two games are played, if the weather doesn’t get in the way, and if they win them.

Would it be fair to expect either team to be able to give anything like their best? The Dutch will wonder when next they will be home. The South Africans will wonder when next they might leave home. Or if even that rug will be pulled from under them — and take with it the floor beneath their feet.

India are due to visit in December and January, and current indications are they will fulfil that commitment. But we can’t be sure, especially as we don’t know how bad this will get. CSA have sold the rights for US$105-million. Last month CSA reported losses of the equivalent of USD$13.5-million for the 2020/21 financial year. That deficit could be wiped out, almost eight times over, by India’s tour. But if India don’t come … you don’t need Jackson Pollock to paint that picture. The canvas will be eerily blank.

Here’s another salient number to highlight: 476. That’s how many spectators were at Centurion on Friday. It wasn’t much of a crowd, but it was the first time South Africa have played in front of their home supporters since March 7, 2020. That’s 629 days without feeling the warmth of their own fans. And 629 days without those fans feeling the presence of their heroes. Who knows when they will feel it again, and what colour socks David Miller will wear to mark the occasion.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Umpires safe at home

“I don’t watch a lot of cricket anymore because the umpires piss me off. They don’t have the balls to make decisions.” – Rudi Koertzen

Telford Vice | Cape Town

RUDI Koertzen seemed to take longer to raise his finger than some of the batters he eventually pointed at had been at the crease, and he said this week nothing had changed now that he limits his appearances to club and schools games: “I won’t say it’s slower, but it’s still slow.” Happily, he’s quicker on the draw about the Covid-19 reality of Tests staffed solely by home umpires.

“If you do your job properly there shouldn’t be a difference,” Koertzen told Cricbuzz. “I never had a problem umpiring in games involving South Africa. When I go out there I’m neutral. I just see a batsman at the other end of the pitch and a bowler running past me. For me, it has never made a difference. The only place you could get intimidated by the home crowd was when you went to the MCG; bay 13, where they were drunk by lunchtime. They gave you trouble, but it never bothered me.”

Koertzen stood in 108 Tests between December 1992 and July 2010. Thirteen were in South Africa, the last of them in March 2002 — the year the ICC started exclusively appointing foreigners as on-field umpires in Tests after 10 years of settling for one from elsewhere.

The credit for ending allegations of national bias by Test umpires belongs to Imran Khan. He grew tired enough of hearing that Pakistani umpires favoured his team to invite VK Ramaswamy and Piloo Reporter — Indians, no less — to officiate in two matches of a home series against West Indies in November 1986.

It’s a shame that it should have come to that. “Neutral umpire” is an ugly, accusatory oxymoron because umpires are — or should be — neutral by definition. The clue is in the word itself. Centuries before anyone yelled an appeal on a cricket ground, umpires in other spheres of British society were called noumper, the Middle English version of a medieval French word, nonper, which came from a Latin term: par, or equal. Thus umpires were “without equal”, as in incomparable or peerless.

Shall I compare thee to that feckless fellow behind the stumps on this fine summer’s day? No, because thou art not his peer. Thou art better than that scoundrel claiming edges where there are nought, and alleging lbw even as he veers a metre and more onto the leg side to follow the line of the orb. Thou art an umpire, my good man (and they were all men), and consequently above all that stuff and nonsense.

Alas, the modern game disagrees. “I remember Bob Woolmer, when he was South Africa’s coach [from 1994 to 1999], saying to me, ‘You guys must help us.’,” Koertzen said. “Every time we go to Australia and other countries we get nailed by the home umpires. But we come back to South Africa and you guys nail us.’ I said, ‘We’re not nailing you. We’re just making the decisions as we see them.’ If I was biased there’s no way I would have done the job.

“Like Simon Taufel, I always maintain that the best umpires should stand in the Test matches, immaterial of where they come from. If South Africa are playing against Australia and Rudi Koertzen and Simon Taufel are the two best umpires, they should stand in the matches.”

In November last year, Taufel, an Australian umpire the ICC adjudged to be the best in the game from 2004 to 2008, said: “When we have neutral umpires and we don’t care they come from and they make a mistake, we are not talking about where they are coming from. So the game comes first. It is not about whether the umpire is neutral or not. It is about whether he is doing a good job or not. It should be merit-based.”

This debate has disappeared. In the nine matches played since Test cricket has crept cautiously back from the global lockdown induced by the pandemic, all umpires have been from the countries in which the matches have been played. The same will be true at Centurion on Saturday, when for the first time in 50 years in a Test in this country all the appointed umpires will be South African.

The two of them on the field for the first Test between South Africa and Sri Lanka will be Marais Erasmus, a stalwart of 62 Tests, 92 ODIs and 26 T20Is, and Adrian Holdstock, who has appeared in 23 ODIs and 30 T20Is. “It’s been 14 years in the making with lots of sacrifices and commitments along the way, so I’m just very proud and stoked that the moment has finally come,” a CSA release on Wednesday quoted Holdstock as saying about his Test debut.

In the 1990s, fast bowler Erasmus captained Boland and Holdstock was a useful allrounder in the same side. When Holdstock made his international umpiring debut, in a T20I between South Africa and Australia in October 2011, his partner was Erasmus. And it’s not as if they haven’t had to make decisions about their compatriots in the past: 16 of Erasmus’ 118 white-ball games as an umpire have featured South Africa and only 21 of Holdstock’s 63 have not.

But Test cricket is as stern an examination of umpires — and indeed scorers and reporters, even spectators — as it is of players. It demands hours of intense, draining focus and doesn’t tolerate errors, and you have to come back and do it again tomorrow and for up to three more consecutive days. That, for Holdstock at least, will be new.

Both umpires will have to get used to the echoes of an empty ground, although having come through the ranks of South African domestic cricket — where there are often more players on the field than people in the stands — should help calm nerves.

Would they need calming? Barry Lambson stood in five Tests and 35 ODIs from November 1992 to October 2001 and is now a CSA match referee. All but seven of his games were in South Africa. “It is a bit different standing at home,” Lambson told Cricbuzz. “There’s more expectation on you, a bit like when you’re a player. But there’s no crowd, so [Erasmus and Holdstock] will be fine.”

The release quoted Erasmus as saying: “We must treat this just as another normal game. We must put aside the fact South Africa is involved. That shouldn’t be an issue. This is just another Test match and to stand in any Test match is a real privilege.”

Lambson and Karl Liebenberg were the last two South African on-field umpires appointed to stand in the same Test in South Africa, the final match of the series against India at Newlands in January 1993. But they rotated with England’s David Shepherd, and so Lambson and Liebenberg stood together on only one of the five days. The last time a South African umpire was on the field in a Test in South Africa was at Kingsmead on December 27, 2006, when another Englishman, Mark Benson, took ill and was temporarily replaced by Ian Howell, who had started the match as a television umpire.

Those were the days, Koertzen might say. And he isn’t scared to explain why he thinks so: “I don’t watch a lot of cricket anymore because the umpires piss me off. They don’t have the balls to make decisions. I’m 72. I still run to get into position to make a [run out] decision. The guys these days stand behind the stumps, and then they go upstairs.

“The umpire’s job is made so much easier by the illumination of the stumps. You can’t tell me that you can’t see when the ball hits the stumps and the bails come off. There shouldn’t be pressure on the umpires. Why don’t they take the guys off the field and let the third umpire do all the work? Give him all the money — three umpires’ match fees.”

Koertzen wouldn’t be surprised to learn his view on umpiring today isn’t shared by people now in the higher levels of the game. Here, for instance, is Mickey Arthur, himself a South African and now Sri Lanka’s coach, during an online press conference on Monday: “I know the umpires in this [South Africa-Sri Lanka] series particularly well, and they’re very good umpires. Umpires, just like players, are judged on performance all the time, and I’m comfortable that both umpires in this Test match are very good.”

As for the possibility of hometown decisions skewing the contest: “I certainly don’t think any umpire around the world, whether he’s South African, Australian or whatever, is going to umpire in any way that favours the home team. I think that they’re going to go out and do the best job that they possibly can. I’ve got no issue with local umpires at all.”

Clearly, Aiden Markram hasn’t had to give the issue much thought. “Maybe the bigger challenge is playing in front of an empty stadium,” he told an online press conference on Wednesday. “In terms of what I’ve experienced, the umpires have been really good in that there hasn’t been any bias. Naturally there’s the review system for [electronic] decision-making, so that can’t be affected.

“It is something new and different because of the times that we’re going through, but I don’t think it will affect the way things are on the field too much if we have two local umpires or if they’re guys from abroad. It’s going to be up to us to create that intensity and simulate what it would be like if times were normal.”

Koertzen stepped over the boundary as an international umpire for the first time, in an ODI between South Africa and India at St George’s Park in December 1992, almost two years before Markram was born. Much has changed about cricket, and therefore umpiring, in the ensuing 28 years. But not this: Koertzen’s finger of fate still takes a long time to do its duty.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

How to get out of jail? Ask a jailer

“Having watched him, the way he used to bowl, he has given me a lot of confidence as a young player knowing someone like that is now on my journey.” – Lungi Ngidi on Charl Langeveldt.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

IN Charl Langeveldt’s previous life he was a prison warder. So he knows all about getting out of jail. And how to transfer his knowledge of escapology to the bowlers he now coaches. South Africa benefitted greatly from those skills at Buffalo Park in East London on Wednesday, when they won a match they should have lost.

England needed 50 off the last six overs to win the first T20. By then Jason Roy had sent 36 balls careening into the night for his unbeaten 66. Eoin Morgan’s 23 not out had come off 19 deliveries. Both seemed intent on taking their team home with plenty of balls to spare. Surely Joe Denly, Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali, Tom Curran and Chris Jordan would, between them, score what Roy and Morgan didn’t? And without having to resort to Adil Rashid and Mark Wood. So how did England shamble to 176/9? They choked.

“These type of wins, we want to be able to scrape them in the big events,” Temba Bavuma said of the only one-run defeat yet inflicted on England in their 115 matches in the format, and with a view to the T20 World Cup in Australia in October and November. “We know we’re going to be called upon to do that. The best time to start is against top teams like England.”

As big a role as England played in their downfall, it was up to South Africa to do the necessary once the rabbits were frozen in the headlights. Enter Langeveldt. Of the 90 deliveries bowled by South Africa’s seamers, more than half — 49 — were slower balls. Some were off-cutters, some leg-cutters, some tumbled down the pitch out of the back of the hand.

One, quite beautifully bowled by Dale Steyn, was still above Jonny Bairstow’s eyeline in the two metres before it reached him. Then it dropped like a dead pigeon, forcing Bairstow to stab his bat directly downward to keep the damned thing away from his pads and his wicket. Steyn smiled in wonder. Bairstow smiled in desperation. Umpire Adrian Holdstock smiled with relief that he didn’t have to decide whether the ball would have hit the stumps.

Beuran Hendricks wasn’t used until the 15th over. Dwaine Pretorius didn’t bowl at all. That prompted the conservatives — some of them on SuperSport’s commentary team — to protest, even after the match was won. Can they not take yes for an answer? Because they once played international cricket doesn’t mean they understand how international cricket is played now. When next they get the chance to talk to Langeveldt, they could do worse than learn from him so they don’t expose their ignorance and arrogance.

The bowlers won Wednesday’s game; Langeveldt’s bowlers. He forged a career not by bruising batters into submission in the time-honoured South African way but by seizing on the small things — a smidgen of swing, a modicum of movement, an attitude of all’s good — to do big things. He found ways to win matches, particularly with the white ball. Langeveldt’s 100 ODI wickets amount to a touch more than a quarter of Shaun Pollock’s South Africa record of 387. But Pollock bowled 2,571.4 overs and Langeveldt 581.3. That’s 11,941 more deliveries for Pollock, or almost four-and-a-half times as many opportunities as Langeveldt had.

Lungi Ngidi was 14 years old when Langeveldt played the last of his 87 games for South Africa in October 2010. Almost 10 years on at Buffalo Park on Wednesday, a taller, faster, blacker version of Langeveldt, who looked a lot like Ngidi, not only defended seven off the last over but had Curran caught in the deep with an off-cutter and conjured a breathlessly paceless delivery to nail Moeen’s off stump.

“He’s had a massive impact in terms of the mental side,” Ngidi said of Langeveldt’s influence. “Having watched him, the way he used to bowl, he has given me a lot of confidence as a young player knowing someone like that is now on my journey. He has made sure I back the skills that I’m good at. Where someone else would say maybe a change of [the type of] ball was needed or maybe a yorker, [he says] stick to what’s working. And it worked out just fine.”

Langeveldt’s was easily the least heralded of the appointments South Africa made in December. The headlines were reserved largely for Graeme Smith, Mark Boucher and Jacques Kallis. That they had bigger playing careers than Langeveldt is beyond question. They loom larger in the memory of South Africans who remember a time when the game was in better shape. They are the poster boys for an improved present. They carry a heavier share of the hopes for a brighter future. But what do they know about getting out of jail?

First published by Cricbuzz.