David Gower and the Goliath of change

“If you asked Ian Botham about sports psychology he’d probably hit you: ‘What do I need a psychologist for?’ Bang!” – David Gower

Telford Vice / Cape Town

DAVID Gower was bored. So bored. The empty room’s silence had invaded his head, where it clanged about senselessly. Blinds on the windows blotted out much of what little daylight had seeped through the gloom outside. Noxiousness rose unseen from the damp carpets and lodged where nose and throat met. So very bored.

Consequently, a knock at Gower’s shut door was not ignored. Instead, he boomed: “Yes! Come in!” He didn’t have to say please — you could hear the prayer in his voice. 

Hello Mr Gower. I’ve come from the pressbox. I’m sorry to bother you, but with all the rain and no cricket to write about my editors have asked me to get your opinion on …

He didn’t tell his visitor, with whom he had never exchanged a word previously, to go away. He didn’t fob him off with, “Talk to my agent”, or, “My contract wouldn’t allow it”. The question escapes recollection, but he was viscerally attentive during its asking. Then he answered it, effusively, extensively and eruditely. And kept answering. Would he ever stop answering?  

The episode unfolded somewhere between an hour after lunch on January 14, 2000, the first day of the fifth Test against England, and the scheduled close three days later. Not a ball was bowled in all that time — the equivalent of 10-and-a-half sessions — because rain lashed Centurion like it seldom does.

Highveld summer days blaze with a heady incandescence that gives way to the beautiful violence of some of the most epic thunderstorms on earth. They issue from looming edifices of vicious black clouds that, hours earlier, had been but pale strands of candyfloss floating above the distant horizon. The deluge descends with a force that could knock the moustache off Merv Hughes, but rarely lasts for more than an hour. It is quite some show, worth more than the price of any cricket ticket. Then the gods are becalmed, the clouds melt away, the curtain is raised on the sun once more, the sky repairs itself to a dazzling blue, and play resumes in an exquisite light that shimmers with wet magic. For three-and-a-half days in the 2000 January, that didn’t happen. The rain came and stayed. And stayed some more. And still more.

All the while, Gower and two colleagues couldn’t leave their television studio lest the pilots of the mothership in London decided to “quickly pop in at Centurion to see what the weather’s doing … David? You there?” Of course he was. The studio had been set up in the hospitality box on the extreme left, as you look at the ground, along the crescent of buildings that hugs the northern boundary. Gower was maybe 200 hundreds metres of gates, corridors and civilian-strewn walkways from where the rest of the media were housed — snugly above the sightscreen — and further still from the dressingrooms. Should he venture there to relieve the tedium he would be too far away to make it back in time should London demand an audience at short notice.

He was marooned like Robinson Crusoe. At least Man Friday’s knock at his door gave him something to think about for a few minutes. Little did we know that a plot more convoluted than anything even Test cricket could conjure was being hatched, perhaps as we spoke, to force a result in a match that would otherwise have been drawn. All it took to seal the fix was R53,000 (USD2,850 at modern exchange rates) in two brown paper bags and a leather jacket “for your wife” from a gambler, Marlon Aronstam, who stood to lose big if the match did not end conclusively, to Hansie Cronjé. That and the agreement of Nasser Hussain, who had no knowledge of the tainting transaction. Innings were forfeited and declared, and England “won” the “Leather Jacket Test” by two wickets.    

“It smelled to high heaven!” That’s Gower in Cape Town a few weeks ago, and he wasn’t talking about the dodgy dealings — the stink of that studio has swirled in his memory all this time. He was on the top of Table Mountain at a marketing effort to help the Lord’s Taverners promote table cricket, which is designed to render irrelevant a range of physical and mental challenges that stop players from enjoying the game in more traditional ways. Table Mountain, table cricket …

It was a crystalline summer’s day. The scene couldn’t have been more different from the inside of that drab box at Centurion 20 years previously. Coasts curved this way and that for kilometres all around, the throat-catching views interrupted only by the mountain’s ancient crags. Above the sun seemed closer and warmer, like a loving parent. Far below the ocean murmured a rhapsody in blue. It was a good day to be alive for those who were there, and has become a precious memory of what the world was like before it was plunged into lockdown by the coronavirus pandemic. In the past weeks most us have come to know how Gower felt when he was confined to his studio, left with nothing but emptiness. Our reality has been replaced by something smaller and poorer in almost every way. We are bored, so very bored. And we’re the lucky ones: we’re alive and we have the space to be alone.

We will get back some version of the world in which to live, work and play. And to return to prominence in our minds current irrelevancies like cricket. We cannot know what cricket will look like in even the near future. But we do know what it looked like when the world as we knew it stopped turning.

It might, then, be useful — or just mercifully distracting — to consider how the game has changed since Gower sauntered to the middle at Edgbaston on June 2, 1978. And pulled the first delivery he faced in Test cricket, from Pakistani left-arm medium pacer Liaqat Ali, for four. That happened seven years after the first ODI, three years after the first edition of the tournament we now call the World Cup, bang in the middle of the three years that Kerry Packer’s World Series held up a cracked mirror to the game, 27 years before the first T20I and 30 years before the IPL. How different was cricket in 1978?

“That year I went on my first tour of Australia, where we had Bernard Thomas as our physio,” Gower said. “But he did everything. He was our physio, doctor, counsellor. Any problems that weren’t cricketing, you went to Bernard. For instance, no-one believed in sports psychology in those days. If you asked Ian Botham about sports psychology he’d probably hit you: ‘What do I need a psychologist for?’ Bang!

“We had a year at Leicestershire, a long time ago, where we could afford a sports psychologist for about a week. It was interesting how many of the players responded well to both the things he told them about working together as a team and some of the individual frailties he was able to help people with. We all have good times and bad times, and you tend to hide it, partly because it’s good for you to not show weakness. But it’s very important, to me, that it’s been recognised more as time has gone on.

“I remember a tour photograph a while ago — 16 players and 16 backroom staff. And I said something on TV which was slightly sarcastic, which didn’t go down well with the ECB at the time. There has to be a limit somewhere, and there’s only so much information you can take in as a player. I’m a believer in the instinct of what you might call natural players to address their own performances; to address the team, to address team situations, to play without, as it were, doing it by the book.

“All the assistance one gets now as a player might seem, to some of us, like overload. But, if you grow up with it, you kind of expect it. The net result is that there are a lot of very good players out there doing some extraordinary things, especially in the various newer concepts of the game. Watching some of things that go on, in T20s especially, it is a different game.”

That cricket changed vastly in the 18 years from July 1975, when Gower made his first-class debut, aged 18, to when he played his last match at that level, in September 1993, is indisputable. That it would be transformed exponentially more in the years that followed is also true. What has remained the same as it was at least 20 years ago is Gower’s habit of answering a question to within a whisker of its answerability.

“I felt I was was lucky to start my career immediately post-Packer, which was when cricket as an industry realised that it actually was an industry and not an amateur sport with a couple of quid thrown in for good measure. For instance, the first year I played for England was the first time they had a sponsor, and Test match fees went up from £200 pounds a game to £1,000 a game.

“The cricket industry has developed extraordinarily. TV has grown up with it. Who’s leading what I don’t know, but TV has given it the exposure and has been responsible for bringing in most of the money. All the major sponsorships around the world are all predicated on TV. There’s a billion dollars a year floating around Indian cricket. It’s a far cry from where it was 40 years ago. The game is still way behind the more global sports: soccer, formula one, tennis, golf. But the top players are doing well and aren’t complaining too much, or they shouldn’t be. If you’re Roger Federer I’m afraid you will make a bit more money than if you’re Joe Root or Steven Smith. But they aren’t going to starve.”

You had to watch him bat, if only to see the smudge that would end an otherwise immaculate innings. He was a Rolls Royce. Until he became a dodgem car.

Cricket has been good to Gower, and Gower has been good for cricket. Besides talent, ability, a level of toffishness that did not make him unlikeable, and a languid, liquid left-handedness, he was imbued with fallibility. You had to watch him bat, if only to see the smudge that would end an otherwise immaculate innings. He was a Rolls Royce. Until he became a dodgem car. That happened too often for the liking of the cold-hearted purists, who might have suspected they were being taken for fools: Gower was born on April 1, 1957. These days, his flagrant inconsistency would be ironed out of him at schoolboy level, and ruthlessly. Or, worse, he wouldn’t have a significant career. There is no longer room in the world of moneyed cricket for romance. 

Of England’s top seven in the famous 1981 Headingley Ashes Test, only Mike Brearley — virtually a non-playing captain, but the best of all captains — had a lower conversion rate of 50s into centuries than Gower. Brearley never made a Test hundred. Gower made 18, albeit that he had 138 more innings. Gower’s gift for doing and then undoing was a curiosity and a frustration for those who sat and marvelled at him from afar, the dressingroom or 22 yards away. For the man himself it was something else, as he wrote in his 2013 autobiography, An Endangered Species: “I came to realise that this wasn’t a normal condition. To an extent, every batsman has to strive to achieve that ideal state where brain and body function in harmony with bat, but I discovered that not every player had to work quite as hard as I did to get into the right frame of mind.

“Why could I sometimes do it, and sometimes not? This wasn’t just a mystery to other people. It was often a mystery to me.”

“All I had, all I needed, was that schoolboyish, yes public schoolboyish, enthusiasm for playing the game and having some fun with it. When it worked it was great but I got the message very quickly and very clearly from Ray Illingworth, my first captain at Leicestershire, and all those who had vested interests in my development, that my attitude and approach would have to harden if this was to work as a career. Luckily, that message never entirely got through.”  

There it is at the end of that passage: the smudge that endears Gower to some but, to others, sullies him. Not for him Geoffrey Boycott’s tedious religiosity about batting nor Graham Gooch’s dour run-collecting. All three were in that Headingley side, as was the player with the closest conversion rate to Gower’s — just 0.11% better — but who never lacked the public’s confidence. That he and Gower, and another giant of self-belief, became the firmest of friends is worth a thesis: you would have to go a long way to find personalities as removed from Gower as Botham and Viv Richards. Strange how the relative ruffians in that equation have been made knights of their realms while the more genteel Gower remains a mister. But he is his own mister.

As it was with Richie Benaud, a generation may be surprised to hear that Gower was a fine player. They grew up with him, vicariously, as a commentator — a second career that was put on ice in September when Sky Sports announced that, after 25 years of his avuncular presence on their screens, they would not renew his contract. Botham, too, was gone. Commentary has developed from the days when only the necessary was said to the modern penchant for shouting far too much in capital letters followed by multiple unseen but not unheard exclamation marks that fly like, well, tracer bullets. What was the future of the craft?     

“I hope standards are maintained,” Gower said. “With the spread of the game around the world and the uptake in television and radio around the world, there are good, bad and indifferent [commentators]. I like to listen to people who have a skill with words, who understand the game, and who can transmit the passion of the game without just getting louder. That’s a copout. As an observer of the observers — for a moment or two; I hope there may be some work somewhere — as players set themselves high standards to be as good as they can be, and if you’re not you run the risk of losing your place, as broadcasters they should maintain the same attitude. Of course there are lazy times and good and bad days. Some days every sentence appears to be polished and well thought through. Other days you can’t even speak your native tongue, which is a bit of a problem. But it’s a privilege to have done it for so long. It’s a privilege for anyone to be in that position, but it comes with responsibilities.”

Should positions on commentary teams be reserved for former players? “No. The proportion in commentary boxes of former players versus non-players is virtually non-existent, but it’s important that former players learn to broadcast. However great their capacity as a player, there are things they should learn. There are some very good ones. Michael Atherton is outstanding because he has an ability to put things with the right words. He is a bright man, a very clear-thinking man, and he has the talent to be able to write brilliantly and speak very efficiently, which cross-fertilise. He’s admitted that when he starts to write it helps him think about what he’s going to say on television, and when he talks on television that feeds back into the writing. There’s an aphorism that Richie Benaud used to use as words of advice: always engage brain before speaking. It’s useful to have that sort of thing in your mind.”

Difficult, isn’t it, to imagine Kevin Pietersen or Shane Warne knowing what an aphorism is. Or indeed to place them in the continuum with a player who was axed from his school’s first rugby XV for “lack of effort”, who earned a S level in history — in an examination attempted only by the best A level students — who wrote in his autobiography that an “errant ancestor gambled away [family-owned land] in a moment of boredom”, and who announced the end of a 10-year relationship by placing, along with the woman concerned, Vicki Stewart, a notice in The Times.

He played against a famous pair of Lloyds — Clive and David — in his first-class debut and was captained by Mark Nicholas in his last hurrah. His first match as a commentator was studded with Brian Lara, Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. His most recent featured Ben Stokes, David Warner and Steve Smith.  

Now, as cricket stands on the edge of an implosion to follow the explosion that helped make Gower the cricketer he was and the commentator he became, seems a good opportunity to consider how much has changed and how much will yet change. Because of the scale and pace at which the world seems to be disappearing before our eyes, that is a terrifying thought. But we know that, whatever happens or doesn’t, this will remain true: David Ivon Gower; sometimes bored, never boring.

Cricbuzz.

For SA, Ellroy is still here

Cricketminded South Africans are like James Ellroy, who has an unhealthy obsession with his mother – who was murdered when he was 10. We relive the horror of 1999 every four years, and will continue to fixate on Klusener, Donald and all that. It’s that simple and that messed up.

TELFORD VICE in London

JUNE 17, 1999 is melting into evening around a packed Edgbaston. David Shepherd peaks out from under his cap, mouth agape, like a man looking for a place to have a pint in a village not of his ken.

Thump. That’s Lance Klusener’s bat on the pitch. Thump. It’s less a sporting implement than something Bruce Wayne might have welded and rivetted into rude being deep in the dark of a Gotham City night on time off from Batman duty. Thump.

Nine down. One to win. Three balls to get it. A place in the World Cup final to refuse to think about, for the next minute or so, anyway.

Klusener has been what he has been for much of the tournament: South Africa’s cocaine, a rush of runs snorted on a page of the scorebook. Only nine of his 31 have not been reaped in fours and a six — which would have been the end of him had Paul Reiffel not palmed the ball over the boundary.

Here comes Damien Fleming, gliding over the wicket with … a yorker that hooks away from Klusener, who pickaxes an ugly pull and spends a splinter of that mighty bat on a bottom edge that sends the ball squiggling past Fleming, who looks back in panic …

Klusener is a pale pink ghost as he flies down the pitch, eyes hard black, blood frozen in his veins. Allan Donald doesn’t see him because, having come close to being run out the ball before, he’s held his ground and, damn the man, turned around.

The awful apparition of Klusener’s unheralded presence jolts Donald with fright, which makes him drop his puny bat. He stares at it flaccidly for the longest instant in the history of everything, and turns, batless, witless but not heartless — you can see it thumping through his Y-front shirt (whose idea were they? Homer Simpson’s?) — to meet his destiny at the far end of the pitch. He’s dead and, like an exhausted but still running antelope about to be hauled in by a marauding lion, he knows it. 

Mark Waugh, half running, half falling his way round the back of the non-striker’s end from mid-off, gathers the ball and flips it gracelessly but effectively to Fleming, who seems shocked to have to catch the thing as he stands midpitch, apparently dazed and confused by the traffic. A primordial yawp escape’s Adam Gilchrist’s throat: “FLEM!!!!!!!!!!!” Fleming gets a childlike underarm lob to Gilchrist, who accepts it on the bounce and does the needful. Tied. Australia are going to the final. South Africa are going home.

The free-from-anything-that-tastes-like-something custard yellow the Australians’ kit had faded to seconds earlier bounces back to its usual evil glow of nuclear butter as they celebrate coming back from Klusener’s blizzard of blows like antelope who have outrun the lion.

Donald knows nothing except that he has to shake hands with the other non-winners on the field. Klusener hasn’t stopped moving since trying to take the single that never was. His run slows to a walk in the depths of the outfield, and he seems aghast when the Aussies catch up with him to offer their hands. He shakes them. The surrender is complete.

It’s a cruel scene; a look into the souls of men resigned to failure only be reprieved by the failure of other men. Nobody has won. Nobody has lost. Nobody knows quite what the hell has just happened.

Unless, that is, you’re a South African and watching from across the equator. You stare at your television knowing that that can’t be it. That any second now Raman Subba Row, the match referee, will appear on the boundary and wave the players back onto the field. You know “Shep” will smile and cock his head sideways in wonder at it all as he makes his way, slowly but deliberately, towards the middle, and that his colleague, “Venkat”, will follow, looking lost in languid thought.

You know Fleming will bowl that ball again and that Klusener will face it again, and that he will crack it through the covers and all the way to the fence, and that that will be that. So you wait …

I’ve been waiting for almost 20 years now, living with my still searing memory of the moment — it’s agonisingly accurate; yes, I had the guts to check the footage — and wondering when it might be soothed. Or at least when it might have the poison drawn from it by subsequent success. 

Until that happens, cricketminded South Africans cannot move on. The past is the past, but the present is also the past. Might the future also be the past? For us, it’s been late on the afternoon or early in the evening of June 17, 1999 at Edgbaston for too long. And we don’t know how much longer we will be trapped in this purgatory. We know what it means to wait for Godot.

We’re cricket’s version of James Ellroy, the self-styled “Demon Dog of American Literature himself”, author of “LA Confidential”, “The Black Dahlia”, and “American Tabloid”, and who has an unhealthy obsession with his mother — who was murdered when he was 10. Ellroy has spent his next 62 years marooned in the madness of that moment, recreating it in his disturbingly violent but worryingly readable books and even seeking relationships with women who physically resemble his mother.

So it is with South Africans, who relive the horror of 1999 every four years and at frequent intervals inbetween, and will continue to fixate on Klusener, Donald and all that until their team win the World Cup. It’s that simple and that messed up.

And it wasn’t always thus. In 1992, when Kepler Wessels was only 412 and Jonty Rhodes was a boy and Peter Kirsten was reborn, South Africa were heroes undone in their semi-final by outrageous rain rules and Neil Fairbrother, who managed to turn the sexiness of batting left-handed look like he was brushing his teeth at the crease. Four years later on the subcontinent, where they had no business reaching the knockout rounds, a properly sexy left-hander, Brian Lara, yanked them back to reality with a shimmering century in a Karachi quarter-final. And then came 199 bloody 9. Nothing has mattered nearly as much since. Ellroy is here and is showing no signs of leaving anytime soon.

In 2003, there was a soggy mess when Mark Boucher bunted for none instead of belting for at least one what became the last ball of the game against Sri Lanka at Kingsmead because he thought South Africa were ahead of the Duckworth/Lewis target. The scores were, in fact, level. Another tie and another exit — this time in the first round. Shaun Pollock’s tenure as captain disappeared into a puddle in the aftermath.

Four years later, in a semi-final in St Lucia, South Africa were 27/5 inside 10 overs bowled by Nathan Bracken, Glenn McGrath and Shaun Tait. Headlights would have batted better, nevermind rabbits. Australia sailed into another final, and to a hattrick of titles.

New Zealand, invariably as clever as they are not overpowering, found a way into the South Africans’ heads in their Dhaka quarter-final in 2011, and what should have been a straightforward chase to 222 crashed and burned to 172 all out. How Graeme Smith walked into the press conference that followed in a more or less straight line, and how he didn’t throw his chair at a reporter who said South Africa had gone from “chokers to jokers”, was singularly impressive.

In 2015 South Africa finally won a World Cup knockout match, sweeping aside Sri Lanka in their quarter-final in Sydney with nary a blip of their heart-rate monitors and, in the process, snuffing out Kumar Sangakkara’s record century streak at four. Might that have been the year they could exorcise their Ellroy? It might, until the suits insisted on the inclusion in the XI for the semi-final against New Zealand in Auckland of Vernon Philander and his dodgy hamstring and ambivalent tournament form at the expense of Kyle Abbott — their best-performing seamer in the competition — on racial grounds. The diktat was especially cynical and stupid considering Farhaan Behardien, who would have the same effect on the colour quotient, would have fitted well enough into the mix. 

In his most accomplished game as a captain, AB de Villiers managed through canny bowling changes and field placings to limit the damage the brave but bruised Philander might have allowed to be caused. But there was little de Villiers could do about the mental meltdown the administrators’ disastrously timed interference had set in motion. That South Africa took the game as deep as they did is a monument to their fortitude: the contest had been decided long before Grant Elliott ripped the chilled velvet of the night sky with a straight six off Dale Steyn that settled the issue with a ball to spare. de Villiers either spat with rage or retched with sadness at the press conference. It was difficult to tell which through eyes that no longer believed what they saw.

So here we are, in 2019, with no AB, who has retired from the international stage but can easily be seen visiting his genius on a T20 tournament near you, half a ‘Hash’, whose beard is almost all that remains of the player he used to be, and a dwindling Dale, who at the time of writing was battling another shoulder injury. Things are bad enough for South Africans to have made something like peace with the probability that this will, again, not be their year; that after the final at Lord’s on July 14, 2019 it will still be June 17, 1999 for at least another four years.

This tournament will likely be even more difficult for the sacred in a South African society where the profane — rugby — has already won the World Cup twice and cricket is still thrashing about trying to get to the church with its head on the right way round. So you can’t blame some of us for wondering whether a first-round exit would be the least painful: get in, don’t get far enough to stoke hopes, get out, and get going on building the generation who will have to carry the burden onward, what with several senior players ready to call it a career.

Because that’s what it could take to heal this hurt, to make 1999 just another crazy year in history; a reason to remember, not a fear to forget. Aiden Markram was born in 1994 and Kagiso Rabada a year after him. With luck and good parenting — which they seem to have been fortunate enough to enjoy — what happened at Edgbaston will be more like a scratched knee in their consciousness, and for others of their vintage, than the hole in the heart it is for older South Africans, players and civilians alike.

That Markram captained South Africa to triumph at the 2014 under-19 World Cup in the United Arab Emirates, where Rabada was rampant in the same cause, can only fuel this narrative. It’s going to be up to today’s kids to grow up into the world beaters of tomorrow. Not only are they too young to have fully felt the shock of 1999, they also don’t know what it means to have been raised during the apartheid years — which has saddled those of us who were with a shadow of denial that dogs every facet of our lives.

We were told that what was called South Africa’s team in 1970 was the best in the game. Nevermind that they were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the tiny white minority and did not play against opponents who weren’t anything but white. The fakery was plain, and it gave rise to a crippling doubt — if the team weren’t as good as they were said to be, how good were they? And how could we know if the side who came back into the fold almost 22 years later were anywhere near as good? Or better? 

To be a South African who carries these questions within them in an exponentially smaller but not dissimilar way to those who never get over the long ago death of a parent, is to lug a special load through life. There was no white-ball cricket before the separation, and Test cricket has become its own shining thing that has separated itself from the relentless comparing that happens lower down the game’s food-for-thought chain. So South Africa’s experiences at the World Cup are the closest we can come to knowing answers that will forever be unknowable, and it’s driving us mad.

We can only hatch theories or, equally as damaging, pretend none of what went before ever happened. And try to believe that the history of South African cricket as an entity on the international scene began when Jimmy Cook and Andrew Hudson were hit hard by the reality of walking out to open the batting in front of 91 000 in a one-day international against India at Eden Gardens on November 10, 1991.

It didn’t, of course. It started and ended where and when it remains today: at Edgbaston on June 17, 1999. Ellroy is here.

First published, before the 2019 World Cup, by the Nightwatchman.

Leading Edge: Edgbaston is a mother of a cricket ground

Another tournament is on its way into the annals of failure. Thanks, Edgbaston, for nothing.

Sunday Times

TELFORD VICE in London

EDGBASTON is a mother of a cricket ground. No, not like that. Like this: if you go there, you will be fed. And fed. And fed some more.

At least, that’s what happens if you’re a reporter — whose uncritical adulation suits everywhere and in every sport try to buy with perks; stuff like free desk space, free power, free wifi and, especially, free food.

Judging by the array and quality of the fare on offer to the press at Edgbaston — which is way too good for the likes of us — Warwickshire or England or the ICC or all three must be hiding something properly big and particularly nasty.

How many bodies are buried under the outfield? Is the pitch block a portal into Hades itself? What evil stalks the concourses in the late, lonely hours once stumps have been drawn? 

Either that, or something like that, or the suits are really nice people …

It seems a good idea to give South Africans another reason to think about a ground where only bad things appear to happen to the team that flies their flag. It is their field of nightmares, and even more so after Wednesday.

South Africa didn’t play badly in their World Cup match against New Zealand. They just didn’t play well enough when it mattered. New Zealand did. 

And so another tournament is on its way into the annals of failure. Thanks, Edgbaston, for nothing. It doesn’t matter a jot that South Africa last lost a test there in 1960, or that they have gone down in only five of the 16 matches they have played at the ground.

It also won’t matter much that the genuine and lasting damage to the cause this time was done in the first week of the tournament at the Oval, where South Africa should have chased down England’s 311/8 and never should have allowed Bangladesh to get anywhere near 330/6. Instead, they crashed and burned 104 runs short and then sputtered and stalled to 309/8.

But it’s Edgbaston that is the keeper of the flame of #ProteaFire: the kind that burns South Africa’s hopes and ambitions to an ugly crisp.

And all because of 1999 and all that, when Lance Klusener and Allan Donald … You know the rest, and this reporter couldn’t be bothered to find new ways to tell old stories anymore.

Suffice to say that what happened in that World Cup semi-final against Australia 20 years ago will live forever for cricketminded South Africans. Yes, it really was, is and always will be that catastrophic.

Wednesday can’t come close to it, which is no bad thing. We don’t need our shelf of horror stories bookended by two of similar magnitude.

Aesthetically, Edgbaston doesn’t stick out from the rest of Birmingham because it is just as unremarkable as the rest of the city. Ordinariness, it seems, is the ideal there. So you would be forgiven for thinking you had happened on a circular office park that featured a treeless park at its centre.    

That should only add to South Africans’ distaste for the place. If you get hammered in Mohali, where a filthy stream oozes past the ground and sparks leap from power points in a pressbox that seems open to anyone, or the Gabba, where the Vulture Street End is opposite the spot where Greg Ritchie used the K-word in a spew of racism he thought was funny in a lunchtime speech delivered during South Africa’s 2012 test series, you have the shoulder of a narrative to cry on.

Edgbaston isn’t like that. It is as banally beige as it is possible for a place to be. Nothing wonderful or terrible should ever be able to happen there. It wears its mediocrity faultlessly flat.

But not when South Africa are there. At least not when they are there to play a game they must win to keep hopes and ambitions alive.

Edgbaston is a mother of a cricket ground. Yes: like that.

South Africa have become the unloved Birmingham of world cricket

Twenty years ago, Hansie Cronjé’s team came to Edgbaston and were tattooed with the ink of fear and failure. Faf du Plessis’ team returned to have the same tattoo touched up. It hovers fresh and tender on the skin once more, restored to its full and cruel indelibility.

TMG Print

TELFORD VICE in London

BIRMINGHAM is not a pretty place. A gleaming new railway station, a soulless, bloated shopping mall, endless stretches of bricked up suburbia, the hotel where professional racist Enoch Powell made his anti-immigrant, pro-fascist “rivers of blood” speech in 1968, a decent pub, at least — The Plough, in Harborne — and that’s about it.

It is cold, drab, often wet and windy and generally sunless, and owes the reason for its status as England’s second city to the fact that it is bang in the middle of the country. Birmingham is the Dubai of Britain — a place to pass through, maybe grabbing a flaccid sandwich and a watery coffee on the way, but not a place to stay, much less to live.

Whether it can rightfully be regarded as a place at all could fuel a decent debate over a few pints at The Plough.

But Birmingham has something else. Something cricketminded South Africans prefer did not not exist. It’s Edgbaston, stupid.

Twenty years ago, Hansie Cronjé’s team came here and were tattooed with the ink of fear and failure. On Wednesday, Faf du Plessis’ team returned to have the same tattoo touched up. It hovers fresh and tender on the skin once more, restored to its full and cruel indelibility.

Hang on a minute, you say. The climax of the 1999 World Cup semi-final against Australia was a singular brain fart in cricket history. What happened between Laurel and Hardy, aka Allan Donald and Lance Klusener and the calamitous runout that tied the match and put Australia in the final, which, of course, they won, cannot be compared to Wednesday’s game against New Zealand.

For a start, it was a league match and not a knockout. And it wasn’t as if South Africa blew it. They simply didn’t play well enough to win. The New Zealanders, notably Kane Williamson and his undefeated 106, did.

Superficially, yes. But if all that was wrong with Birmingham was a bleakly modern train station or a nondescript shopping centre or communities diluted by too much low density housing or the scene of a hateful speech delivered 51 years ago, it would still be a place, and not a bad place. But pile all of those factors into the same few square kilometres and things are different. Behold, the non-place.

Similarly, had South Africa not batted like muppets against England or India or bowled like muppets against Bangladesh — Banglabloodydesh! — they would have been able to live with coming second in a proper scrap with the Kiwis. 

But six games into their World Cup campaign the only islands in their stream of sorriness are a washout against West Indies and a win over Afghanistan.

“It’s disappointing, of course,” Ottis Gibson said after Wednesday’s game. “We didn’t do what we left home to do. It’s still quite raw.”

When the squad was announced Faf du Plessis spoke so sincerely about how this South Africa side were not as good as those who had gone before that he managed to transform weakness into strength: players are weak, teams are strong.

But perhaps it was always going to be this way. Maybe Hashim Amla being hit in the head barely four overs into their first innings of the tournament was a sign that South Africa were less in control of their destiny that ever before. Maybe the revelation that AB de Villiers wanted to come back to the fold after ditching his teammates for less cricket and more money did their heads in. Maybe heads were buried under the dressingroom duvet when Dale Steyn’s return home with a shoulder injury followed Lungi Ngidi’s hamstring problem, which followed Anrich Nortjé’s broken thumb.

“There are a lot of world-class players in our dressingroom but for whatever reason it seems the guys have been hampered in putting their best forward,” Gibson said.

“In bilateral series we’ve played very good cricket, but we haven’t been able to do it here and thats something as a coach I need to think about.

“We’ve spoken the language of being positive and aggressive and taking the game forward for a long time.

“To see, when we come to this stage, guys going into their shell is a little but surprising.”

Pakistan loom at Lord’s on Sunday. They have also won only one game, in their case in five attempts, and it’s difficult to know whether Wednesday’s news that Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) committee head Mohsin Khan has resigned after eight months in a job in which he held a scant three meetings will make them more or less dangerous opponents.

But we do know Pakistan are taking their World Cup woes seriously. PCB managing director Wasim Khan has taken over from Mohsin and has already announced a review of the team’s performance in the last three years. It will start immediately after the tournament. Are you listening, Cricket South Africa?

Next Friday South Africa will be up north to take on Sri Lanka in Chester-le-Street, and eight days after that they will reach the end of this wretched lurch through England when they play, of all people, Australia at Old Trafford.

At least, that should be the merciful end. But if South Africa beat Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and all sorts of miracles happen in other games, they may yet have to take on the Aussies with a place in the semis still within reach.

The Lankans, who also have a solitary win from five matches but are two places higher in the standings than West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan because they have had two washouts to those teams’ one, are eminently beatable.

Not so the Australians, a rumbling juggernaut of a side just itching to prove to the world that all that petty nonsense about ball-tampering last year was just that: nonsense.

It’s a measure of what a mess South Africa are in right now that the very thought of a sudden death clash against the yellow menace comes laced with horror.

What are the chances? None if South Africa lose on Sunday. Say it quietly if you must, but say it: Pakistan! Zindabad! 

Rain a factor at Edgbaston

TMG Digital

TELFORD VICE at Edgbaston

OF the 59 one-day internationals played at Edgbaston only seven have not reached a result, one of them abandoned entirely. But all of those false starts have been among the most recent 29 games at the ground.

And Wednesday’s World Cup clash between South Africa and New Zealand might just become stalemate No. 8.

Thunderstorms have been forecast at 10am, noon and 3pm, and the chance of rain floats between 43% and 51%.

Rain has soaked Birmingham in recent days, and was falling over the ground late on Tuesday afternoon and into the evening.

South Africa and New Zealand have both fallen foul of the weather gods at the World Cup, against West Indies and India respectively.

So neither will be keen to sit around waiting for the skies to clear on Wednesday.

The Kiwis will be less anxious, what with three wins already in the bank.

But Faf du Plessis’ team could feel the urge to help the groundstaff with their mopping up duties — they have won only one of the their five games and desperately need the two points to stay alive in the race for a place in the semi-finals.

The match is the first scheduled for Edgbaston in this year’s World Cup, which has only added to speculation about the pitch.

It looked significantly less green — more like a delicate shade of Marie biscuit, in fact — than the surface South Africa beat Afghanistan on at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff on Saturday.

And with both the South Africans and the New Zealanders heavily reliant on pace, that could force a rethink about personnel and tactics.

But there is little doubt that Lungi Ngidi, the towering fast bowler who has missed South Africa’s last three games with a hamstring injury, will be unleashed.

New Zealand have retained the same XI for all four of their matches, and seem set to do so again on Wednesday.

South Africa, this is your team. Always

Sunday Times


TELFORD VICE in London

EDGBASTON is the perfect place to sulk about a cricket match gone wrong. Particularly a wet, cold Edgbaston.

It’s a starkly symmetrical, utilitarian ground, a place where the nuts and bolts of the game seem to matter more than what adorns cricket or conjures its drama.

If The Oval is a pull ripped from the heart and Lord’s a cover drive fetched from the soul, Edgbaston is a forward defensive. A very good forward defensive — bat and pad snugly together, head hovering over ball meeting bat — but unlovable nonetheless.

That’s Edgbaston at the best of times. At the worst of times, when the rain tumbles down along with the temperature and the result has gone the wrong way — as it did on Wednesday when Pakistan had the wood over South Africa in all departments — it is a wasteland.

Edgbaston is, as every cricketminded South African knows and every bastard Australian can’t help reminding them, needlessly, where Lance Klusener and Allan Donald got things so badly wrong in the 1999 World Cup semi-final — a yoke that seems determined to hang around South Africa’s necks as determinedly as the “Curse of the Bambino” stuck to the Boston Red Sox.

The latter took 86 years to be resolved. South Africa’s problems with winning one–day internationals when it matters are only 18 years old.

But that’s too bloody long by half for their cricketminded compatriots.

And here South Africa are, at the Champions Trophy in England, having yet another go.

And there they were at wet, cold Edgbaston on Wednesday wondering what the hell had gone wrong. Again.

“Pakistan played better than us,” Russell Domingo said.

There was no arguing with that.

Nor with this: “We know that there’s a lot of talk about us having not won a competition for a long time.”

But there is arguing with this: “There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s outside of what we can control. We’ve just got to focus on playing good cricket and preparing well.”

Even if he did temper it with: “We have to take that on the chin and acknowledge that our performance was not as good as what we can put together.

“So we have some thinking to do and planning to do going into Sunday’s game.”

On Sunday, that is, against India at The Oval.

If South Africa win they will plot a path forward to the semi-finals.

If they lose they will watch the final from the comfort of their five-star hotel rooms as they contemplate their preparations for the T20 and test series against England that will follow the tournament.

The contrast is as stark as it has always been.

But there is hope that this South African team, because they have not swept all before them in England, are made of sterner stuff than those who have gone before.

And that hope comes from someone who knows that stark difference only too well.

“In the five games that we’ve played [including an ODI series against England, who won it 2-1] we haven’t been at our best,” Shaun Pollock said. “We haven’t clicked as a unit for the full 50 overs, batting or bowling.

“I would have thought the batting would be our strength — we’ve got three in the top 10 [rankings: AB de Villiers, Quinton de Kock and Hashim Amla} — but they haven’t really fired.”

That glass wasn’t necessarily half-empty.

“Golfers and tennis players go to certain tournaments and they play unbelievably well,” Pollock said.

“Others don’t look great and squeak through five-setters or just make the cut.

“And then they come good.”

Whether or not that happens in this tournament, Pollock was confident the problem wasn’t the topic that has set fire to the headlines and comments sections — De Villiers’ captaincy.

“When the team’s not winning and you’re not performing, all of a sudden everyone wants to point fingers,” Pollock said from personal experience.

“If he goes out and gets a hundred off 60 balls [on Sunday], everyone’s talking about ‘AB baby’.

“When the team lose it’s your team. When the team lose it’s our team. That’s how it works.”

It shouldn’t work that way. It’s every South African’s damn team. Always. Everywhere.