Lankans keep the faith to win

South Africa’s spinners took 4/118 at an economy rate of 4.54. Their seamers claimed 2/171 at 7.13 to the over.

Telford Vice | Cape Town

“EVERYONE has a reason to pray.” It isn’t often that advertising at cricket grounds is quotable, but that’s what was spelt out below a sponsor’s logo that was flashed on an electronic board at the R. Premadasa Stadium on Thursday.

“Indeed,” the Sri Lankans might have said in response. They had lost all but two of their previous 19 ODIs against South Africa, a sorry story that goes back more than seven years. The South Africans might have said the same. It had been 66 ODIs and almost five years since they chased down 300 or more to win in the format. They had only ever done so once in Asia, where they have a starkly better record batting first.

So reasons to pray were not in short supply. But, with all the pleas sent their way from every corner of the world, the gods are busy. Besides, how seriously should they take the imploring of a couple of struggling teams — between them, Sri Lanka and South Africa had won one of their eight ODI series before Thursday — considering all the challenges that need their attention? All that cricket can claim to have in common with real world issues like Covid-19 and climate change is that it also starts with C. So best mere cricketers leave the gods to get on with more important matters.

Certainly, Avishka Fernando batted with the clear-eyed calm of the committed agnostic. His 118 leapt from the scorecard, but at least as valuable was the rock solid steadiness he provided in stands of 57, 79 and 97 with Minod Bhanuka, Dhananjaya de Silva and Charith Asalanka, who threw a muscular 71 into the mix. 

The visitors’ spinners spared them from having to chase an even bigger target than 301. It’s rare that South Africa’s slow bowlers are entrusted with most of the overs, but Keshav Maharaj — whose 2/30 was his tightest bowling in his dozen ODIs — Aiden Markram and Tabraiz Shamsi sent down a combined 26 of them. And they could have made a case for more, or for George Linde to also have been part of the XI. Spin took 4/118 at an economy rate of 4.54 for the South Africans. Their seamers slipped to 2/171 at 7.13 to the over. Kagiso Rabada and Anrich Nortjé were too short too often and Andile Phehlukwayo was too full too often. 

Consequently, South Africa needed a batting hero similar to Fernando, and he was Markram. Sometimes it can seem as if he has too much talent and not enough belief. Thursday wasn’t one of those times. Markram batted with an immaculate conception of how to open the innings and through three partnerships — including a stand of 106 with Temba Bavuma — for his 96, which was ended with a skied drive into the covers and a fine running, diving catch by Praveen Jayawickrama.

That was inside five overs after Bavuma had been hit on the thumb by a throw from midwicket as he lingered out of his ground. He received treatment on the field but headed for the dressing room two overs later and to hospital for a scan directly after the match. “It was freakish to lose him like that,” Markram told an online press conference. “I wouldn’t say it was momentum-stopping, but it was clearly momentum-halting.”

Bavuma’s fate, and Markram’s dismissal, turned the page of this epic from the old testament to the new — even though after 40 overs of South Africa’s reply their 210/3 was identical to the home side’s score at the same stage of their innings. 

Rassie van der Dussen kept the faith with a run-a-ball 59 in stands of 43 with Kyle Verreynne and 51 with Heinrich Klaasen. Van der Dussen’s feet moved about as well as a pair of stone tablets at the start of his innings, but he became a keen disciple of the reverse sweep — which proved his downfall when he was bowled by Dananjaya in the 46th.

That left South Africa to score 41 off 25 balls, and with Phehlukwayo and Klaasen as their only potential saviours. But a South African win from there would have been nothing short of a revelation. Instead it was the Sri Lankans who earned the praise for holding their nerve to win by 14 runs.

Prayers no doubt went up from both dressing rooms afterwards; of thanks from the Lankans and, next door, for the captain to be able to take his place in Saturday’s match. As Markram said: “Hopefully it’s not serious because we desperately need him.”     

Amen to that, you can be sure South Africans are saying.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Leading Edge: A prayer for proper pitches

We could see devils in the donga that lurked at the Wanderers for the match against India last January. Thy cricket fairies’ will was done: St Virat’s team won.

TELFORD VICE in Paarl

Our Groundstaff,

Who art in shorts,

Hallowed be thy craft,

Give us this day and others our daily pace and bounce, but not a lot more,

And forgive us our doubts given the pitches you have prepared these past few seasons,

As we forgive those who have prepared bastardly surfaces to thwart South Africa,

For thine is the roller,

The mower and the watering hose,

For ever and ever,

Howzat?

Your columnist is happily free of the kind of faith that, without a smidgen of evidence, somehow makes people mistake ancient fairytales for truth.

But he has sent up — or is it down? — that prayer nonetheless.

And he has a far better chance of his plea falling on fertile ground than if he had fluttered it at the god-shaped vacuum we imagine is inside us.

Why? Because the International Cricket Council (ICC) has issued the commandment that a covenant will be deemed to have been broken if a pitch is deemed poor enough.

And that will cost the home team points in cricket’s new testament: the good news gospel of the World Test Championship.

Which goes a long way to explaining why the surfaces for South Africa’s series in India last month were heavenly compared to the hellish pitches of their previous rubber there four years ago, when the game was still run according on old testament rules.

Talking snakes convinced people to eat all-revealing apples — “Try it; it’s delithioussss …” — an animal rights activist with a thing for boats went on a 40-day lost weekend, which ended in a drunken orgy, and home teams were free to subject their opponents to 22 yards of fire and brimstone.

The cricket produced was, predictably, biblical. And not in a good way. Here in South Africa, for instance, we could see devils in the donga that lurked at the Wanderers for the match against India last January. Thy cricket fairies’ will was done: St Virat’s team won.

So the promise of salvation when England arrive next month to play four Tests is, though not divine, exactly the type of intervention South Africa need to help them repent the sins of their recent past.

Apparently the wealthy find it more difficult to enter paradise than a camel does to pass through the eye of a needle. Thing is, no-one wonders how big the needle is.

Similarly, you can’t know how good — or poor — your team is if they tilt the balance in their favour by preparing pitches according to the rites of the dark arts.

But the truth of a fair surface will, eventually, set them free.

South Africa have dwelled in the valley of the shadow of this deadly dodginess for too long.

Let a decently South African pitch be their guide and they shall not want for neither runs nor wickets.

That will maketh the visitors to dive into green pastures in vain bids to stop boundaries.

That will also leadeth the South African bowlers beside the still waters of liquidised opposition batting orders.  

They will fear no match referee for they will be on their right side forever.

Their groundstaff will preparest a pitch for them in the presence of their opponents.

Though they will anointest their heads with helmets and make sure their protective cups do not runneth over their whites, they should fear not.

Goodness and mercy will surely follow them for all five days of every Test they play at home, and they will dwell in the ICC’s good books for the entire summer.

You might call this blasphemy, or plain bloody lunacy. But you can’t blame a cricket columnist for going just a little mad in this silly South Africa of ours.

There’s too much seriousness out there not to preach some piffle into the ears of the faithful. And the faithfree. Not to mention the agnostics.

We’re not sure any more which forces are good and which are evil, and no book is good enough to tell us the difference.

In the beginning there was light. Does that mean in the end there will be darkness?

Amen to that. Not. 

First published by the Sunday Times.

Baklava, bridges and brutality: inside Erdoğan’s Turkey

The hand of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the closet islamist – some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism – trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

“ARE you a christian?” The question was trapped in the amber of the muslim call to prayer ringing out all around. It was asked by an old man as we stood across the street from the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate and in front of St George Church in the Fatih area of Istanbul upon a golden Sunday evening a few weeks ago.

I said I was free of faith. He looked bemused.

“Free of faith? Free of faith! Hmph! But without faith you cannot live.”

I did not argue the obvious: here I was, alive, well and happy. Probably, in significant part, because I was free of faith.

He didn’t pursue the issue, no doubt considering me a lost cause. Instead he unfurled priest’s vestments, all but disappeared into their billowing blackness as he donned them with a flourish, bade us farewell, and marched theatrically into the church to solemnise a wedding. Father Elvis, not his real name, had entered the building.

In a restaurant in thoroughly hipsterised Karaköy, a young woman sat among friends who had gathered to mark one of their birthdays. Only she wore hijab. But, like everyone else at the table, she smoked and swigged beer from the bottle.

Was she rebelling against her culture? Was she a subversive in disguise trying to undermine the faith that signals that culture? What would the Istanbullus who are adamant that the nation is divided strictly into those who drink alcohol and those who do not make of her? She had faith, it appeared. Would Father Elvis have approved?

Like baklava, Turkey has many layers. It is more probable than possible, in only a few of Istanbul’s teeming streets, to find cafés serving muddy Turkish coffee alongside those offering the jet fuel that is Antipodeans’ gift to espresso.

Or classy bars and restaurants showcasing some of the 61.5-million litres of wine the country producers annually — much of it of high quality, but only 5% of it exported — to a nation of more than 82-million, 99.8% of whom call themselves muslim.

Or nostalgic shrines to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — the modernising secularist who was galvanised by leading an army to victory over the Allies, commanded by Winston Churchill, at Gallipoli in 1916 into the founding father of modern Turkey in 1923 — within sight of staunchly sacrosanct places of worship.

Or luridly pink-mouthed, wigged, tight-topped transsexual sex workers leaning out of first-floor windows and trying, loudly, to fish customers from the streaming pavements leading to a market frequented by conservative Kurdish women, identifiable by their penchant for snowy, delicately tassled, almost gossamer hijab.

Or 3.6-million Syrians, having fled the war at home, transposing their lives — complete with cardamom-laced coffee, a type of dried spinach called molokhiya, and restaurants using the same names, offering the same menu, staffed by the same chefs and waiters, serving the same customers as they did in Damascus and Aleppo — onto a city that has shape-shifted through the ages from being called Lygos, Augusta Antonina, Byzantium, Stanbulin, Constantinople, Islambol, Polin, Bolis, al-Qustantiniyya, the New Rome, the New Jerusalem, to Throne of the Romans.  

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has mastered separating the layers of the baklava just far enough — while also keeping the whole in one piece — to stay in power.

Born, on February 26, 1954 in Kasımpaşa, an ancient section of Beyoğlu on Istanbul’s European side whose hills tumble into the Golden Horn, Erdoğan grew up selling lemonade and simit, a kind of crisp, sesame-seeded bagel that is the breakfast of choice for almost every Turk, in the streets — where he also played football.

Rather than a prolific scorer he was blessed with the foresight to create goals, and played professionally for Kasımpaşa. These days the club’s stadium, immaculately appointed but small with a capacity of only 14 000, bears his name.

That doesn’t fit with rest of the Erdoğan story, because what he does he does big. Bridges swoop and gleam, one, across the Golden Horn, comes replete with a metro stop, another is the third suspension bridge across the Bosphorus. A mosque in the grand imperial manner, big enough to hold 63 000, looms lumpily in the distance. A vast new international airport is slickly efficient and almost an enjoyable place to be. A tunnel has been burrowed under the Bosphorus, all the better to apply a laxative to Istanbul’s chronically car-clogged colon.

Erdoğan holds a Trumpian perspective laced with Putinesque overtones, which never fails to quicken the patriotic pulse, particularly of Turks outside the main centres. At the Bosphorus bridge’s opening in August 2016, he presented a Turkish proverb as his own profundity: “When a donkey dies it leaves behind its saddle. When a man dies he leaves behind his works. We will be remembered for this.”

But, as with Donald Trump, there is dodginess in the details. The running track that hugs the shore under the bridge over the Golden Horn looks like something out of user-friendly Brisbane. Alas, it peters out in less than a kilometre.  

Similarly, kiosks flutter with all manner of newspapers, 45 of them national dailies, and another 15 exclusive to Istanbul. And few will say less than a glowing word about Erdoğan, not least because 231 journalists have been jailed in the wake of a failed coup on July 15, 2016.

The hand of Erdoğan the closet islamist — some accuse him of practising neo-Ottomanism — trying to subvert Turkey’s decades of secularism is plain to all who want to see it.

Mosques are built in spaces previously dominated by churches, and like all the others in the country they are funded by the regime, which pays everything from the salaries of clerics to the cleaning bills — and controls what is preached. Every Thursday evening the sermon for the next day’s juma service, the week’s most important and best attended prayer for muslims the world over, flutters into the inbox of every imam in Turkey. That’s not to say the men of the cloth don’t have a choice: either they relay the message as is, or follow the themes outlined, helpfully, in the same document.

Lessons on evolution and Atatürk and his successor, Ismet Inönü, have been removed from the school curriculum amid promises to teach “from the perspective of a national and moral education” to “protect national values” — code for a more conservative, religious approach.

And it’s working. Turkish flags displayed prominently in the streets, and there are many, have been put there either by overt nationalists or immigrants desperate to proclaim their affection for the country. 

If you want to research why that has happened if you are in Turkey don’t bother with Wikipedia: since April 2017 the site has been banned there in the wake of articles that said the country was a state sponsor of terrorism.

“My motherland, my beautiful but bruised motherland, is not a democracy,” Turkish author Elif Shafak wrote in an article for Politico last year. For views like that she is routinely rubbished in Erdoğan’s press, and never given the right of reply.

Yet erudite, impassioned opposition to the president and his government’s policies is as easy to find in Istanbul’s streets as crisp baklava and muddy coffee.

People speak openly about their fear of where Turkey might be after Erdoğan, who has ruled since 2003, is no longer in office; when his powerful allies in the construction industry finally run out of money. But some of those same people decline to accept the fact of the genocide, perpetrated by the Ottomans, that claimed the lives of 1.5-million Armenians between 1914 and 1923. On that score they are one with Erdoğan’s regime, which protested petulantly in April when France and Portugal officially recognised this systematic mass murder for what it was.

The Kurds will know how the Armenians felt. Erdoğan has long labelled their organised structures as terrorist, and there is evidence that in their attempts to raise funds they operate more like the mafia than political groups. But Turkey’s army didn’t ask who was a member of what when they began driving the Kurds out of northern Syria on October 9 — which they were free to do after Trump withdrew a small force of strategically situated American troops. Erdoğan wanted a buffer 30 kilometres deep and 480 kilometres long on Turkey’s southern border with Syria, and by October 28 his troops had displaced an estimated 130 000 and left 400 000 without access to clean water. How many have been killed in the cause is unclear.

On October 29 the anti-Trump US congress decided, by 405 votes to 11, that the Armenians had indeed been victims of genocide. As a position of principle it came a century too late. As a backlash against their own president it was clear, and derided by the Turks.

“Circles believing that they will take revenge this way are mistaken,” foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu posted on social media. “This shameful decision of those exploiting history in politics is null and void for our government and people.”

The brutality and bloodletting has ceased, at least until Erdoğan makes good on his threat to chase the legions of Syrian refugees back from whence they came. But the damage has been done. It didn’t help the Kurds that most of them are, like Erdoğan, Sunni muslims. Not that they would have been spared had they been something else.

Because Erdoğan is, at his core, once all his artifice is stripped away and his ambition exposed, that thoroughly human thing: free of faith.

First published by New Frame.

Soccer-punched: why Marx was wrong about religion

World Cups are state-sanctioned, capitalism-controlled drug-dealing that put people in the kind of funk the powerful can use to take the attention off their actions.

STRAIGHT RED – Karl Marx was right about almost everything. Almost …

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in Lisbon

KARL Marx got it wrong. Not about the importance of the workers of the world uniting, nor recognising that they who control the means of production boss almost everything, nor on the inherent evil of capitalism.

Damn straight, comrade, on those counts and many more. So, what was Marx wrong about? God-bothering. Or, at least, about its place in modern society.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.”

Those are 20 of the most beautifully arranged words yet translated into English.

It’s a pity we tend to remember not them but the next seven words: “It is the opium of the people.”

All 27 of those words are from “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”, which Marx wrote in 1834: more than 200 years after cricket became professional and 23 years before the world’s first football club was founded, in Sheffield.

So he had no idea of the monster football would become. But he did take himself off to a cricket match, where, according to Ben Carrington’s “Marxism, cultural Studies and Sport” (2009), he decided that “if the masses could be so easily subdued by such a resolutely sedate game with its mores of bourgeois Englishness dripping from every rule and expression, then all was lost for the socialist cause”.

That explains, perhaps, why Marx didn’t see that the opium of the people wouldn’t be religion in future. Instead, it would be sport.

And that makes World Cups state-sanctioned, capitalism-controlled drug-dealing that put people in the kind of funk the powerful can use to take the attention off their actions. That’s a dark thought, but there are many more and much darker where that comes from. Here are but a few:

Russians were still celebrating their team’s 5-0 thumping of Saudi Arabia in the opening match of football’s 2018 World Cup when it emerged that the Kremlin had hiked VAT and planned to raise the retirement age.

During that match, Saudi forces launched a brutal offensive in their despicable proxy war on Yemen to isolate the main port and so sever deliveries of food and medicine to a nation already wrecked by famine and disease.

The day before a Moroccan own-goal earned victory for Iran, the latter’s authorities arrested Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent Iranian human rights lawyer, and told her she had been sentenced, in absentia, to five years in prison.

Hours ahead of scoring all three of Portugal’s goals against Spain, Cristiano Ronaldo agreed to pay a fine amounting to almost R300-million rather than face further prosecution on tax evasion charges.

None of those stories garnered anything like the amount of coverage devoted to the comparatively insignificant on the field in Russia.  

The masses were high on football, leaving the bold and the bad to do whatever they wanted in sickening sobriety.

That’s as much a comment on what’s wrong with media concerned with little else but their numbers of viewers, listeners and readers as it is on those viewers, listeners and readers.

Sometimes players are dragged into the mess, like Mohamed Salah was in Grozny on Sunday. Chechnya’s boorish oaf of a leader, Ramzan Kadyrov — who insists there are no gay men in his country, which may soon be true considering he has them tortured and executed — turned up at the Egypt team’s hotel and apparently insisted the sleeping Salah be woken up.

Then he posed for photographs with the player that rocketed around the world, leaving Salah to explain the how and why of his seemingly willing fraternisation with a vicious tyrant.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s autocratic, anti-democratic president, and Donald Trump, the dangerous buffoon Americans somehow chose to lead them, must have looked on in impotent rage and envy at Kadyrov’s naked chutzpah. 

It’s not only countries governed by criminals who use the cover of sport to try and hide what they’re up to, or at least give it a respectable face.

At a fan park in Lisbon before the Portugal-Spain game, a former lawyer and journalist and the godson of Portugal’s last fascist dictator stopped traffic and gathered a crowd around him. 

Well he might have: he was Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Portugal’s centre-left president who doesn’t need to be asked twice to pose for a selfie with his beloved compatriots, who could easily be mistaken for voters.

As a woman in Lisbon said the other day: “Ah yes. The World Cup. Our politicians always wait for it to come before they force through unpopular legislation.”

She was from Düsseldorf in Germany, which is led by the ostensibly sane, outwardly decent Angela Merkel, patron saint of refugees everywhere.

This as much a comment on what’s wrong with media concerned with little else but the numbers of the viewers, listeners and readers they attract as it is on what’s wrong with those viewers, listeners and readers.

Which would be worse, a website putting up a video of Ashwin Willemse’s pet scorpion stinging the bejaysus out of a photograph of Nick Mallett, or people clicking on that video?

And how many more hits do you think this article would earn if the names of Willemse and Mallett were in the headline, nevermind that they have bugger nothing to do with this story? 

What the hell are we thinking? How can we allow something as comparatively unimportant as the World Cup to hijack our critical attention when we need it most?

Aside from the damage the tournament aids and abets in our society, the tournament doesn’t even do what it says on the tin.

The idea that we will, after the final in Moscow on July 15, know which is the best team in international football is outdated and laughably naive.

What we will know is which squad of players, arbitrarily chosen more often than not, who represent nothing except themselves and their teammates, have been more successful than 31 other but similar squads over the course of a particular month. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do we keep our eye on the real ball while the World Cup is here to distract us with fakery? By turning to Marx.

“I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set I go into the other room and read a book.”

Yes, that’s Marx. Groucho Marx.