It's time to leave Cronje behind
2003-02-21 09:52
Pietermaritzburg - Everyone, it seems, has been too polite to point this out, but the two players who publicly dedicated this World Cup to Hansie Cronje have had unfortunate tournaments.
Jonty Rhodes is out of the World Cup with a hand injury while poor old Donald has been vilified up and down the country as being hopeless and past it.
This is not to suggest that some sort of moral retribution has been visited upon Rhodes and Donald.
Rhodes' injury was simply bad luck. These things happen in cricket, even if, for Rhodes, South Africa and the World Cup, the timing of this particular injury couldn't have been worse.
Donald, meanwhile, has had a dreadful World Cup so far by anyone's standards. But his treatment by the selectors last week borders on the criminally stupid. More of this later.
The Cronje connection is relevant because it was raised by members of the South African squad themselves. This is not the first time it has happened this summer.
In Morocco the South Africans wore black armbands in memory of Cronje and went about dedicating hundreds and whatnot to Cronje.
At the time it seemed a worrying development and, through Rhodes and Donald, it reared up again just before the World Cup.
In case it is not clear why this should be a matter for concern, let it be spelled out again: whatever Cronje's qualities as a friend, captain and inspiration to certain members of the South African team, by his own admission he allowed himself to become corrupted and, worse, attempted to corrupt those who trusted in him.
This is why he was banned from cricket, not because the United Cricket Board or the International Cricket Council had it in for him.
There may be some who feel he was harshly treated and that there are others, more culpable than Cronje, who have gone unpunished. If this is the case, then they should reveal whatever they know to the authorities.
Cronje's death last year was a tragedy, particularly for his family and friends. His death and his banishment, however, are not connected, however much some may wish to draw a link between them.
Sadly, Cronje's legacy to cricket is one of betrayal. There is no hiding this and no getting away from it. And this, if South African cricket is to move on, has to be accepted.
If not, as seems to be the case among at least some of the World Cup squad, his influence will hold the team back.
Only this week Herschelle Gibbs has been quoted as saying, in the context of Cronje, that Shaun Pollock still had much to learn as a captain.
Gibbs is a person without guile, but someone needs to explain to him that Pollock, who is already under immense pressure, hardly needs to be undermined from within.
The memory of Cronje cannot be a positive influence for the South African World Cup squad and the longer they dwell on the former captain, the more they are likely to infect the newer members of the team.
For Heaven's sake, leave Cronje behind or get out of the game.
Even so, this may not fully explain why South Africa have been so ineffective in the field in the two games they have played against opposition of comparable standards.
Which is where Donald comes back into it.
After bowling badly against the West Indies, he was left out against Kenya last week in order, as it was explained, "to go back to the nets". Then we were told that he was back in the side to play New Zealand because he was looking good in the nets.
Who, exactly, is coming up with this nonsense? By dropping Donald, whose entire career demonstrates that when he is out of form he needs overs in the middle, they undermined the player's confidence.
Worse, they sent out a signal to New Zealand who, unsurprisingly, set their sights on the veteran fast bowler. They couldn't have played into New Zealand's hands better if they'd tried.
Then there was the selection of Graeme Smith to open against New Zealand, a decision which led directly to Gary Kirsten batting at eight and Boeta Dippenaar at nine, and the omission of Andrew Hall who, even if he hadn't batted, would have given Pollock another bowler.
Smith came into the squad as a replacement for Rhodes. It was not a swop of like for like, but so close had Smith been to the original squad that his call-up was understandable.
What was not understandable was why the selectors then chose to break up the Gibbs-Kirsten opening partnership (this after Kirsten had scored 69 and 52 not out in the first two games). If they felt that Smith-Gibbs was a better bet, then why wasn't the squad chosen this way in the first place?
To compound this, after the opening partnership was changed, it was decided to sent Nicky Boje in at three, pushing Kirsten and Dippenaar further and further down the order to the point that they played as specialist fielders.
If this is balanced selection, then Namibia will win the World Cup.
So where does it go from here? The West Indies' washout against Bangladesh means that if South Africa win their next eight games, they should win the World Cup.
In other words, there's still hope. But Plan A having failed against the West Indies, it is time for Plan B, although exactly what that is is not entirely clear.
As poorly as Donald bowled against New Zealand, it should be remembered that the other five bowlers used didn't take a wicket between them. The most likely options open would seem to be Hall, who cannot be left on the sidelines any longer, Monde Zondeki and Robin Peterson.
Hall or Peterson could come in for Nicky Boje, or both might be considered for a run against Bangladesh in Bloemfontein tomorrow, in which case a batsman, Smith probably, would have to make way.
But if Zondeki plays, then so must Donald. The selectors need to compare like with like in similar circumstances rather than rely on hope and guesswork.
On Tuesday in Benoni the elements conspired to offer South Africa a way out of the mess into which they'd stumbled. Let's hope the rain also served to wash away some of the confused thinking that has characterised South Africa's World Cup so far.