Former South Africa captain Graeme Smith (right) confers with then vice-captain and wicketkeeper Mark Boucher during their World Cup cricket match against Australia in Basseterre, March 24, 2007. Picture: Reuters, Mike Hutchings
CRICKET South Africa’s Social Justice and Nation-building (SJN) Hearings is just coming with the hits.
And their damning findings against the likes of AB de Villiers, Graeme Smith and Mark Boucher this week has sent the furniture flying all over the place.
De Villiers’ role in denying batsman Khaya Zondo an international career was incredibly difficult to fathom.
ALSO READ: SJN Report: Boucher’s ‘brown sh*t’ apology to Paul Adams ‘ignorant, ill-considered’
Zondo was selected as part of the playing squad for a 2015 tour to India, but the KZN star never got his chance.
Abbas told the SJN that he didn’t know that Zondo was on tour as a playing member and was on the trip for “experience”.
That is the worst excuse I have ever heard. And AB deserves all the criticism coming his way and any consequences he faces from the commission.
But just how he is going to make up for Zondo missing out on a chance to represent his country escapes me.
Then there is the dirty that Director of Cricket Smith pulled on Enoch Nkwe by giving his buddy Bouch the Proteas head coach job.
ALSO READ: SJN Report: Racial bias the reason for Mark Boucher’s appointment as Proteas coach
Nkwe had been appointed to succeed Ottis Gibson on an interim basis, but soon Biff had brought in his homeboy to lead the team and demote Nkwe to assistant.
Nkwe, who had worked hard to gain a top-level coaching qualification, was demoted for Bouch, who only had a basic qualification.
ALSO READ: Boucher’s sorry apology not good enough to save Proteas job
Obviously, it’s debatable whether Nkwe and Bouch had fared as domestic coaches, but the man with papiere didn’t get the job and then his ideas were ignored by his bosses.
Nothing is fair about these actions.
The grip these manne have had on the game since their playing days as “the clique” can’t be explained away by “having the best interests of the team” at heart.
It’s the same narrow view as the old dispensation – it excludes the same people, who don’t fit into the “team culture”.