He's 'emphatically' the right man for the job but you haven't said why. It's obvious Bavuma is a representative of some sort of tribe and that that tribe would be more hurt by him not being there than the 'other' tribe is hurt by him being there. Would be nice if someone could calmly acknowledge this and explore what's going on here. It goes beyond race. There are plenty other black men in the game who could be given a run in the XI. There's just something about this black man, Bavuma, and I don't know what it is. Maybe it's because he's our first serious black batsman and batsmen occupy a special place in cricket lore. I don't know. But you are well placed to explore these things and instead you're playing both sides and walking on your own set of egg shells.
Alex, your use of the word tribe is unfortunate - the fact that you felt the need to put inverted commas around it makes it even worse. I actually don't know what your point is... As I mentioned to David above, most of us are better served performing our jobs with some tact and discretion. I believe I made the point that Bavuma is becoming increasingly eccentric. I also believe it's pretty obvious that he needs to play more, and score more runs. Ocassionally there is a need to 'write' between the lines as well as read between them...
Not to be too defensive, but I quoted 'other' not tribe -- mocking the mere idea, cos we're all on the same side and want the same thing, a strong local game. Since that's the highest ideal, I don't see tact and politics getting us there, rather runs and results. If India beats us for the first time ever in tests (a win and a draw will suffice for them) will they even want to come back? Then we've joined the likes of West Indies and Sri Lanka, yet we're a cricketing talent factory. If we 'emphatically' insist that certain people are undroppable, we're inviting this most undesirable outcome.
To be honest, I'm not sure that throwing around vague insinuations and talking about tribes--which to me is overly reminiscent of the kind of language used by dog-whistle racists on social media, as well as sounding overly conspiracy-theory-ish--helps any more than treading on eggshells.
You might not have a clear idea of what's going on, but it sounds like you have some suspicions. What are they?
It might actually be at least partly to do with race, in that the board might have wanted to have a Black African captain at this stage in SA's history. Then, it was more likely to be Bavuma simply because captains are more often batters than bowlers, and there isn't a Black African batter who can hold down a place in the team across formats. He's also, as Walter points out, got an SA team who'd been playing rather ho-hum cricket for a while to be a team seriously challenging for the WC. I think you could argue--and I think I would--that the key personnel change here was getting rid of Boucher; and Walter seems to have done a very good job. But it wouldn't be surprising if Bavuma was given some credit in this.
Most South Africans would love a captain that represents the majority of our country. Of course Kolisi still has his doubters locally but they are few and far between, and quiet. Mostly, we've united behind him. But if there is no black African batter who can bat and captain such that we consistently win matches overseas (overseas being the key word -- this is international not domestic cricket) then we're better off giving others a chance than choosing to lose by sticking with a batter with a terrible record overseas that, at his age, is unlikely to improve. But this is obvious to most people, which leaves me dumbfounded as to why we persist with Bavuma. I literally have no clue and would like people like Manners to start asking serious questions rather than state he's "emphatically" our man.
Who WOULD you have, though? If you're going to give it to a batter, then the main alternative, I would have thought, is Markram--who has a much worse overseas record than Bavuma.
The other thing is that Bavuma's record may look ho-hum--but then SA's performances overseas have been rather ho-hum recently, so he might be the best (or one of them) of a bad bunch in that respect.
If you're going to give it to a bowler, who is established enough, and injury- and rotation-free enough, to do it? Ngidi and Nortje would seem to be injured too much, and Rabada seems to get overloaded too easily to be a good candidate. Maharaj maybe....
Keshy is a good shout, but he's almost 34 and probably not a long-term solution. I hope peeps at CSA are thinking hard and creatively about future captains, because in SA that decision is at least twice important as it is in other countries. Can't afford to stumble into it.
I guess most of us do - especially within the confines of our work-space and amongst the people we work with. If someone works on a sales team with a terrible CEO but it isn't going to help their cause by pinning their thoughts on the office noticeboard... :)
He's 'emphatically' the right man for the job but you haven't said why. It's obvious Bavuma is a representative of some sort of tribe and that that tribe would be more hurt by him not being there than the 'other' tribe is hurt by him being there. Would be nice if someone could calmly acknowledge this and explore what's going on here. It goes beyond race. There are plenty other black men in the game who could be given a run in the XI. There's just something about this black man, Bavuma, and I don't know what it is. Maybe it's because he's our first serious black batsman and batsmen occupy a special place in cricket lore. I don't know. But you are well placed to explore these things and instead you're playing both sides and walking on your own set of egg shells.
Alex, your use of the word tribe is unfortunate - the fact that you felt the need to put inverted commas around it makes it even worse. I actually don't know what your point is... As I mentioned to David above, most of us are better served performing our jobs with some tact and discretion. I believe I made the point that Bavuma is becoming increasingly eccentric. I also believe it's pretty obvious that he needs to play more, and score more runs. Ocassionally there is a need to 'write' between the lines as well as read between them...
Not to be too defensive, but I quoted 'other' not tribe -- mocking the mere idea, cos we're all on the same side and want the same thing, a strong local game. Since that's the highest ideal, I don't see tact and politics getting us there, rather runs and results. If India beats us for the first time ever in tests (a win and a draw will suffice for them) will they even want to come back? Then we've joined the likes of West Indies and Sri Lanka, yet we're a cricketing talent factory. If we 'emphatically' insist that certain people are undroppable, we're inviting this most undesirable outcome.
To be honest, I'm not sure that throwing around vague insinuations and talking about tribes--which to me is overly reminiscent of the kind of language used by dog-whistle racists on social media, as well as sounding overly conspiracy-theory-ish--helps any more than treading on eggshells.
You might not have a clear idea of what's going on, but it sounds like you have some suspicions. What are they?
It might actually be at least partly to do with race, in that the board might have wanted to have a Black African captain at this stage in SA's history. Then, it was more likely to be Bavuma simply because captains are more often batters than bowlers, and there isn't a Black African batter who can hold down a place in the team across formats. He's also, as Walter points out, got an SA team who'd been playing rather ho-hum cricket for a while to be a team seriously challenging for the WC. I think you could argue--and I think I would--that the key personnel change here was getting rid of Boucher; and Walter seems to have done a very good job. But it wouldn't be surprising if Bavuma was given some credit in this.
Thank you, Dave. The ever-dependable voice of reason :)
Most South Africans would love a captain that represents the majority of our country. Of course Kolisi still has his doubters locally but they are few and far between, and quiet. Mostly, we've united behind him. But if there is no black African batter who can bat and captain such that we consistently win matches overseas (overseas being the key word -- this is international not domestic cricket) then we're better off giving others a chance than choosing to lose by sticking with a batter with a terrible record overseas that, at his age, is unlikely to improve. But this is obvious to most people, which leaves me dumbfounded as to why we persist with Bavuma. I literally have no clue and would like people like Manners to start asking serious questions rather than state he's "emphatically" our man.
Who WOULD you have, though? If you're going to give it to a batter, then the main alternative, I would have thought, is Markram--who has a much worse overseas record than Bavuma.
The other thing is that Bavuma's record may look ho-hum--but then SA's performances overseas have been rather ho-hum recently, so he might be the best (or one of them) of a bad bunch in that respect.
If you're going to give it to a bowler, who is established enough, and injury- and rotation-free enough, to do it? Ngidi and Nortje would seem to be injured too much, and Rabada seems to get overloaded too easily to be a good candidate. Maharaj maybe....
Keshy is a good shout, but he's almost 34 and probably not a long-term solution. I hope peeps at CSA are thinking hard and creatively about future captains, because in SA that decision is at least twice important as it is in other countries. Can't afford to stumble into it.
India seems well up for this series, or S.Africa are just outclassed.
The test series will be interesting. I know which side I like.
Good article Manners. We all need to walk on egg-shells these days. Bavuma strikes me as rather selfish. Not a leader at all.
Hello David,
I guess most of us do - especially within the confines of our work-space and amongst the people we work with. If someone works on a sales team with a terrible CEO but it isn't going to help their cause by pinning their thoughts on the office noticeboard... :)
I don't believe he is now the right man for the job.
We will have to disagree.
Mike, I'm not very good at many things in life, but I'm pretty useful at agreeing to disagree. It may not be long until we do agree, however.