Was Graeme Smith responsible for Thami Tsolekile playing only three Test matches?
Thami Tsolekile sounds bitter and angry and has made no secret of the fact that he believes Graeme Smith was responsible for him playing only three Test matches, two in India and one against England in in PE in 2004. His playing career went into a downward spiral after that and four years later, he was not even playing first-class cricket before a move from the Cobras to the Lions resurrected things.
By 2012, having improved his batting to the status of genuine all rounder, he was back in the Proteas squad for the tours to England and Australia. There is clearly some confusion about whether he was the reserve ‘keeper to the incumbent, Mark Boucher, or whether AB de Villiers was the designated reserve with Tsolekile the third in line.
Tsolekile was, in fact, on tour with the SA ‘A’ team when Boucher suffered his career-ending eye injury in England and was called into the squad as reserve to de Villiers. Eight years later Tsolekile remembers things markedly differently to what he said at the time, now placing the blame for his lack of game time squarely on the shoulders of captain Smith.
In an media interview in Brisbane on November 15 Tsolekile said: “I’ve had long talks with (coach) Gary Kirsten in England and here in Australia and he made it clear to me where I stand, and I’m very comfortable with that. I see no reason to change things,” Tsolekile said.
Smith responded with a firm denial: “I should emphasise that I was never in charge of selections. I had an opinion as a captain, but the casting vote was with the coach and the selectors. In the case of the 2012 tour to England... there was a whole panel of selectors. Thami was in the squad as reserve keeper to AB de Villiers and this was communicated to him on both the England and Australian tours by Gary Kirsten, which has been previously acknowledged by Thami,” Smith said.
“It's a lie. They picked Mark Boucher as a keeper and I was told I was the reserve keeper,” Tsolekile hit back. “I was playing for the South African A side [in England] when Mark Boucher got injured and the selectors called me. I was Mark Boucher's deputy.”
At the time there was a widespread belief that Tsolekile had been extremely unlucky, perhaps even hard done by and unfairly treated. The convenor of selectors at the time, Andrew Hudson, was asked to write a report to the CSA board explaining what had happened.
The recent emergence of that report makes for interesting reading. I’m not suggesting it will stop the debate but it deserves to be presented as part of the evidence. Here it is in full:
Thami Tsolekile Selection issue
“Initial expectation – He was contracted in April 2012 as reserve keeper to Mark Boucher
Selectors planning….
Mark would play in England and Australia (NB to become No1)
Reserve keeper for those tours would be AB de Villiers
Thami (at 32) was identified as Mark’s successor to start [in the next series] against NZ in South Africa
No guarantees were given to Thami
What happened…
Mark Boucher’s unfortunate eye injury resulted in AB taking the gloves
This gave us the “X factor” quite by chance and allowed us to play extra batter at No 7
This unique advantage contributed to us beating England and Australia (in their back yards) and got us to the No 1 position in Test rankings
Thami was in the squad as reserve keeper to AB and this was communicated to him on both in England and Australian tours by Gary Kirsten, this was confirmed by Thami in telecom yesterday.
Selection for NZ Test squad was now between AB and Thami as wicketkeeper and the selection committee agreed to continue with AB as Test wicketkeeper
This was communicated to Thami (50 minute phone call) and the rationale explained, which he understood but was not happy about (my explanation was around his batting and that it was an area he needed to improve on to challenge AB)
Then we had the article from Stuart Hess where Thami expressed his disappointment with selectors and that he was been given mixed messages, however was happy with explanation from Gary.
Some comments…
As selectors we have two objectives…
1. To extend equal opportunity to every cricketer to represent this country at the highest level
2. To pursue excellence in all formats of the game at the highest level
CSA has given us “transformation guidelines” to help us achieve our first objective, I am happy to report that in most selections over the past 18 months we have exceeded our guidelines. Successes in the Indian, Coloured, and White communities have been documented, however we are concerned with the number of Black African cricketers at franchise level and the playing opportunities being afforded them.
Our pursuit of excellence, while in England last year we were ranked No1 in the world in 3 formats, to my knowledge this has never been achieved by any country. Remaining No 1 is often determined by structure and balance of selected teams, our current Test Team has incredible balance and this will continue to be a massive contributor the longer term success of this team. We are committed to building a legacy in world cricket similar to the West Indies and Australia in recent times.”
Thami may well have some genuine career selection gripes. In this instance it is very clear that he’s playing the race card and besmirching Smith,a man whose Great record as player,leader and human being is there for all to see.
Cricket in particular is full of instances of players feeling that they didn't get a fair shake. Sometimes they have a point, sometimes they are blinded by their subjectivity. In South Africa the situation is made worse by the fact that racism (conscious or unconscious) may be behind some decisions, and that is seized on by some individuals. It definitely played a role in ADB etc getting a good schooling background compared to most kids, and it probably played a role in TT still being eligible to take over as no. 1 wk at 32. By my reading of this case, it seems unlikely that race placed a role in the selection of ABD over TT.