Sunday Times
TELFORD VICE, Cape Town
SPORT is about making winning and losing decisions, but nothing quite like the choice that faced South Africa’s cricket team on March 17, 1992 had ever been put before them or any of their compatriots.
It had nothing to do with bowling or batting first, or picking an all-seam attack, or how many slips to insert into the cordon. It was bigger than that, as the question on the referendum ballot made plain: “Do you support continuation of the reform process which the state president began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?”
This was about yes and no, but not in the same way that a batsman calls for a run. And there was no option to wait. This was about choosing to end apartheid. Or not. That only white South Africans had the privilege of making that choice stank with disgrace only a little less than the fact that the question had to be asked.
But that was then, when FW de Klerk loomed liberal, Nelson Mandela was free, famous but not yet president, and Chris Hani was more than a year away from his violent death.
On March 17, 1992, the South African team were more than 11 000 kilometres removed from all that. They were in Australasia making their debut in the World Cup. They had missed the first four editions of the event, which started in 1975, because of the country’s apartheid-induced isolation from international sport.
Five days after the referendum, they were due to play their semi-final against England. A “No” vote would have forced their immediate removal from the tournament. Yes? No? Wait ...
“The process of moving towards democracy was irreversible, but the referendum was a smart move by FW,” said Ali Bacher, then the managing director of the United Cricket Board (UCB), the forerunner of Cricket South Africa.
“We were in the semis - the vibes were good. South Africans could see that if they were part of the world family of nations, this is what they could be part of.”
But the South Africans’ presence was not universally welcomed. “When we arrived in Auckland, HART (Halt All Racist Tours, the organisation that had turned the Springboks’ 1981 tour to New Zealand into a political nightmare) were waiting for us at our hotel,” Bacher said.
“They said they planned to disrupt our game against New Zealand because there was no democracy in South Africa.”
Bacher was accompanied to the World Cup by Steve Tshwete, who would become sports minister after the 1994 elections.
“There were about 10 of the HART people, and Steve agreed to meet with them. They disappeared behind a closed door. About an hour later, the door opened. Steve said, ‘There won’t be any trouble’.”
Not that the World Cup has ever been about cricket alone. West Indies’ golden generation, who won the first two tournaments and were good enough to be held up as champions of test cricket, a format of the game that refuses to crown champions, struck as many blows against racism and for black pride as they did to score their runs and take their wickets.
India’s triumph in 1983 marked the start of Asia’s rise in more than one sense. Can it be co-incidence that India’s dominance over cricket’s finances and administration first stirred during the early 1990s and marched in lockstep with the economic and social upliftment of its wider society? Pakistan kept the trophy on the sub-continent in 1992 and Sri Lanka held onto it four years later.
Then Australia advanced fair to three consecutive World Cup titles. That is what happens when the eras of great players like Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Ricky Ponting collide like a champagne super nova in the sky over a country that has never not believed it is the best at anything it attempts. In 1999, 2003 and 2007, there was no arguing that that was not true for Australia’s cricketers.
Four years ago, India, coached by Gary Kirsten, who as a player had to work hard for what seemed to come easily to others, captained by MS Dhoni, who looks like he has never worked a day in his life, and featuring Sachin Tendulkar, whose life works despite being saturated with cricket, took the trophy. Dhoni even provided for a Bollywood ending by winning the final with a towering six - the perfect metaphor for India uber alles in world cricket.
There have been no such happy endings for South Africa. In 1992, they were hoist on the petard of a scoreboard that asked them to score “22 runs off 1 ball” to win that semi-final. In 1996, a brilliant century by Brian Lara saw them bow out to West Indies in the quarter-finals. In the 1999 semi-finals, Allan Donald and Lance Klusener choreographed a runout surreally clumsy enough to have merited a lyric in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. In 2003, no-one in South Africa’s dressingroom remembered that teams need to score one run more than par to win a match; even a first-round match. In the 2007 semi-finals, they ran into Australia on a good day - for the Aussies. In 2011, they found a way to lose to lightweights New Zealand in the quarter-finals.
Only once, in 2003, have South Africa failed to reach the knockout rounds. But never have they advanced to the second sudden-death round. In 1992, 1996 and 2007, there was little they could do about their fate - they were beaten either by the playing conditions or the better team. But in 1999, 2003 and 2011 they caused their own undoing.
Karma, anyone? Could South Africa’s lack of World Cup success be payback for subjecting their darker skinned compatriots to murderous oppression for more than 300 years? No. If that were so, the Springboks would not have won the rugby World Cup in 1995 and 2007 and Bafana Bafana would have more to brag about than the 1996 African Cup of Nations title.
Why South Africa have yet to win a World Cup despite bristling some of cricket’s best players, enjoying perennial success and preparing the hell out of themselves has been asked many times.
After this year’s final in Melbourne on March 29, perhaps the question will no longer be relevant.
Remember when ...
“It was unbelievable. It was all the Christmases and all the lottery wins you could imagine all rolled into one, and the team performed amazingly well.” - Mike Procter, coach
“Whoosh! It was over before it had started. When it was over, I wished we could do it all again. Beating Australia in the first match was special, and from an emotional point of view, when we all went out onto the field after the semi against England, it was sad but it was also a special thing to be part of.” - Adrian Kuiper, allrounder
“Those were exciting times. Nelson Mandela had been released, and I felt we had the whole country behind us. It was a feeling of elation, almost surreal. It was very emotive. We were inspired by the leadership and example given to us by Mandela and Steve Tshwete.” - Peter Kirsten, batsman
Comments
No comments yet. Start the conversation.