Why punish Andre Nel for no fault of his own?
Is Andre Nel a victim of petty politics in South African cricket? It seems so, given the manner in which the fiery fast bowler was dropped from the squad to tour India. Nel’s response to his exclusion was extraordinary – he took out his frustration and anger on the hapless Bangladeshis and took 4 for 29 to be adjudged the Man of the Match. Initially reluctant to play in this second ODI of the three-match series, he was talked into taking the field by his skipper Graeme Smith and coach Mickey Arthur. Nel, however, abstained from the presentation ceremony and Smith took the MoM award on his behalf.
Reports followed soon that Nel was contemplating to leave South Africa to play under a Kolpak contract, or join the Indian Cricket League (ICL) for a hefty amount. In either case, he would have to say goodbye to international cricket. However, to the huge relief of cricket lovers, he postponed taking any decision in haste on the advice of his well-wishers.
The simmering tussle within the South African cricket authorities came to a boil when Cricket South Africa's president, Norman Arendse began a war of words with the coach over the selection of the team for Bangladesh. Arendse was in favor of including an out-of-form Herschelle Gibbs and Charl Langeveldt at the expense of Neil McKenzie and Nel. But Arthur would have none of it, and he finally had his way thanks to the intervention of Gerald Majola, the CSA chief executive. Justifying his coach’s faith, McKenzie scored a double century in the second Test to set a new world record of 415 for the first-wicket with skipper Smith. The axing of Nel from the India-bound team, many believe, was Ardense’s way of showing who calls the shots.
According to latest reports Lageveldt, who was preferred to Nel for the tour of India, has pulled out of the squad. He has said that he is upset and disturbed over the present situation and will not be in a mental condition to give his best in such a demanding tour. It is not yet known who will replace him in the squad.
So, in the final analysis, not one but two bowlers are being made to suffer on account of the injudicious use of the transformation policy in the selection process. (According to the transformation policy, there must be six black players in a squad of 14.) While Nel’s credentials as a bowler will hardly be doubted by anyone, Langeveldt too has performed quite well in the shorter version of the game. Something must now be done by the South African cricket authorities so that even while preserving the positive aspects of the transformation policy, such episodes like the Nel-Langeveldt one could be avoided. The transformation policy is aimed at correcting the wrongs heaped upon a community for long; however, a little flexibility on specific occasions is unlikely to do it any irreparable harm.
Both Nel and Langeveldt still have a lot to give to South African cricket. Why deny them the opportunity for no faults of their own?
