You are here:   ANC > The Silencing of South Africa's Greatest Cricket Side
 
Not all the old Springbok cricketers are bitter. Trevor Goddard says: "I refuse to get upset. You get knocks in life and being treated as we are now is one of those knocks but you can't dwell on that. We played as amateurs and now they make lots of money but you know I think we had the best of it. We had a great sense of fellowship with one another and I sometimes think that gets lost amidst the money. In any case we were all made Life Members of Lord's and they can't take that away from us."

Barry Richards is more indignant. "Not once have I ever been invited to a South African cricket function and they have even taken our numbers away from us [every player gets a number when first selected]. They just started the numbers from one all over again in 1992, which is to say we are no longer recognised as having played for our country. And the fact is that there's nothing that annoys the present administrators so much as the kudos of that great 1970 team. SAB-Miller, one of the key sponsors, are always trying to involve people like me and Graeme [Pollock] and Procky [Procter] but the administrators won't have it: they even threaten SAB that they'd call for a boycott of their products if they went ahead and invited us. It's just absolute revenge. I'm entirely in sympathy with disadvantaged cricketers but our guys were disadvantaged in their prime by not being allowed to play the West Indies, India and Pakistan and we're sure as hell disadvantaged again now."

This certainly seems to be true. Mike Procter took off for England for this summer's  Proteas tour in the hope of picking up speaking engagements and other commitments. "I have to seek work there because no one will offer me work at home," he says. Graeme Pollock is in the same boat, negotiating to go to India to do speaking functions at much lower rates than those taken for granted by the likes of the top Indian batsmen Sashin Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid. Pollock, now 68, faces an uncertain financial future in old age. It is an amazing situation: in all Test cricket history only two men average over 60-Bradman and Pollock, iconic status which, one would have thought, would guarantee financial security. But the problem is, again, that he played in the apartheid era. "Naas Botha, the rugby player, wanted to start a Hall of Fame for Springbok sportsmen but Cricket South Africa would have nothing to do with it because it would have meant commemorating us," he says. "The fact that we used to argue for selection on merit, not on racial grounds, doesn't matter. The current players would, I know, like to have people like Barry [Richards] and Mike [Procter] involved but they have to be careful too: their political situation is still difficult. So it's best that they just concentrate on making runs and taking wickets. I entirely accept that. The real tragedy is that all South African cricketers have been walking a political tightrope for 50 years and they still are."

For the last few years South African cricket has been paralysed by the Majola affair — and even now Majola insists that his supension is temporary and that he will be back. Much of the trouble derives from the fact that there's serious money in cricket these days. Back in the apartheid era Dr Ali Bacher, for long the South African Cricket Union supremo, made famously liberal use of his chequebook to bring "pirate" foreign teams to play in South Africa, effectively a sort of sanctions-busting campaign. Even now, some bitterness lingers over the pirate tours: Viv Richards, for example, said he would die sooner than accept Bacher's money (which meant that Ian Botham quickly said the same) while West Indian players like Alvin Kallicharran, who did accept Bacher's money, have still not been fully forgiven either in the West Indies or black South Africa. As with so many others, Bacher did a quick 180-degree somersault when the politics changed and became an outspoken advocate of picking more than half the national team from blacks. Indeed, Bacher was so determined to win political applause with such promises that he left his successors an impossible job. Although many mixed-race Coloureds and several Asians have made it into the team, interest and participation in cricket by black South Africans has grown far more slowly.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Andrew Dalrymple
October 2nd, 2012
9:10 AM
@Erica Would you prefer that there should there be a ratio or perhaps even a 'quote quota'? Or would the irony thereof be too much even for you? I think perhaps that you may have missed the point of the piece...

JonQuirk
September 12th, 2012
10:09 AM
One of my forebears was Arthur Kinnaird - Lord Kinnaird, known as the first Lord of Football. He not only organised and played in the first soccer international, Scotland v England, but also won 6 FA cup medals, a number only recently surpassed by Ashley Cole who now has seven. Of course when Arthur was plying his trade - in his spare time he also founded Ransome's Bank that became a core component of Barclays, it was only arguably Toffs who had the time and energy (and the necessary balanced diet) to both organise and partake in such frivolous pastimes as soccer. The poor being effectively side-lined and then lacking in opportunity. Yet were it not for the likes of Arthur, would soccer have ever properly got itself started, and would the likes of Ashley Cole ever have had a platform upon which to shine? It all starts somewhere; today's giants of any game stand on the shoulder's of giants who went before. I don't think anyone could argue that Arthur was not a giant, and being lucky enough to grow up close to the county ground in Southampton, and having thrilled to the sights of Barry Richards, Roy Marshall, Gordon Greenidge et al, I know they too were giants, who likewise should be revered the World over; is my mind playing tricks or did I really see Barry Richards score 300 in a single day for the DB Close X1 against a touring team at Scarborough? A voice of reason from the southern tip of the Dark continent

JonQuirk
September 12th, 2012
9:09 AM
It is not just cricket, but much of the other analysis of events in South Africa, and indeed the wider world, where reason, debate and progress itself is held back by didactic PC thinking. I wonder what generations to come will make of our clumsy interpretations of events, causality and blame? But then it has been the case for eons that it takes time for a rational, balanced view of history to be achieved. In the case of South Africa the question is will much of import be left standing by the time this voice of reason prevails? A voice of reason from the southern tip of the Dark continent

Nick Watt-Pringle
September 10th, 2012
1:09 PM
Very interesting article. One way of keeping records of players who played for SA, pre 1992. is to have their number then a forward slash and post Apartheid cricketers number on their shirt/cap etc. In 50 to 100 years from now no one will give a damm anyway. example (146/24) One cannot change history, only the future will benefit from what has happened in past. It is similar to some past atrocities in the world, you can never change it but one must have it recorded for futre generations to understand the past mistakes of this world. Enough of my soap box. I would like to check the stats on Headley and Sutcliffe.

Warren
September 7th, 2012
9:09 AM
A fine piece of journalism and an excellent article. One factual error, which doesn't undo the point being made but is disappointing as it's an error that could have easily been avoided. There are two other players who have Test batting averages over 60 and meet the innings criteria you have to use to have Pollock as eligible. George Headley from the West Indies and Herb Sutcliffe from England.

Erica Blair
September 1st, 2012
8:09 PM
Marvellous. An article about South Africa which doesn't quote a single black person. is this supposed to be deliberately ironic?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.