Stuff Digital Edition

‘Tokenism’ prompted de Kock to walk away

South African cricket has never been about balls and wickets alone, writes Tim Wigmore after Quinton de Kock’s withdrawal.

Quinton de Kock’s refusal to take a knee prior to the T20 World Cup match against West Indies was down to his belief that it’s a ‘‘token gesture’’, according to a South African cricket writer.

De Kock withdrew from the South African team after the squad was directed to take a knee by the game’s governing body in that country. It came after some players stood with their hands behind their back prior to South Africa’s match against Australia on Saturday, while others knelt with a fist in the air, and a third group stood with a raised fist.

Cricket South Africa then ordered all players to take a knee, leading to de Kock making himself unavailable for the match against the West Indies.

Speaking to SEN Radio, Johannesburg journalist Lungani Zama said the decision was only communicated to the players in the hours before the match.

‘‘’Quinny’ just took umbrage at the fact there was an instruction given with no choice for players,’’ he said.

‘‘The timing could have been a lot better, given the amount of time South Africa have had

to take a definitive, collective stance on it and they’ve almost made up the rule in the middle of a tournament ahead of a must-win game.

‘‘The previous board had said to them that every player is allowed to express themselves in whichever way they deem fit.’’

Zama said de Kock’s actions away from the game showed that he takes the issue of equality seriously. ‘‘I’ll qualify it by saying that Quinton de Kock, if you’re asking me if he’s racist or against Black Lives Matter, I’ll unequivocally say no because I know him personally,’’ he said.

‘‘I know the work that he’s done to improve the lives and experiences of black players and black people around him for years and years, long before Black Lives Matter was a trend on social media.’’

According to Zama, the 28-yearold is upset at the imposition of a blanket rule by Cricket South Africa, feeling that it takes away the importance of any gesture.

‘‘Because their constitutional rights were taken away from them, it was an instruction from the boss when it hadn’t been previously discussed,’’ he said.

‘‘Added to that, he sees it as a token gesture which has been watered down to almost mean nothing. It’s something that you have to do to be seen to be doing the right thing.

‘‘His preference is to actually do the right thing, which he does in the way that he lives, the way that he interacts, and the way that he treats people of all races.’’

When Quinton de Kock pulled out of South Africa’s side for its T20 World Cup match against the West Indies because he did not want to join his team-mates in taking the knee, it was another chapter in a never-ending story: the fraught, intertwined relationship between sports and politics in South Africa.

During apartheid, the South African government desperately sought the legitimacy that the sporting pitch could provide. It was desperate to continue playing normal international sport – and then, when the team was banned from official international cricket – and later rugby – it organised rebel tours to entice foreign teams. One year after his election as South Africa’s first democratically elected president, Nelson Mandela wore a Springbok shirt at the Rugby World Cup final in 1995, a moment that seemed to symbolise the power of sport to help bring unity to South African society.

The notion has been severely tested in recent years. While there have been moments when sport has seemed to galvanise South Africa – above all, Siya Kolisi lifting the Rugby World Cup two years ago – more often it has offered a mirror to a deeply troubled, fractured society.

In cricket, these divisions have never been more apparent than in the last 18 months. The murder of George Floyd by a police officer in May 2020 gave new impetus to the global Black Lives Matter movement. When South Africa’s cricketers returned to the pitch, they were confronted with how to address the movement’s protests against racial injustice.

‘‘It’s something we need to take seriously, like the rest of the world is doing,’’ fast bowler Lungi Ngidi said in July last year. He thought it was an uncontroversial response to a question about Black Lives Matter. Instead, it sparked a bitter rift within the South African game, as four prominent white former players attacked his comments, accusing Ngidi of ignoring the plight of white South African farmers being attacked.

In July, Cricket South Africa launched its Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, which aimed to uncover exactly what South African cricket has been like since readmission in 1992. The findings from the hearing, which is still ongoing, have been shocking.

One young player in the domestic game had his face painted white by a coach because he had dirty boots.

Ashwell Prince, South Africa’s first person of colour to captain the country in a test match, was called a ‘‘quota player’’ by team-mates. Paul Adams, who played 45 test matches from 1995-2004, was nicknamed ‘‘brown s .... ’’; the phrase was sung in a team song. Mark Boucher, now South Africa’s head coach, has admitted to singing along.

As these revelations have emerged, a debate has been swirling around whether South Africa’s cricketers should follow the lead of other sports teams around the world in taking the knee.

Unlike with many countries, South Africa did not take the knee in their first matches after Floyd’s death. Instead, the side initially took what was described as a team decision to wear black armbands, remembering both those who had died during the pandemic and offering support for a campaign to raise awareness about violence against women.

But the question of whether the team should take the knee never went away. During the tour of the Caribbean in July, all players were given the option of whether or not to take the knee.

Cricket South Africa had previously allowed players to either take a knee, raise a fist or stand to attention before matches. During the tour of the West Indies this year, de Kock had been the only player not to do any of these three options, attracting criticism from anti-racism campaigners. ‘‘I’ll keep my reasons to myself and it is my own personal opinion,’’ de Kock said at the time.

The differing options on taking the knee manifested themselves before South Africa’s World Cup opener, against Australia. While all Australian players took the knee, only eight South African players did – de Kock, Anrich Nortje and batsman Heinrich Klaasen all stood with their hands by their side.

This sight of a lack of unity led to Cricket South Africa deciding on Monday, that all players should be mandated to take the knee in the remainder of their World Cup campaign. And while Nortje and Klaasen took the knee along with all their team-mates, de Kock refused to, pulling out of the match. Unless he changes his stance, he will not play again in the World Cup.

De Kock’s reasons – which still haven’t been revealed – now mean the international future of the finest South African batsman of his generation is in jeopardy.

‘‘We can’t escape the consequences of the choices and decisions that we make,’’ Temba Bavuma, South Africa’s captain said.

‘‘It’s nice to have a cricket question,’’ Bavuma said after a rare question that addressed his side’s impressive eight-wicket win. But South African cricket has never been runs and wickets alone.

Sport

en-nz

2021-10-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

2021-10-28T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://fairfaxmedia.pressreader.com/article/282325388183855

Stuff Limited