To knee or not to knee – that is the question for South Africa

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

The cricket community has reacted with disbelief at Quinton de Kock’s decision to stand down from South Africa’s T20 World Cup match against the West Indies.

The wicketkeeper-batter withdrew, following a directive from Cricket South Africa requiring all players to take a knee prior to the game.

The 28-year-old is yet to speak publicly about the matter, but his captain, Temba Bavuma conceded the team had been blindsided by the decision, admitting he wasn’t sure if de Kock would take any further part in the tournament.

‘‘As a team we are obviously surprised and taken aback by the news,’’ Bavuma said. ‘‘Quinton is an adult. He’s a man in his own shoes. We respect his decision. We respect his convictions. I know he will be standing behind whatever decision he has taken.’’

The issue first came to a head during the Proteas’ opening match of the tournament against Australia, when some players knelt with a fist in the air, others stood with a fist in the air, while some stood with hands behind their back.

Former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan also weighed in, suggesting the players should be free to make their own decisions, without interference from Cricket South Africa.

‘‘Surely it’s down to the individual to decide whether he or she wants to be involved in any movement,’’ he tweeted.

‘‘A cricket board should request players to do it but if that individual decides they don’t want too it should not stop them playing the game of cricket.’’

Vaughan’s view is supported by former England batsman, Allan Lamb, who was born in South Africa.

‘‘It’s up to every individual, and I think Quinton has the right to do what he wants,’’ Lamb told GB News.

‘‘If someone doesn’t want to do it, then we’ve got to accept that.’’

Leading commentator Harsha Bhogle has raised the possibility that de Kock may not play international cricket again, a scenario that’s not out of the question given the riches on offer on the T20 circuit for a player of his calibre.

‘‘I fear we haven’t heard the last of the de Kock issue,’’ Bhogle tweeted. ‘‘I won’t be surprised if we don’t see him in a Protea shirt again.’’

West Indian captain Kieron Pollard, a team-mate of de Kock at the Mumbai Indians in the IPL, said the matter was straightforward for his team.

‘‘You guys know our thoughts on this matter,’’ he explained. ‘‘It’s something that we feel strongly about as a team and as people as well, and we will continue to do it.’’

But Pollard refused to be drawn on whether de Kock’s stance would affect his relationship with the South African.

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 earlier 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, in its board meeting 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 in his press conference.

‘‘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.