Such thinking, to make the kind of suggestion as they did, must surely have stemmed from ignorance and, obviously for want of sufficient experience at this level of cricket. In their anxiety, they in haste were selfishly, not so much with a long term view, seeking to achieve temporal gain, by playing these two fledgelings - With the over ambitious, misplaced belief that they could be the answer to halt the winning streak of the South Africans.
For out there, we were up against not just another ordinary side, but a highly professional, competent set of cricketers, who were hell bent on making amends, for all the deprivations experienced in the field of sport, through their isolation for apartheid reasons. The salient feature of this well knit South African team, was that unlike our's they were devoid of flamboyant stars. Every member however, was an exponent of his craft, not found wanting in anyway, but with determination and purpose contributed immensely towards the succes of their side. The replacements for pacemen Bertz Shultsz, Brian Mcmillan, Fanny de Villiers and Richard Snell-in Shaun Pollock, Lance Klusener, Roger Telemachus, Makaya Nitini, Jacques Kallis and of course Donald, proved to be awesome and more than adequate and strengthened even further by an impenetrable wall-like set of fielders who virtually gave nothing away.
Furthermore, what is equally aweinspiring is, that there are quite a few promising players lying on the fringes for selection. This does speak much for the cricketing talent oozing in that country. As against this, if we were to look within - Our performances in South Africa was far from satisfactory, not something that we could be happy about. Neither batsmen nor our bowlers, were either batting or bowling, save for the odd one or two. Our fielding which was our forte and pride, hit a new low. Fielders who usually run into the ball, pick up and throw on the run with dead accuracy, were now waiting for the ball to come to them, misfielding at times to throw waywardly. Even more ludicrous was the surprise dropping of catches at crucial stages, which proved costly.
In these circumstances, when our top order reputed batsmen found it hard to come to terms with the South African pacemen, who were virtually breathing down their necks, with little or no respite on those bouncy hard wickets - could these two youngsters with a year or two experience of friendly, substandard cricket at the local club level, have survived. We doubt very much and those responsible, have done well to shield these two potential players from the onslaught of the South Africans, which would otherwise have dented their morale with disastrous consequences.
It's becoming apparent that the fizz enthusiasm and hard work put in by the administrators, coaches and cricketers, prior to the winniing of the 1996 World Cup, has outlived its period and begun to wane. The newly appointed cricket board since coming into being, have had their hands full, compounded further by our dismal showing in South Africa, the relinquishing of duties by coach Yardley and a request for a significant two months leave by the indispensable manager. The officials of the cricket board must strive at all times to ensure that their individual interests, lie subordinate to that of the cricketers and, the promotion of the game for the greater cause and common good. Anything falling short of this, will not only undermine but belie the trust reposed by those who elected them and the countless number of passionate followers of the game here.
The Kiwis are presently here and the emphasis is to blood as many youngsters in our team, which is salutory and very welcome. Most of them have not been sufficiently stretched in our club cricket which is woefully inadequate. And we should not therefore be surprised if some of them fail to come off. We must not be complacent and treat the Kiwis lightly and take them for granted. For if perchance we lose here as well, the crisis will deepen with defeat becomiing a monotonous habit and a unhealthy exercise.