The dreams and aspirations of the chief host nation lie in shambles after the shocking exit from the ICC Cricket World Cup 2003

Keith Lane04-Mar-2003The dreams and aspirations of the chief host nation lie in shambles after the shocking exit from the ICC Cricket World Cup 2003. The South African team has not only disgraced themselves by turning up such a dismal performance but also slapped the faces of millions of supporters of the national team.World Cup 2003 has turned out to be a cup of misery for this rainbow nation. The promises made by the South African team have gone with the wind and rain. Not to mention the few who wanted to dedicate the World Cup to a fallen hero. Let alone winning the World Cup, South Africa now have been left with the ignominy of watching the minnows Kenya in the Super Sixes.Let us face the truth boldly, this World Cup campaign was not lost due to rain and Duckworth/Lewis method. South Africa are victims of their own mediocre cricket. It seems the early warnings were ignored. The appalling performance against India in the ICCCT semi-final at Colombo failed to open the eyes. Maybe some found comfort in having the dreadful tag of being eternal chokers of world cricket.There will be a million questions asked across this country – which was gripped by cricket fever, even before the World Cup started. A post mortem of South African cricket will reveal a lot of answers. It will take a very sincere endeavour from the part of the South African board to set things right for South Africa to have a realistic chance in the next World Cup in four years time.A closer examination of the strategy and the planning for this World Cup exposes a few myths about this South African team. For starters, let us look at the slow over rate. They were docked one over in the opening encounter of this World Cup, which was instrumental in them losing to West Indies.Arriving in Durban for an even more crucial game, after telling all, “We will have to look at our over rate” the South Africans were once again guilty of the same offence. At the end of the innings the bowlers had to run off shortened run-ups, and others, who had been bowling seamers, had to resort to off-cutters.Thanks to the leniency of match referee Clive Lloyd they somehow escaped punishment for finishing nine minutes outside the time limit.It is easy to pass comment in retrospect, but certain areas of the South African performance lacks professionalism and application. Surely after the first hour the captain should be in a position to asses the over rate. To realise that they are once again in trouble after nearly three hours into the innings speaks volumes for the management.Added to this, that no one in the South African dressing room understands or is capable of reading a Duckworth/Lewis printout is beyond understanding. Earlier during the World Cup, the UCBSA president got away with a public apology for some inappropriate behaviour, surely an apology is not an adequate excuse in this case.Bowling 11 wides and five no balls comes as no surprise. At numerous net sessions, the media in attendance have repeatedly asked why bowlers are allowed to continually overstep the line with no one correcting or commenting on this poor practice.The signs of things to come was evident when the South Africans were unable to defend a total of over 300, reduced by Duckworth/Lewis, against New Zealand who had never before beaten South Africa on home turf. The bowling lacked any discipline and penetration, while the body attitude of the senior players spoke of defeat.The selectors should also face the gauntlet. The promise of Alan Donald’s experience being vital for our bowling attack was once again thrown to the dogs. As it happened in the quarterfinal against West Indies in Karachi in the 1996 World Cup, Donald was once again left out of the team for the crucial final group match against Sri Lanka. To throw youth and inexperience into the deep-end, and expect it to come out swimming was always asking for trouble.The selection of Graeme Smith ahead of Andrew Hall in his first match must be questioned. Hall was in the original squad of 15, but with the injury of Jonty Rhodes, Graeme Smith was called up. Surely if Hall was good enough for the original squad then he should have been selected ahead of Smith in a team that was already top heavy in batsmen. The fact that Smith did well is beside the point; Hall just may have given the team an extra option.The attitude of some of the team members also leaves a lot to be desired. Having already been spoken to by Gerald Majola, the verbal abuse that some of the opposing batsmen had to endure goes beyond sportsmanship. Television has given the game great exposure and with effect microphones close to the action, and the ability of most of us being able to lip-read the South Africans must rate as number one in the area of foul-mouthed cricketers.One would have hoped that things could have only got better after `Cronjegate’. But then, the truth stares straight into our eyes – there has been a steady decline, ever since the departure of a coach, a captain, and once again a coach. Surely, South Africa has enough talent to put a team in the Super Six. Let us not blame it on the rain, or the D/L method, it was just a disgraceful show by the South African team. One only hopes that the rainbow nation will have a cricket team that will put the smile back on those millions who support this wonderful game in South Africa.