Will the Proteas choke? Again?

Denying the pattern is the surest way to repeat it
Quick: why is it that Australia can dominate both ODI and Test cricket at the same time (don’t look now but they are threatening to do it again), but when England or South Africa top the Test rankings, it seems to be at the expense of ODI form? I believe the answer goes to the heart of Protea choking.

After the 2011 World Cup Protea coach Corrie van Zyl was in denial. "The opposition see every opportunity to use the word 'chokers' on and off the field for one reason: to get at us mentally. But when our own fans keep reminding us of the past, it doesn't provide motivation, it just brings extra pressure. We need to deal with this in a different way as a nation, we need to stick together."

It is hard not to sympathise with Van Zyl: he had been in the coaching team at more of these choking events than any man deserves. At the 2011 event he had taken over the team only about a year before the World Cup – not long enough, arguably, to reshape them in his own style, to harden them for battle in the way that he might have planned. The last thing Van Zyl deserves is to be remembered as just another coach whose squad choked at the World Cup.

We’ll set aside for a moment the interesting, but somewhat irrelevant question about whether South Africa choked or panicked in 2011 – as Aakash Chopra commented on cricinfo: “The fundamental difference is that while you think too much when you choke, you think too little when you panic. While choking, you want to delay the inevitable, but when you panic you want to get over with it as soon as possible, for you can't bear the growing pressure.”

The unfortunate truth is that Van Zyl’s team choked, and instead of denial, one hopes they have spent the last four years acknowledging the fact. If not, they would make it all too easy for the next must-win opponent to distract them with a familiar taunt. But acknowledgement, difficult as it is, only takes you so far. If you are going to break a bad habit, you need a strategy. This is where the average Protea supporter may have reason to be nervous.

So what do the Australians do different from the English? The answer is tied into English culture, and the fact that English cricket is, almost by definition, an extension of that culture. Contrary to Winston Churchill’s high opinion of the unique abilities of English-speaking peoples, it is worth remembering that what makes the English unique in the world is their odd combination of free society with a severe case of ingrained classism. Applied to English cricket that means that there is a wall between players and coach, even between captain and coach that shall not be crossed, as Kevin Pietersen found out at the expense of his captaincy. The players do the playing, no more, no less. The coach, and only the coach, does the thinking. Works great in Test cricket where focussed robo-players get a strategy update every two hours. Not so much in ODI cricket, where a post fielding innings update is too late to affect the outcome of the current game. This is where the audacious Australian approach of allowing the players to think for themselves yield very different results.

Disappointingly, from a Protea supporter’s point of view, Graeme Smith moved the Proteas from the Australian approach (in turn the handiwork of Kepler Wessels) to the English approach. Even more disturbingly, the post-Smith era is promising to be no better: on June 6, 2013, South Africa opened their Championship Trophy campaign against India with a loss, after winning the toss and choosing to field. Many observers commented that the South Africans bowled too short for the conditions. The only man who could change that, captain AB de Villiers, however went to the post-match interview still spouting the “you can’t bowl too full against teams from the subcontinent” non-sense that he had been briefed on before the game. Focussed robo-player indeed.

In fairness to our Biff: there has been many occasions when focussed robo-batsmen have dragged the Proteas from the edge of the abyss to safer ground, and even improbably victories. As mentioned, it works in the slower-than-molasses Test cricket.

But ODI cricket is a different matter. More often than not knock-out games are won by teams who are able to surprise their opponents. No such luck with the robo-Proteas, focussed or otherwise. They don’t even believe in Plan B, for crying out loud!
Maybe it’s a South African thing - after all the Springbok approach to strategy can be summed up with the phrase: If Plan A does not work, we do plan A harder!

In fairness to the many dedicated Protea coaches who have lead the team since readmission: it is not that these coaches got it all wrong. Rather it is that it is impossible for a coach to get all the details right the night before. Like most other things, game plans need adjusting as the game unfolds. You can have a perfect Plan A, but if it is the only plan you have, you are asking for trouble. This is where the English approach is guaranteed to have limited success in ODI cricket, as the history of the English team confirms.

Of course, it’s not all doom and gloom. In AB de Villiers the Proteas have a captain that is as competitive and as positive as any in the game. He may yet learn to trust his own instincts, in spite of the deference captains are supposed to show to coaches under the English approach. In Dale Steyn De Villiers has a leader of the attack who is similarly competitive, and unlikely to let a coach’s opinion get between himself and victory.