Smith deserves top marks but who’s next in line?

Graeme Smith can never be accused of not doing his best for his country. As a player, he thrives off the competitive juices produced in the heat of battle, and his large physical presence notwithstanding, he is an imposing player when chewing his gum at first slip or taking guard when opening the innings. As such, Smith’s resignation as the Proteas T20 captain and earmarking the 2011 World Cup as his ODI swansong with the (c) next to his name should be greeted with understanding, and most of all, a pat on the back.

Never has Smith put the interests of himself before the national team, and while there is a fan club (in the foolish minority) that seems to hold Smith in disdain, his announcement was an excellent piece of diplomacy. Corrie van Zyl, the Proteas coach, said he was surprised by the announcement but surely in private he would’ve known it was coming? Smith has been hinting, as described in The Star as “less subtly every time”, for the last two seasons that he doesn’t want to captain South Africa till his retirement. Smith’s decision puts the interests of the team first and his best interests second (symbiotically it should be said), though for Smith personally it must have been quite a satisfying moment.

He has captained South Africa since he was 22, in 77 of his 81 Tests, and like a couple who have a child when they are 18, Smith feared that his career would only exist within the confines of the captaincy straightjacket. Smith is on the same level as Jacques Kallis when comparing importance to the way the team plays. When Smith gets a hundred, South Africa are always bigger favourites to win the match.

His batting, and his mind, have proven durable as his 30th birthday approaches and considering how much he has given of himself to the cause, never shying away from a challenge, he deserves any solace he can find with the bat in hand and cap on head.

So, the inevitable question is: who’s next? Smith’s decision in part has forced Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) hand. CSA have claimed that there is a succession plan in place, but frankly judging by the evidence, that is a big fat lie.

Smith becoming captain at such a young age, and succeeding, was an excuse for CSA not to even think about appointing someone else. The fact that the vice-captaincy, usually an indicator of who is next in line, has drifted from Mark Boucher to Jacques Kallis to Johan Botha (in the ODI arena) over the years is indicative of CSA’s dicky understanding of who stands behind Smith. Now, they have no choice but to think about the unthinkable and it is about damn time. With Smith also leaving the ODI post after the 2011 World Cup in February next year, CSA must get their act together.

However, if you or I were in CSA’s shoes, the years of neglect shown to the succession question have left the team shorn of any obvious options. As it stands, the person in the street probably knows as much about who will captain South Africa after Smith as much as CSA do. Smith staying on as Test captain is great news, since this is the toughest environment to lead from, so whoever CSA, along with Van Zyl, choose, they better be damn sure. There isn’t time for screw-ups.

So, via the proverbial thumb-suck (a method the CSA have probably used in the past) who are the candidates for the T20 and in the longer term, for the ODI captaincy?

Johan Botha is the first to spring to mind but immediately there is a problem. He isn’t assured of a place in the Test side, and though the shorter formats of the game lend themselves to his range of very adequate skills, what would the point be of appointing a captain that can’t take over in all three formats if Smith happens to suffer injury? It wouldn’t solve anything and would be a short-term answer to a long-term question. Though I have nothing against Botha, he can’t be chosen as the next skipper because his future looks more stop-gap than final answer. Clive Rice claimed last summer that Botha should’ve been chosen as skipper because SA were floundering against England. No offence to Rice, but sometimes he talks a load of rubbish, and being the guy who advised Kevin Pietersen (both a blessing and a curse) to leave his shores, his motives aren’t clear. He never has liked Smith anyway.

Jacques Kallis is too important and frankly too old to be seen as a successor, and as the world’s best all-rounder (Daniel Vettori is up there but JK is king), why on earth would we want him to focus on anything but playing cricket? Mark Boucher is also finished at limited overs level.

Via my earlier statement, South Africa needs a skipper that is guaranteed a place in all three sides. I don’t believe having separate captains for separate formats is a good idea, since if that were the case, what the hell is the point? Smith made his decision based on giving someone else the chance to learn the ropes before he departs off the scene so let it be so.

That leaves us with a very short list of players guaranteed, from this perspective, a place in all three sides: Dale Steyn, Hashim Amla (just squeezes in) and AB de Villiers. JP Duminy isn’t currently in the Test side, and any suggestions that he should be a candidate are ludicrous. Let the man figure out his game first, as is his current problem, before asking him for more. Maybe in the future, but not right now.

Dale Steyn is the world’s best fast bowler (anybody, especially Englishmen or Australians, who tell you otherwise are also liars. Honourable mention to Pakistan’s Mohammad Asif, but Steyn is in a class of his own). Besides, batsmen have always made better captains than bowlers or all-rounders since it is the field where they have the most influence. Bowlers have to constantly think about that next ball, that next over and that next spell. Steyn is a bowler and is better at taking orders and getting batsmen out with the ball in his hand than with his finger on his temple. The Shaun Pollock era is enough evidence to suggest bowlers should be shied away from when it comes to the captaincy.

If you want further proof, look at the captaincy records of Courtney Walsh and Andrew Flintoff. Shane Warne might be an exception, but he was a freak of the game that we shan’t ever see again.

So that leaves the cheeky De Villiers and the monk-like Amla. From the two, the bearded “Bowler Grinder” would be the better choice, having captained every side he has ever played in, and with his calmness, has the demeanour to suggest he has what it takes. De Villiers, on the other hand, doesn’t mind making the odd barb at an opponent, and always looks like he is up to or planning some kind of mischief on the field, in the same way fielding god and backward point predecessor Jonty Rhodes did.

On record, De Villiers has solid footing when it comes to maintaining a place in all three sides, and a strike rate to match. Amla, who has impressed with the willingness he has shown recently to attack in the limited overs formats, is also a pick for all three sides but seeing him at the top of the T20 order still makes one wonder. The only way we will know if he is the real deal for cricket’s version of KFC is by playing more and scoring runs.

It’s not an easy choice, and the bigwigs at CSA will, I’m sure, consider the positives and negatives of each candidate. Amla — and not saying so would be naive considering South Africa’s history, — would be the better political and representative choice. He is in the side on nothing but merit, but his background will also weigh in the minds of the selectors.

Granted, we don’t know, as outsiders looking in, where each individual’s standing is in relation to their position within the team hierarchy but come cricket season, we will all have a better idea of what is going on.

My pick for the captaincy? It might surprise some given my earlier stated misgivings, but it should be Hashim Amla.