The Graeme Smith Appreciation Society (well, not quite!)

[Maranello]

Well I am not suicidal, so this is not an appreciation society for the most reviled cricketer on this forum. Just some random thoughts on why I find the revulsion felt by many towards Smith to be inexplicable. Sure, he is not very likeable, but then not many cricketers are; for those who measure cricket players on sheer likeability and cuddliness, I recommend the teletubbies or Disney animations. His nickname is Biff, from the Afrikaans word Buffel, meaning Buffalo. He hates it. But the wide-eyed beasts in the Kruger would be flattered by the comparison.

Yes, Smith is arrogant, but I'd much rather have a cricketer who takes pride in his heritage, in playing for his country and in his craft, then one who does not.

Yes, Smith tries hard to win, and not to lose. I would expect no less from an international Test captain.

Yes, Smith is often tactically negative, and can be too defensive at times. But if tactical ineptitude was a criteria for hating a cricketer, we'd all have lengthy hate lists! Smith is not a brilliant captain, but he is by no means the worst around.

His leading his men off the ground due to bad light whilst fielding on the second day of the 4th SA-Eng Test has been criticised; sure, this was a deliberate act of gamesmanship, and robbed the game of a few overs. But similar things happen every day in international cricket, and in fact, Vaughan wasted many overs by negative tactics in the previous Test. A captain's duty is not to the spectators who come and watch; his duty is to his team and his country, and his job is to get the best result for them. The spectators can be looked after by the marketing men and the sponsors who seem to run the game anyway. Walking off that day was exactly what Smith should have done; if he had not walked off, he would not have been doing his job properly, just like Vaughan's negative tactics in the previous game were the correct course of action. Let's face, everyone on this forum would have been perfectly happy if England had walked off whilst fielding had they been similarly up against it. So why the double standards for Smith?

It is similarly infantile to berate him for appearing as a witness in Vaughan's disciplinary hearing. We do not know the facts, so he may well have been called as a witness, in which case he had no option but to give an honest account of events. Secondly, even if he volunteered, he did the right thing; there is no honour in covering wrong-doing, or in hiding testimony. Courage and honour are in being brave in the face of adversity, and speaking the truth even if it is against your own interests. To deliberately cover up testimony or evidence, or not to come forth with the truth when asked, are acts which are frowned upon in most moral and societal codes.

Why else is he reviled and disliked? It's not as if he has a reputation for verbally or mentally abusing opponents. In fact, he has been at the receiving end of heavy and abusive bouts of sledging, from the Australians in his early days, and more famously, from the Kiwis, a vicious and personal attack led by the much 'admired' Stephen Fleming, for which the Kiwis of course are not brought to task, since they are the Kiwis, a harmless little bunch.

Let's put things into some perspective. Smith has got where he is now by admirable personal traits of hard work, ambition, courage and mental toughness. Yes, he sometimes comes across as a hard b****d, but why expect any less from a top tier professional cricketer. When he was dropped from the initial World Cup squad in 2003, he told the convenor of selectors Omar Henry: "Well, you've made a mistake and I'm going to prove you wrong." In the next Test in Cape Town he and Gibbs put on 368. When Jonty Rhodes was injured before the start of the World Cup, in came Smith - a month later he was captain. Shows his attitude - tough in the face of adversity, and one who takes pride in his country and his work.

He became captain of his country at 22, after only 8 Tests, when he was not even a Test regular; the youngest ever to lead his country, and one of the youngest captains in the history of Test cricket. Most people would have crumbled in the face of such pressure, the expectations of a nation who want a world-class team but clealy do not have it, the weight of leading a 'multi-racial' team in a politically charged environment, etc. Has Smith cracked? No, in fact he has thrived, trying to build a team in his image. When announced as captain on March 16, 2003, he said:

"Captaining your country is a responsibility of the highest order and I accept with great passion, excitement and humility. Leadership has always been part of my cricket that I enjoy and thrive on. I hope it will affect me in a good way."

Now, what is wrong with that? And it is not as if he has not tried his level best to live up to that. In his first proper series as captain, away to England, he led from the front, and played many innings of great character and determination early on in the summer. Sure, they were not collectors' items, or the kind of innings that a craftsman such as a Saeed Anwar or a David Gower would play, the type that would have TMS purists swooning over; he accumulated runs without ever looking pretty, but it showed he had character...and plenty of guts.

In that same England series, he led SA to a credible series draw, a good result considering they had lost the series the last time they visited us in 1998. A very good result considering that before the series, Hussain's assessment was: "undeniably South Africa are there for the taking". Well sorry Nas, but a certain Mr. Smith begged to differ. The England captain could not even remember his opposite number's name, settling for "Whatsisname Smith"; ironically, before the series had ended, Hussain had resigned, humiliated and tired, and Smith was a national hero.

So how did Smith respond to his, and his team's great performances that summer? By chest-thumping jingoism or measured reasonableness? You judge (source, Graeme Smith in The Telegraph, 10/9/2003):

"So thank you, England, for your hospitality and for the series. If the two teams didn't prove that Test cricket could be exciting then nobody will."

"I wasn't even a teenager when Nelson Mandela was released from prison. I went to school and played sport in a mixed South Africa and took black and coloured friends home afterwards. I was too young to remember apartheid South Africa, and I don't see colour now."

"I can't apologise for setting big goals and targets - I want South Africa to dominate world cricket. I'm sure Michael Vaughan wants the same for England."

Big words, yes. Definitely premature, and the ambition is one which he and his team are quite a long way from achieving. However, he has tried and is probably the only candidate for captaincy in the team, unless Kallis wants the job. Sure, he is definintely not my cup of tea as a person, and I would not even dream of socialising with him, but then I am not a top tier professional sportsman.

I do respect his commitment to his country and his pride in what he does. And just because I may disagree with him, or be playing against his team, should not give me licence to insult or villify him as some posters in other threads have recently been doing. Sure, this is an England forum populated mainly by England fans, but why should villifying and name-calling Test captains be a condition for being an England fan on this forum? I know that England fans have much better ways of enjoying and discussing cricket, so why do some have to constantly resort to name-calling on a public forum?

[Shaka]

I haven't really kept up with the name calling or otherwise, but I did say at the time when South Africa came to Pakistan, how I'd love to have a skipper as motivated and enthusiastic instead of Inzi. And that's despite the fact we won the series. Smith has a glint of steel about him and while he can get up your nose he just about keeps it within limits for me. Andre Nel on the other hand I would gladly run over with a truck

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

Well put maranello some of the *abuse* is unmerited for sure. and i think he is a very good captain to say the least

[Zainub]

A good post M. I said too earlier that he is not my type of person either. I was really annoyed with him when he had this huge spat with Klusner while he was in exile from the team after the world cup I think it was, and went as far as calling him a bad influence on the rest of the team, I don't think I was comfortable at all, with a certain 20 something calling names to a very recognised, highly respected South African cricketer, however true or wrong those allegations were, he shouldn't have come out with them in public, I felt it didn't send the right signal. Of late when Klusener has been back in the side, the two of them have been on record saying they have no issues between them any longer, but the damage, one feels, had already been done when Smith criticised him before.

I've learned however to give him more respect as time has pased and as he has proved him self. There is no doubt in the fact that he is a proud man, who leads his team with a lot of passion, and such people, history will show, are never too famous in opposition circles, hard to expect English fans to like him, really, he scored back to back double hundreds against them. His personality I'm afraid along with that pride encompases a notion of vanity, which one feels, is the main reason for his unpopularity.

[jot1]

thank you, maranello, i think all south africans will appreciate your comments. even more proof of smith's courage and determination is that when we were in trouble on the last day of the 4th test, he came to bat in spite of the doctors advice not to. congratulations england on a great win. i watched every ball on the last day and it was rivetting, wonderful cricket.

[Beny]

I do respect his commitment to his country and his pride in what he does. And just because I may disagree with him, or be playing against his team, should not give me licence to insult or villify him as some posters in other threads have recently been doing. Sure, this is an England forum populated mainly by England fans, but why should villifying and name-calling Test captains be a condition for being an England fan on this forum? I know that England fans have much better ways of enjoying and discussing cricket, so why do some have to constantly resort to name-calling on a public forum?

I personaly think Bush has some wonderfull atributes to him...

Sure he's stupid...

And mabey a little arrogant...

Overzealous perhaps....

And that accent!!....

But then again he is doing what he thinks is best for his nation....

And he likes dogs!!

[BFD69]

Graeme Smith's mouth is writing cheques that his batting and captainancy skills cannot cash. I cannot understand how he maitains his place in the SA team. Every swing bowler in the world must so be looking forward to have a bowl at Smith after his display against Hoggard. And then he has the arrogance to tell the middle order that they need to show some steel when he has yet to perform against England. His captaincy skills have also been lacking. SA's bowlers have consistantly bowled way too short, but this would seem to be to Smith's plans as he places fielders hoping to get players on the hook. Granted the majority of the English batsmen obliged in Cape Town and handed SA their only win in the series, but as a long term bowling stratergy it is suicide. SA has been without a real captain since the demise of Hansie, and the few players who could have taken up the position have been kept out of the side due to personality clashes, ie. Neil Mckenzie and HD Ackerman.

[John]

He is doing his best. Whats the alternative?
And for such a bad capitain he has made England work for their 2-1 lead. And this England side are apparently ready to take the Ashes against one of the best Australian sides of all time (or any side that has played test cricket). So that must mean England are one of the best ever. So 2-1 is not too bad.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by John

So that must mean England are one of the best ever.

Cheers John, but even I am not that confident. I actually think that the teams are fairly evenly matched.

The difference between the Teams seems to be mental. England are very confident of their ability to win games, while South Africa seem more content not to loose. England see a sniff of a chance and go for it, South Africa just seem to too cautious. Intrestingly in the one game so far where they have gone for the Jugular (Cape Town) they won. But In Durban and Jo'Berg, too often they missed the crucial moments to attack. (England shoulc never have got close to winning in Durban - and that was down to South Africa's failure to attack when they had a huge advantage)

What has happened to McKenzie, he has to be a better choice than Dippenar or Amla?

[Maranello]

FF you make a valid point, but I think England have had the courage to go for the jugular only because they have confidence in themselves, confidence built entirely due to their winning so much recently. Hence, now they expect to win from adverse situations, when previously they would have merely looked to survive.

"Mental toughness", or "the winning attitude" are the vital ingredient for champion sportsmen. Sampras had it, Henman apparently does not. Manchester United had it in Barcelona in May 1999, and the Germans did not. Similary, England and Australia are the only cricket teams who have it now...

SA are like any of the others, and like England were a few years ago, in that they hope to win...but don't expect it as a matter of right, and so often they can be somewhat defensive. Vaughan on the other hand, does not believe in being defensive, and I think he would always prefer to win a series 3-1 than 1-0, and would go for the jugular everytime. His batting may not be there as yet, but he certainly has the mindset of a champion sportsman.