Hi all

My good friend Russell found out that Steven Friedman has a Facebook page where he promotes his professional output. Thinking it the appropriate place to raise this matter, Russell posted the link to my original post along with the following challenge. Thanks for this, Russell.

Russell Martin
Hi Steven. I would just like to comment on your FB post about AB’s alleged racism. Like you, I don’t know a lot about cricket, but lucky for both of us, there are people out there that do – one of these people is Adriaan du Toit.
In an earlier reply to a post (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from your wall) you commented that “there was no proof that your allegations were incorrect”. Adriaan has gone to great lengths to research the accusations (a task some might feel you should have attempted before leaping to baseless accusations) and found them without merit.
I would urge you to please reply to the article – http://sport.iafrica.com/news/782428.html – either apologising for unsubstantiated accusations, or providing the same level of due diligence to counter-argue your point.
You are obviously a hugely respected individual in the political landscape – both informing public opinion on issues as well as educating the youth of tomorrow – I would hate to think that this knee-jerk response to one comment is indicative of the level of analysis & deliberation you usually give to your public opinions.

Predictably, one of Mr Friedman’s ‘guardians’ posted a response but it was so laughably incoherent it served little purpose beyond adding a much appreciated sense of levity to the debate. Soon after, though, the man himself becomes involved:

Steven Friedman
If you think my point was wrong, tell me what was wrong about it

To which I replied:

Adriaan du Toit:
I should think the link he includes in his post does so sufficiently. Did you read it?

What follows is important because it’s Mr Friedman’s first response to the article. How will he construct his defense? Will he counter me with evidence of his own? Will he produce a valid but hitherto unknown definition of the term ‘racist’ which completely nullifies my argument? Or will he bring his A-game, schooling me on the finer points of reasoning and debate, causing me massive embarrassment and a near-complete emotional breakdown? Ladies and gentlemen, behold the response of one of the finest analytical minds in our country:

Steven Friedman:
No, the link he includes does not do so sufficiently at all. It shows that on rare occassions he feels a need to mention Hashim Amla. He never mentions other black players who have performed consistently well; Lonwabo Totsobe is regarded by the cricketing world as a consistent performer – de Villiers never mentions him. When Robin Peterson goes for 4 an over, de Villiers gets excited about de Lange and Morkel who went for 7 an over. Frankly, I think you and your friends should devote far more time to helping to get rid of the racism in SA cricket than in trashing anyone who points it out. The hysteria and personal abuse with which the link is laced betrays a bad conscience.

Whaaa?!? That’s it?

The response I had so nervously been waiting for was so staggeringly, magnificently hypocritical and pointless that I was left feeling like Dustin Hoffman in ‘Hook’ after confronting an ageing, overweight Peter Pan for the first time in decades. A battle the captain had been relishing, playing each of his opponents’ moves and his own counter-moves over and over in his head,  studying the art of swordplay for years, committed to the inevitable confrontation, relishing the anticipation, has been rendered the greatest of anticlimaxes by the astonishing ineptness of his opponent.

The notion that this feeble attempt at defending himself would send my friends and I scattering back to our Newlands season tickets and Xboxes with our tails between our legs enraged me so that I found myself on the verge of ambivalence. “Sod it.” I thought for a moment. “Let this dinosaur wallow in his outdated bitterness. Let him carry on polluting the minds of youngsters who deserve to be taught about good faith and respect and the burden of proof.”

It took a long walk and a fish and chip roll to regain my motivation and focus. Here is my response.

Adriaan du Toit
Mr Friedman, your understanding of the term ‘sufficiently’ must be different to mine. In the post I provide evidence that indisputably refutes the facts that you based your allegation on:

“…he can’t say the names of black players who do well…”

“He does this after every game.”

I don’t see how you could possibly interpret the credit he gives both Amla and Duminy as insufficient to counter these statements of yours. You said he never credits black players and therefore is a racist, I provide evidence that he does so. Please explain to me how this is insufficient.

But before you do that, please see the quotes below which I found after spending a little bit of time searching for recent interviews with de Villiers on the internet.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Cricket/SAinNZ/AB-heaps-praise-on-Lopsy-20120215: “Lopsy has just been outstanding,” “I don’t know how he does it so consistently. He just keeps taking wickets.” “It’s encouraging to see his early tour form and hopefully he continues to excel throughout the tour.”

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-sri-lanka-2011/content/story/550375.html: “We put the lower order under huge pressure so they couldn’t play the game they would normally play,” de Villiers said. “But with the ball, they [Parnell and Philander] showed variation and skill, and then we let them down in the field.”

I understand you’re a busy man, Mr Friedman. It’s very likely that you didn’t have ten minutes at your disposal before making your allegations. Don’t you think it’s the least you could have done before calling someone who’s never done a single harmful thing to you a racist?

It’s difficult for me to be objective here, Mr Friedman. I am a devoted supporter of the Proteas and a patriotic, optimistic South African, hence I am massively invested in this debate. But despite the fact that my very obvious bias probably negates what I’m about to say entirely, I’m hoping you’ll take it to heart. There is no way you can intellectualise your way out of the hole you dug for yourself here. Your allegations were baseless and damaging. Please, Mr Friedman, withdraw your statement.

Steven, I know in the greater scheme of your life this little tiff I’m having with you is a non-event. I know this thing hardly leaves a mark in comparison to the ‘real’ confrontations you’ve had to deal with in your long and distinguished career. But realise something please, this thing is a long way from over and I doubt you realise how motivated we are. Until you deliver the retraction we’re asking for, we intend to do everything within reason to shine as much light as is possible on how your actions here are doing nothing but damage to our country’s journey towards integration and non-racialism. You are holding us back as much as the demons you’re fighting.

Hi all
It seems as if our efforts at holding Steven Friedman accountable for this irresponsible outburst is losing momentum. I’ve tried to get some media agencies to respond with an editorial piece but none has been forthcoming. Whatever the reason, it’s incredibly disheartening for me that so few people see the damage that this fool is doing to the morale of the country’s youth. To illustrate, I put forth the following: one of his minions’ frightening response to a logical and respectful challenge made to Friedman on his Facebook page. See the image below:

Future henchmen: tragically illogical.

For those of you who can’t load the image, here is a transcript of the discussion:

Russell Martin:
Hi Steven. I would just like to comment on your FB post about AB’s alleged racism. Like you, I don’t know a lot about cricket, but lucky for both of us, there are people out there that do – one of these people is Adriaan du Toit.

In an earlier reply to a post (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from your wall) you commented that “there was no proof that your allegations were incorrect”. Adriaan has gone to great lengths to research the accusations (a task some might feel you should have attempted before leaping to baseless accusations) and found them without merit.

I would urge you to please reply to the article – http://sport.iafrica.com/news/782428.html – either apologising for unsubstantiated accusations, or providing the same level of due diligence to counter-argue your point.

You are obviously a hugely respected individual in the political landscape – both informing public opinion on issues as well as educating the youth of tomorrow – I would hate to think that this knee-jerk response to one comment is indicative of the level of analysis & deliberation you usually give to your public opinions.

To this, a person who is clearly willing to sacrifice reason for the sake of currying favour and promoting a prejudiced agenda, responded with the following:

Eugene Nissen
The prof has already given substance to his argument and u shld hav read wat he said to back up his claim u shld not hav jumpd into the laager with ur knee jerk reaction
Eugene Nissen
Steven friedman is and always will b a respectd man in sa his comments is well researched and analysed there is no reason to attack his integrity just 4 the sake of covering up 4 blatant closet racist whoi was caught out by the prof

If this kind of obtuse and downright frightening response from  his sycophantic followers is not enough to motivate Friedman to withdraw his comments, then I don’t know what is. Did he ignore this response? Did he not see it? Is he too proud to acknowledge his error and the damage it is doing to his students? Or is he perhaps fully aware of all of this but refuses to get involved because this type of illogical reaction is exactly what he wants.

Again, I call on Steven Friedman to defend his views or withdraw them publicly.

Hi all

Here’s another letter for our favourite local academic. It’s written by my good mate Shane Bassett. Thanks Shane!
Just a note on some of this post’s information. Reference to Friedman’s current and past positions is based on data we found online. It is possible that this information is out of date. If so, please accept our apologies.

AB and Hashim seconds before the ultimate taboo.

Extreme umbrage needs to be taken at certain comments made by Steven Friedman, who is apparently a respected intellectual figure and political analyst. He has decided to put on his race tinted glasses and seek out racism where, for all one can see after a mere flip through the supposed “proof” – i.e. in the post match speeches that AB de Villiers makes, none can be found. Flip, flip – yep, no racism here.

Friedman, a Research Associate with the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, a tenure he has held from 2006 to present, has an ingenious way to spot racism… simply look at what’s NOT there. Genius indeed – groundbreaking research methodology. As a researcher he also then has wonderful advice for the supposed victims of this “hate speech by omission”. In his own words:

“For those of us who follow cricket – have you noticed that our limited overs captain AB de Villiers has a speech defect?: he can’t say the names of black players who do well. Today he got excited about Kallis and du Plessis, who scored 4 and 34, but somehow could not mention Amla who scored 92, Duminy who scored 43 or Tsotsobe who took 3 wickets. He does this after every game. Maybe our black players, if they want to be acknowledged, should play for New Zealand, whose captain is weird enough to judge his players by how well they do rather than their skin colour?”

Absurd as this method of research appears, one would expect an immediate outcry from scholarly versed individuals who witnessed it being employed, but it appears the burden of proof is rather light and easily discarded in the field of research, especially for proven laureates such as Prof. Steven Friedman. I read a report of “a massive debate” that had ensued on his Facebook wall, where Friedman had published his statement, and followed a link to the scene of the battle.

The reason for my interest? Our country does not need further strain on race relations. Friedman is a very influential voice out there – he has in excess of 5000 Facebook followers – many of them young academics in the fields of research and politics – our future leaders. This is his audience – these are the people he influences, in whose minds he plants seeds.

On Friedman’s Facebook page, reading the post in question, I saw that some of his friends found Friedman’s post enlightening, and expressed their admiration and gratitude:

“Wow Proff……was not aware of that but now that u mention it”

“Steven thank you for opening my eyes i thought we were all singing on the same tune”

“wow prof! I’m appalled and intrigued by ur observation I never would have picked it up. Just goes to show how anti-transgoramtion this sport, no not sport, but the minds of sum players are. How do u not mention ur team mates when u train with them daily? Im sorry for this prof but with all due respect..wtf??”

AB getting some more brown sugar. Feels good.

Indeed, Friedman’s methodology is beyond his students’ abilities – as they freely admit above, they “never would have picked up” what was not there. Go figure. Knowing that he, as a Professor, would never employ faulty methodologies, they accepted his stated method and his findings with little question. After all, let us not forget that Rhodes University – one of the most respected learning institutions in the southern hemisphere has, since 2005 to present, retained Friedman as Visiting Professor of Politics and International Relations. The relevant Faculty of this institution cannot be wrong in presenting this Professor as somebody to learn from, so take the pearls of wisdom, students, the man came to you pre-vetted and recommended.

What I did NOT see on Friedman’s wall, was “a massive debate”. Instead I saw a storm of racist statements (made by many of Friedman’s friends) with a few feeble voices of reason scattered about. Friedman’s involvement was limited to addressing the views expressed by these dissenters. One by one they were silenced. And the racist storm raged on. One could intuit, should one choose, that the fact that many of them refer to him as “Prof” means that they are students of his and fear some sort of backlash to their academic careers if found in dissent, but making this statement in the absence of proof would be employing the “omission of proof is proof” methodology that Friedman employs, so I will not say it. There, I did NOT say it. That took great restraint.

So, let’s move away from issues of implied possibly unintentional coercive intimidation, and return to the accusations of racism. Friedman attacks racism vigorously where he finds it “present by omission”, but casually ignores it where it is posted on his Facebook wall:

“Is the problem of white people in our country, they think are superior to us black people, but when someone speak its another chapter”

“colour bars will always be the hegemonic shortcomings of this world.mo matter how we can sing the rainbow nations songs.even the sports could not create a mutual consensus.”

“I couldn’t agree more Prof! AB is a microcosm of a larger group who thinks that all black people look alike. This is just not cricket!!!”

“De Villiers is a religious man Mr Friedman and according to his religion and many other racist hyprocrites black people don’t exist.”

“Celebrating the average will continue to be the norm in SA sport. Until we open doors for real talent in this country, we wont win any World Cup titles on anything and that includes Rugby and Cricket. Indeed black players must leave SA and make their names in other countries. It’s the only way to do it. As things stand, black players will always be ‘development’ players until average white players have had enough game time to improve their performance. They can disguise it all they like, Cricket and rugby will not do well if they don’t change. I wont even talk about soccer…..lol…lol…disaster!!”

“he must choose his fellow whites players”

But let us not be unfair – Friedman may well have failed to silence or rebuke stereotyping on the part of his followers, but then, so too did he fail to address positives, such as:

“Prof what do you think should be done by us as peace and accomodative black people to show our white south africans that the is a need to build a united nation now before Julias become a president”

One comment enthused on accepted scholarly practice, but went unanswered:

“Did we listen to the man before we comment? The reason is that we are taking the Prof word and it is dangerous. Why can’t we comment about the performance of the team and then we engage on the side issues. I don’t think we are proud of the team’s achievement.”

There was one particularly motivated respondent who argued desperately on behalf of de Villiers, bringing something unprecedented to the discussion: transcripts sources and the possibility of videos on YouTube of the post match interviews in question. Instead of eagerly asking for the links to these materials to ascertain the correct facts and “prove” his statements, Friedman chose to stick to his previous methodology:

“…I don’t know what transcript you have but I was listening carefully live and did not hear him mention Amla’s name…”

He goes on:

“I heard the New Zealand interviewer mention Amla, but not de Villiers In any event, this is not an isolated incident. I have listened to several de Villiers post-match interviews and have never heard him praise a black player by name. Frankly, if you think there are no racial biases in SA cricket, you are not listening or watching carefully”

Undeterred, the rebel posts proof of his allegations; quoting from videos which he had diligently …ahem… researched on the internet. Friedman, the academic, does not ask him for source, but instead responds dismissively:

“… you are living in a fantasy world. I don’t know where you hear all these terms of endearment to black team mates – I don’t hear them and they certainly are not in your transcript, of which more in a moment. In one recent match, de Villiers waxed lyrical about Morkel and de Lange, who had gone for 7 and 9 runs an over respectively, and totally ignored Tsotsobe and Peteson, who went for 4,5 each…”

So now, with his original assertion that black players are NOT mentioned in post match interviews disproven (the basis on which he originally attacked De Villiers), he changes tact:

“…Even if your transcript of today’s interview is correct – and I repeat that I strained my ears to hear Amla’s name mentioned and didn’t hear it – ‘Hashie’ seems to have become ‘Amla’ while Morkel and du Plessis are, of course, Morne and Faf.”

So now that “omission racism” is disproven and will not make it into scholarly texts as “The Friedman Protocol”, let’s start making it racist to call people of colour by their surname or nickname and put THAT forward as proof. The insanity doesn’t stop there:

“…The reality is that de Villiers is very much part of the last few years of SA cricket which has been about barely tolerating black talents while lauding any white mediocrity who performs half well. The good news is that we now have a coach who, after several years in India, can look at cricketers as cricketers not as whites selected because the establishment wants them and black selected because it has to put up with them. Now all we need is a captain and selectors who feel the same way and Proteas cricket might start becoming a source of pride rather than shame…”

So now De Villiers is guilty by association and SA Cricket is labelled racist without any proof given. Good man, Professor, let’s not even try to present proof anymore – these pesky online references make it way too easy to refute.

Friedman had one last line to throw at his opponent. But before I quote it, let me quote his opponent’s last line, before Friedman sent him scurrying off:

“…your insight in this instance is off the mark. I have HUGE respect for your political analysis, and always regarded you as the voice of reason in our complex society. But in this case you’re really not contributing to understanding – rather just helping to reinforce the prejudices of your facebook followers, most of whom, it is clear, don’t even watch cricket.”

Friedman, ever the researcher, intellectual and academic responded thus:

“One final point – it is deeply patronising to suggest that black people who complain of racism in cricket are not knowledgeable. I know many black cricket lovers who are devoted to the game – every one of them believes that SA cricket is still riddled with racism.”

Ah – finally some proof of research. Friedman has spoken to all his black friends, interviewed them on their opinion on cricket, isolated the “devoted” and ascertained their stance on racism in the game. Every one of them. That’s research dedication right there! And now he puts that collective opinion forward as final, incontrovertible confirmation. Sound reasoning on the part of one of SA’s leading scholars. He also clearly had them all sign over right of attorney to speak for “them”.

Now, revisit his opponent’s quote above, I see no mention of race. He merely refers to Friedman’s Facebook followers. Leave it to someone with Friedman’s capacity for ‘insight’ to extract some type of racial  prejudice from the statement.

In closing, I’ll address Mr Friedman directly. You’re a hypocrite. You’re proven wrong and instead of apologizing like a man, you backtrack into further absurdities and threaten the man who tries to engage you in debate with the danger of being labelled a racist. I see you’ve been involved in political race relations since before we had a black government. It is said that when a hammer is all you have, everything around you starts looking like a nail. I guess you might be a bit battle fatigued, Steven. Take a time-out – you’re slipping.

Hi all

Steven Friedman

As most of you will know, I published a post last week in which I attempted to counter professor Steven Friedman’s attack on AB de Villiers. Support from my readers has been terrific and the post has been read by almost 650 people. I’m doing what I can to generate more awareness of the issue but I’ll definitely need help from those of you in a position to offer it. If you work in media or know someone who does, please refer them to the original post and those that will follow.

What is it that we want from Friedman? Why am I making such a big deal out of this? Surely one grinch spraying bile from his isolated corner of cyberspace doesn’t warrant this much of a fuss? The issue is that this is a man who is playing a very important role in shaping the attitudes of South Africa’s future leaders. Friedman must be held accountable for his statements. South Africa is in a fragile enough state without people using positions of influence to generate discord in order to further their own warped agendas. So if you know this man or know anyone that knows him, please do what you can to get him to read this and respond.

Steven Friedman, I call on you to withdraw your statements on AB de Villiers’ supposed racism and explain to your students why it is irresponsible to make such public harmful declarations without having done the necessary research.

Thanks
Adriaan du Toit

You could cut the racial tension with a thigh-pad.

This post is a response to acclaimed political analyst and academic Steven Friedman’s Facebook post on the topic of Protea skipper AB de Villiers’ racist inclinations in post-match interviews.You can read it (and the frightening discussion that ensued) here.

If, by the time you read this, Mr Friedman has recovered from whatever emotional affliction triggered his outburst and subsequently deleted the status from his wall, here it is in full:

“For those of us who follow cricket – have you noticed that our limited overs captain AB de Villiers has a speech defect?: he can’t say the names of black players who do well. Today he got excited about Kallis and du Plessis, who scored 4 and 34, but somehow could not mention Amla who scored 92, Duminy who scored 43 or Tsotsobe who took 3 wickets. He does this after every game. Maybe our black players, if they want to be acknowledged, should play for New Zealand, whose captain is weird enough to judge his players by how well they do rather than their skin colour?”

Dear Steven Friedman
When I first read about your comment on iafrica.com, I was tempted to limit my response to a quiet shake of the head and, if time allowed, a grumble loud enough for the chap who sits in the cubicle opposite me to make eye contact with me disapprovingly. You see, despite my intense dislike for intellectuals who seek out controversy for the sake of publicly validating the relevance of their expertise, I’ve learnt to tolerate their eccentricities for the sake of my blood pressure. Unfortunately, the temptation to let this go was outweighed by how much I love the Proteas and how proud I am of what they have achieved on and off the field.

My motivation to address your statements was given a further boost when I visited your Facebook wall and read the comments that your students made on the post. I’m astonished at the influence your opinion has on them. They were so eager to comply, I wasn’t sure whether to be impressed by your potential as an arch-villain or depressed by your students’ lack of independent thought. I decided not to dwell on the matter since neither scenario shines a particularly flattering light on you.

AB going in for the kill. Just be careful of his tainted blood, skipper.

I have little interest in debating the presence of racism in the upper spheres of cricket administration. Perhaps there is and perhaps there isn’t. This is the luxury enjoyed by senior members of these elevated circles; the majority of their activities and motivations are seldom the topic of much more than speculation. If evidence emerges, I will look at it and add my two cents, but I have no inclination to go looking for it. This is the luxury of occupying the lowest of the metaphorical spheres I keep referring to. I care about my beloved team, how they perform on the field and little else. I urge you not to interpret this ambivalence as acceptance of institutional racism. I’m as opposed to it as the next man. But I can see the next man – he’s pretty close to me – and it looks as if he’s got a lot on his mind. In fact, it looks to me as if all he’d like to do is to sit back for a while and bask in the comforting glow of the series victory over these mouthy Kiwis.

Sadly for my imaginary neighbour and I, our reverie has been interrupted by your outburst. Our happy memory of Brendon McCullum staring dejectedly into the middle distance as the reality of his team’s mediocrity dawns on him will now forever be polluted by your sophomoric and unjustified rant.

“How dare he describe my scholarly output thusly?!?” I imagine you asking incredulously through a plume of pipe smoke. (You may also be wearing a cravat.) Well, firstly, the logic and tone of your argument is not dissimilar to that of an adolescent in the throes of a neurotic dismemberment of their ailing romantic relationships. “Then he said he’s going to Dale’s party but I heard that Denise asked him to go to the Wimpy and he said that even though Tori and her sisters were gonna be there he would go because Stacee would probably be there with Toni’s friend from Durban.” Appropriating this tone for the sake of style is fine if you’re an editorial columnist making some kind of flippant social comment. Much less so if you’re a respected academic accusing a beloved public figure of racism.

Secondly, I’m surprised you’re not more sensitive to how the lack of research can impede an argument, especially one as intentionally provocative as yours. But I’m willing to put that oversight down to the same condition that caused the outburst in the first place. So, on the realistic assumption that you intend to stick to your guns and continue arguing your point, I’m going to make it easy for you and remove all the obstacles between you and the information you need to do so. What follows is a transcript of almost every post-match interview with AB de Villiers since his promotion to captaincy. Try not to choke on your shoe as you read it.

THE SRI LANKA SERIES

1st ODI
AB: “Dream start for me as captain. Some individuals stood up there – Morne Morkel and Amla. I thought there was something in the pitch for the bowlers and we used it. Guys running in and bowling at 140+ was good.”
Here he uses the white player’s name and surname while referring to the player of Indian descent by his surname only. It could mean he wants Hashim violently evicted from his home, or it could mean he didn’t want the viewers to confuse Morne with Albie. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is more likely.

2nd ODI
AB: “The toss didn’t play a big part today. We played good cricket throughout and I am very proud. We picked up wickets at crucial times, and Hash the Rock played really well. There would have been more pressure if they had got those 20-25 runs. Hash’s wife is yet to give birth, but he will be there for it [and will mostly miss the next game].”
I’ll admit it’s not ideal that he compared the Indian player to a “rock”. Rocks are pretty much the most useless things on earth. Unless you’re using them as a foundation for something, in which case they’re pretty damn awesome. I think – bear with me for a second – de Villiers may be speaking metaphorically here; comparing the attributes of a rock to the innings Amla played. This, I know from years of listening to cricket players recite the same clichés match after match, is a compliment of the highest order.
Also I think it’s worth pointing out that any racist worth his salt would probably have expected a black player to do as he’s goddamn told and not take liberties like being present for the birth of his firstborn in the middle of an international series. It’s possible that this indiscretion slipped past AB and the racist coaching regime. But it’s also possible that they’re incredibly happy for Amla and want to make a big deal out of the fact that he’s about to become a dad.

3rd ODI
Cricinfo reports no post-match comments from de Villiers. Possibly because he was out campaigning for the early release of the Waterkloof Four.

4th ODI
Very good game, we batted quite well up fornt [sic], could have scored more in the last 10. They batted really well, chased down 300. I’ll take responsibility for losing my wicket at a bad time, we could have got perhaps 330 if I stayed till the end. There are other areas for the team to work on. I wasn’t too happy with our fielding, it wasn’t the best outfield to field on either. Perera played extremely well, he made my job very difficult.”
No credit to any Protea player, despite Tsotsobe taking three wickets. Maybe because he believes Lonwabo should be carrying a pass-book. Maybe because he was incredibly disappointed at not winning the match and didn’t feel like giving anyone other than the opposition a compliment.

5th ODI
AB: “Things have been going my way, delighted with my form at the moment. I thought the boys did really well. Biff did extremely well, I told the press that he was going to come through, and I’m very happy for my man. There’s a lot to work on for us, but an [sic] happy with the way the boys fought till the end. Every ground supported us really well this series.”
No mention of Parnell, who took 2 wickets. Maybe because he thinks Wayne should be mowing someone’s lawn instead of playing cricket. Or maybe because Graeme Smith’s temporary return to form and Sri Lanka’s terrific run-chase outshone every other aspect of the match.

THE NEW ZEALAND SERIES

1st T20
AB: “Not a great start, I take responsibility for that. We were expecting them to open up with a spinner, not surprised at all. Overs 4 to 9 cost us, we didn’t cash in at all, but we fought back and in the end we got quite close. We played well in patches, but we want to get it all together in the next game.”
Again no mention of  any Protea player. This seems to be a pattern when we lose a match. Quite reasonable if you ask me.

2nd T20
AB: “There’s a few things we can learn, but overall I was very happy with keeping them to 170 with the short boundaries. Botha has very good plans and he keeps the batsmen under pressure. I was trying to tell Richard to get off strike once we were at 10 an over but he just kept sending them flying. He’s been fed a bit of biltong back home, but he has done this before so it’s not a one-off. We go to Auckland with momentum now, very happy.”
Here he doesn’t congratulate any of the black players. Perhaps because he carries a picture of Verwoerd in his wallet. Or perhaps because none of them did anything more spectacular than return figures of 4/22 or score the fastest century in the history of international cricket. Note also how he refers to the off-spinner by his surname only. Do you think this is because he lacks respect for Johan Botha? Or can you acknowledge that perhaps the use of a surname instead of a nickname is completely without meaning.

3rd T20
AB: “Amazing team effort, really proud of the men, we hung on at the end there. Really tough batting first and assessing what was a good total, we lost momentum in the middle overs, unfortunately we had a slow start with ball in hand but I told the guys to hang in there. I truly believe Marchant has got it, he has big match temperament, I think the whole team has that and we managed to get a few wickets to turn things around. We do feel very good about the win, but we want to play a certain standard of cricket and we still need to do that more consistently.”
You may have a point here. He refers only to a white player and uses his first name. A sign that he’s surreptitiously maintaining a stock of home-made weaponry in preparation for the Great South African Race War? No. He was probably just overwhelmed by an astonishing comeback topped off by this young player’s incredible final over.

1st ODI
AB: “We did really well in the field to restrict them. They had a couple of partnerships, but we kept getting wickets, and that is where we won the game. It was a slowish kind of wicket, and it is important to build pressure on these kind of wickets. JP felt a bit of pressure early on, he did not hit it as well as he would have liked, but he played an important knock. Faf did extremely well. I thought I constructed my innings well which was difficult on this pitch and in these conditions.”
What’s this?!? He’s giving credit to a  non-white player AND using his first name?!? DF Malan is spinning in his grave so fast he’s probably drilled a hole halfway to the other side already!

2nd ODI
AB: “We played consistently well today, Morne bowled exceptionally for us and set the trend. Morne just [sic] wickets at the right time for us. Always nice when someone starts well up the order like Amla this time, he made it easy for the middle order. Faff is a world-class talent, I’m looking forward to watching him grow into a world-class player. We’d like to do it 3-0.”
I can think of no justification for the lack of credit to Tsotsobe. It must mean he and his prejudiced cadre are developing a strategy they like to call The Final Final Solution. Or perhaps it means what any sober person who is not looking to court controversy thinks that it means; absolutely nothing.

There’s little more I can or want to say on this topic besides wondering what you could possibly do to fix the damage you’ve done with your statement. You’ve slandered the reputation of a man whose dedication and talent is something that should be a constant source of pride to all South Africans. You’ve created further division between races. You’ve misled eager (albeit alarmingly pliable) young minds. And, worst of all, you’ve trivialised racism.

I sincerely hope that you’re mature enough to withdraw your statement and apologise to AB de Villiers in a public forum.

Adriaan du Toit