Proteas reading no open page on logic

Not that long ago the national crickets selectors created a huge headache for themselves when Alviro Petersen retired. Petersen’s Test average of a tad over 34 might indicate he was a very average international batsman, he was an opener by trade nonetheless, a dedicated craft the wise men grossly neglected in filling the immediate vacancy.

Stiaan van Zyl, a decent middle order batsman who scored a century on debut in the very same home series against the West Indies which turned out to be Petersen’s last, was clumsily hurled up the order and set up to fail miserably against Bangladesh, India and England. For one match against India, Temba Bavuma was even promoted to the opening slot in Van Zyl’s place, but couldn’t do much better batting out of position.

Then when sanity finally prevailed and Van Zyl was put out of his misery, journeyman Stephen Cook showed the selectors the trick they had been missing by scoring a fairy tale hundred on debut on the wrong side of 30. And that wasn’t the end of that either.

The veteran would end up scoring three tons in 2016, more than any of his highly regarded Proteas team-mates. Was Cook the most talented batsman? No. Are there concerns over his technique at the highest level? Plenty. Was his selection in line with building for the future or serving transformation policy? No and hell no. Was he an opener? Did he deserve a belated look-in? Were the Proteas badly in need of a specialised tradesman? Yes, yes and yes.

But then the inevitable happens. Cook’s form dips and the national selectors had a choice to make. With that I have absolutely no problem. That is life. But then they choose to turn back the clock and discard Cook for … wait for it … a player who is not an opener by trade in Theunis de Bruyn.

Sure, the top order batsman has the pedigree to become a fine Test cricketer. His terrific form with the bat catapulted the Knights to the Sunfoil Series title earlier this season and he is the back-up batsman in the touring party … but that is not the point.

Had Cook been injured on the eve of the third Test in Hamilton and De Bruyn was the stop-gap solution, by all means. But he was not, The selectors dropped a perfectly fit Cook and decided to hand De Bruyn a debut out of position against the new ball. And he failed. Twice. What good did that do for either Cook or De Bruyn’s confidence going forward? The man who should be in line to replace Cook is up-and-coming Titans star Aiden Markram.

Like De Bruyn, he was one of the leading batsman in the Sunfoil Series and guess what? He. Is. An. Opener. The selectors also can’t use travel time and squad size and all that nonsense as excuses.

After the first Test they were already worried about Cook’s form, but instead of flying Markram out they rushed over a additional spinner in Dane Piedt, who didn’t even play in Hamilton. If the selectors want to apply the same logic across the board, why bother with Piedt even? Just let Vernon Philander roll over a few offies.

Do you think that sounds silly? Then what is so right about persisting with non-openers at the top of the innings?