VINCE VAN DER BIJL: Turn on the switch and light up the future for cricket

Test cricket unfolds with all the intrigue of a thriller. We page through villains and heroes, masterminds, conspiracies — and the script often dumbfounds us.

Test match cricket is at its best when, after the book is read, the plot lingers with explanations unclear. The tale of the two recent Tests could have been written by John le Carre.

The Lord’s thriller is forgotten. SA fans now wade through the aftermath of the second Test at Old Trafford with disbelief and assumptions.

My first lingering thought was: “Had the Proteas, before the start of the series, decided that owing to the spinning nature of the Old Trafford pitch, they would play two spinners in the second Test?”

Nothing wrong with the thinking. Simon Harmer and Kershav Maharaj have developed a successful partnership. Old Trafford is renowned for developing into a spinning track, and Harmer has already made a strong impact in Test cricket, taking 34 wickets in a mere eight matches.

That strategy, it appears, was developed before the Proteas demolished England at Lord’s. In the post-match deliberations, the SA selectors must have had to reassess that spinning option after their pace attack humiliated the English batsmen. The selectors stuck doggedly to their spinning strategy. Once committed to two spinners, Dean Elgar had to bat first and try to build a 350-plus total to give his spinners the opportunity to bowl SA to victory.

Had the first day of the Test been sunny and bright, we might not be having this debate at all. The seam and pace-friendly conditions on the first day worsened the option to play both spinners.

Every captain and selection panel has been there. We all look back at our mistakes with regret. Bernhard Langer missed a three-foot final putt in 1991 to gift the Ryder Cup to the US. Ten years later in an interview, he was asked whether he ever thought about that putt. His priceless reply was: “Oh, I am much better nowadays, I only think about it every 10 seconds!”

When Mike Procter and I meet, we invariably mention our stupidity in ensuring Natal prepared a spinners wicket at Kingsmead to defeat the Transvaal side in the 1980 Currie Cup decider. Natal, with Procter, Kenny Cooper and myself, had a pretty useful pace attack. The spinning track was madness, yet we convinced ourselves that our audacity would change the odds. It did. We lost in hardly more than two days!

This article is not one of criticism. It serves to illustrate the challenges of decision-making under pressure. The Proteas need to move on with confidence, as the England team did after their thrashing at Lord’s. They boldly brushed aside their Lord's defeat as a mere blimp. They kept playing Bazball cricket.

Now the game is on. This series is alive with possibility and intrigue.

Test cricket is a living, breathing, strategic game, not a smash and grab. Cricket unfolds with each step requiring precision of thought and action.

Leaving the game in the permanent grip of limited-overs cricket is unthinkable, though many predict this is inevitable.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) executive remains toothless under the control of the ICC board, whose decisions are absolute. There lies the conundrum. Self-interest owing to national financial pressure has become paramount.

T20 cricket is an exciting format attracting young cricketers and new fans. Also, Test cricket has been invigorated by the attacking nature of T20 Internationals. Boring draws are almost extinct. All formats subconsciously collaborate with each other.

Limited-overs cricket has also altered the global cricket structure. The ICC has ring-fenced their limited-overs event each year to safeguard its financial future and to support the 104 cricket nations. The ICC events have one advantage — they are played by national sides for national pride. Yet, the Indian Premier League (IPL) rules and other domestic tournaments dominate the cricket calendar.

Cricket has always been slow to change — the 1933 bumper Ashes war, Kerry Packer, 50-over cricket and the IPL eventually forced the global body to change laws and attitudes. Can the ICC board live out its mandate for the greater good?

Cricket, in the doctrine of author and organisational consultant Simon Sinek, is an infinite game and needs to be run with an infinite mindset. That mindset requires long-term creative thinking to build a stronger and sustainable future, with integrity. Those who lead with a finite mindset are driven by short-term goals, invariable self-interest and never for the greater good. That is the switch that is required to strategise our beautiful game long into the future.

Can the board turn on that switch and light up the future?