Pride or Prawn?

The treatment of Hashim Amla by South African cricket is a national shame. The lack of jubilation shown for the form, of arguably our best batsmen is a chilling reminder of the deeply entrenched double standards which permeate our divided society. The media lead Amla-abuse has been going on for some time but has culminated in the response to Sundays rather sad declaration by Graeme Smith when Amla was a mere 24 runs short of Smiths own, all time South African test record.

As usual, cricketing strategy, and a deep understanding of the nature of test cricket have been used in Smiths defense. A simple glance at the record books serves to unsettle that argument. Only two members on the South African top 10 test score list have been not –out. The first, being Daryl Cullinan, who was the record holder at the time. The second is Amla. Why were Gary Kirsten (3) and Graeme Smith(1) not required to declare 20 runs earlier? Where was the now common plea from the commentators for Amla to be allowed the unique opportunity of entering the hall of fame?

That said, Amla has himself conceded that he was aware of the impending declaration and did not feel that he could reach the milestone without risking his wicket. A comment, definitely intended to defend his captain from the imminent outrage amongst the few Amla fans, and to be expected from the now famous ascetic image of the talented man.

So if Amla’s word is to be taken at face value, Smith is innocent of accusations of selfishness, and Amla made the best score that he was capable of given the match circumstances. But what of the media?

The media response has left much to be desired. Even if my shaky argument built on static figures which ignore the intricacies that contribute to a test match experience have been refuted by Amla himself. A particular article in a prominent internet media outlet provided further depressing evidence, to add to the commentator’s silence, of the media's double standards.

The author, quite rightly, aimed to commend the over criticised Hashim Amla for his rise to prominence by labelling him an unsung hero. He went on to provide evidence of Amlas plight by highlighting his largely uncelebrated 16 half centuries and average of 47, especially when compared to the grace offered to AB De Villiers and JP Duminy in the face of some erratic form. The article aimed to celebrate a rising star.

Sadly, the author, being an unsuspecting victim of a Freudian subconscious prejudice couldn’t help but open the article by feeling heart broken at witnessing Jacque Kallis fall just short of his double century. No mention was thought necessary for Amla, who fell short of the South African all time record by a similar amount. Why is such a personal, emotional, heart wrenching response to an individual’s plight not reserved for Amla? Why is Amla honoured for failing, while Kallis’s is lamented?

Perhaps in the media’s eye, Amla is not an unsung hero, but rather an unwanted specimen.

All said, this probably wont affect Amla. He will go on to cement his place in the South African national team, lure lucrative IPL contracts and earn the respect he deserves. And perhaps he will progress from a thorn in the critics side to a rose in the publics eye.