SPORTS

Teams return to infamous Test venue

By John Mehaffey
January 21, 2005

Centurion Park, venue of the final Test between South Africa and England starting on Friday, was an implausible backdrop for a corruption scandal which threatened to rip international cricket apart.

Five years ago in the last clash between the teams at Centurion, rain poured solidly for three days after South Africa had reached 155 for six in their first innings.

South Africa had already clinched the series and England were preparing to go through the motions in a match destined for a draw.

Then South Africa captain Hansie Cronje, a man not previously noted for his sense of adventure, approached his opposite number Nasser Hussain with an unprecedented offer.

Cronje proposed forfeiting the next two innings for the first time in Test cricket. He would then set England a target of 255 from 73 overs on the final day.

The eventual declaration was even more attractive. England were set 249 from 76 overs and, with their current captain Michael Vaughan stroking 69 from 108 balls, they won by eight wickets in the final over.

The initial reaction was positive, although Cronje's decision to bowl his innocuous medium pace for five overs and the ineffectual spinner Pieter Strydom for six excited some comments.

Cronje was robust in his defence of his unexpected action and said "whispers" from the International Cricket Council condemning the two forfeitures were unwarranted.

"I would be disappointed if this is the attitude and do not want to be part of the game if this is their thinking," he said.

"I am playing in a very positive side and today was another chance to back their ability throughout to beat England."

FRAUD

Hussain swallowed any misgivings he might have had when first approached by Cronje.

"Of course I would have been gutted had we lost," he said. "I think we all would have been.

"But Hansie deserves every support for what he did. He gave

us a chance, he gave his side a chance and we gave the public a great day."

A match destined for the dustbins of history was now acclaimed as one of the most exciting ever, ranking with the famous tied Test between Australia and West Indies in the 1960-61 series.

Except, as was to be revealed in chilling detail over the coming months, the final day had been a fraud.

On April 7, Cronje was charged by Indian police with involvement in match-fixing during a one-day series against India in March. The denials were immediate, vehement and initially believable.

After all, was not Cronje the acceptable face of post-apartheid South Africa, a pillar of Afrikaaner integrity and a born-again Christian who flaunted a bracelet inscribed WWJD - "What would Jesus do?".

Four days later his reputation was in tatters. United Cricket Board of South Africa managing director Ali Bacher told a hushed news conference that Cronje had confessed to not being "entirely honest" in his denials of match-fixing. A scandal which was to lead to life bans for Cronje, Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Pakistan skipper Salim Malik had erupted.

In his confession Cronje mentioned the Pretoria Test. At the ensuring South African inquiry held by Judge Edwin King, he gave the details.

Cronje said his offer to Hussain followed a late night visit by bookmaker Marlon Aronstam. Even though the deal with Hussain was too late for Aronstam to place his bets, he still gave Cronje 53,000 rand, around $9,000, and a leather jacket for his wife.

Two years later Cronje died in a plane crash in the Western Cape, carrying most of his secrets to the grave.

Just how much money he had made was unclear, although he claimed to have accepted at least $130,000 from bookmakers.

Unconfirmed newspaper reports said he may have possessed up to 72 bank accounts in the Cayman islands. The result in the Centurion Test of January, 2000, is just another of his tarnished legacies.

John Mehaffey
Source: REUTERS
© Copyright 2024 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

NEXT ARTICLE

NewsBusinessMoviesSportsCricketGet AheadDiscussionLabsMyPageVideosCompany Email