Cape Town - The first of a two-part Q&A by Sport24 chief writer Rob Houwing with Craig Matthews, who played 18 Tests and 56 ODIs for South Africa and was recently relieved of his position as a national selector in a clear-out of the whole panel.

How did you learn personally that your services were no longer required, as they say?
There were rumours flying around. First I heard about Mickey (Arthur) last Monday night, then something about the selectors - not that they were being “fired” but that the panel was being suspended pending a change in structure and so on. Obviously the Tuesday was hectic with the coach going, and then that afternoon I got a call from Gerald (Majola, CSA’s CEO). Again he never used the word “fired”. He just made a comment about “holding fire for a while” and “restructuring”. I said I accepted that that was the prerogative of the board. Then the story broke the next day that the whole panel had been chopped … I might be completely wrong but the words Gerald used are still quite pertinent, I think. Let’s put it this way: I don’t think it’s impossible that at least some of the (axed) selectors go back into a role there. I heard various stories about the restructure, one being that it might become effectively a one-man panel, which is a bit like the England way at present. Geoff Miller is the convenor, and it sounds like he, the captain and director of cricket (Andy Flower) choose the side, with Ashley Giles and one other basically “advisors” on the panel. I’ve heard there may be a movement towards that. Whether it’s right in a South African context is another matter. Let’s wait until (the Board meeting on) February 19!

Is the job of national selector primarily a labour of love?
Yes, you get an honorarium (payment) for taking the time for it, while the convenor is on a monthly payment, effectively as an employee of CSA. Before I was appointed I’d dropped Gerald an email saying it was something I wouldn’t mind doing, getting involved. He said “send me your CV” which I did. Then I did an interview with him, Andrew Hudson and at that stage the acting president Logan Naidoo. Two or three days later I was appointed. Yes, you get the honorarium but in truth over the 14 months I had the role it probably cost me a bit more being away from my bread-and-butter job. But it’s something I’ve really enjoyed as an ex-player and yes, it’s disappointing not to be involved at the present point.

Do you think there is anything significant to be read into the word “interim” not being used when it was announced that Majola was taking over the convenor’s post?
No, I don’t believe Gerald intents being in there for the long haul. Just from a corporate governance point of view you could never have your CEO being chief of selectors. His words to me were that the Board had asked him to take the role in the meantime (until February 19). There won’t be much to do unless a replacement player is required in India. Some people asked me how Kepler (Wessels) could suddenly become a selector but I already knew he was going on the tour (as a batting advisor) so it made a lot of sense to me. Gerald has had the convenor’s reins temporarily before, and I know he was very happy to vacate it then … so I’d be shocked if this became a long-term thing.

What did you make of some reports that if Lonwabo Tsotsobe had been picked for the Wanderers Test against England, ensuring a black African player in the line-up, Mickey might still be coach and the selectors might all have survived?
Who knows? I’ve read those stories, of course … but at no stage were we ever put under pressure on that (score). It’s something Jeremy Maggs pushed me quite hard on in another interview. Maybe the convenor (Mike Procter) was pressured, I don’t know. Look, we know there’s mounting pressure to have black African representation, and I think all of us can say we were completely committed to that goal. Our difficulty was how to (facilitate it) based on the domestic competitions. I looked specifically at the issue the other day: of the six or seven black African players who could arguably be said to “play regularly” for franchises, around five of them have already played for South Africa at some point! (Players in this category might include Thandi Tshabalala, Victor Mpitsang, Thami Tsolekile, Loots Bosman and Tsotsobe – Sport24.) It’s difficult to put forward the view that there hasn’t been a commitment from either the panel I was on, or previous ones, to try to advance this objective.

But there is “Board pressure”?
Yes, and what (irks) me a bit sometimes is that the Board can seem a bit of a faceless organisation. People know who I am, for instance … I’m one of the selectors who they know has just been “fired”: yet there was a newspaper story the other day, for instance, quoting one member who refused to give his name, saying that the “last straw” was Hashim Amla being left out of the one-day side for India. Consider, though, that he was omitted for Loots Bosman … from a transformation point of view in the present (climate) isn’t that “better” than Hashim? And if that was indeed a (tipping point) for the selectors to go, then why doesn’t the Board just pick the side as well? A lot of those Board members are presidents of the provinces, who have contracted 18 or 19 players -- and how many of those are black Africans? Where is the accountability at that level, perhaps? The responsibility to advance black cricketers can’t only rest with the national selectors.

Is this issue going to become a really major flashpoint over the next few months?
I believe there’s a groundswell in that direction, yes. Is it going to be a real flashpoint? It depends how well it is handled. I can’t speak for the general public, but I would actually be more comfortable if we were given a clear directive: “CSA needs to grow this game and we have decided every team should contain a black African player”. That’s better than various whispers in corridors.

Why do you think the pool of black African players in national contention remains so small?
When the country picks U13, U15, U17 sides, they are generally on merit and there are a lot of black Africans. What happens between that point and franchise cricket? And for those who get there, are these guys being advanced as they should within their franchises? How are we going to ensure, amidst the reality of it being 2010 in South Africa, that nine times out of 10 we can pick a player who is, indeed, good enough? That’s where you need more attention, more money being thrown at the problem, even … it’s better than the present landscape where people are being fired left, right and centre because nobody really knows (the true requirements). Things are very volatile.

Have we possibly lost momentum at grassroots development level?
I do get the impression that more emphasis was put on it a few years ago, actually. Are people really rolling up their sleeves and getting stuck in? I shared a very interesting lunch during the Newlands Test against England with (Springbok coach) Peter de Villiers. He made a big impression on me: he said to me “there is too much money in modern sport”. He made the point that when he was young, people with genuine passion got involved in sport and dished out their services for no (financial) reward; nowadays some of the main guys involved in sports development are doing it on a lucrative, salaried basis. Maybe things have just become too corporate and complacent. I really feel South Africa lacks a director of cricket post. Someone who is responsible for everything. I don’t believe the (national) coach and the High Performance coach should report to the CEO.

*In the second part tomorrow, Craig Matthews will air his thoughts on more cricket-specific issues, especially involving the national side and their prospects in the Indian Test series and beyond.