After the controversial “grovel” remark by Shukri Conrad, the head coach of South Africa national cricket team, his captain addressed the issue during a post-match press conference. Bavuma revealed that the comment only came to his attention Wednesday morning.
He said: “Comments made by coach came to me this morning. I was focused on game and didn’t have a chance to speak to him.” He added that Conrad — “close to 60 years old” — will presumably reflect on his choice of words: “he will have a look at his comments.”
Still, Bavuma was careful not to point a finger directly at Conrad. He acknowledged that “in this series certain guys have also crossed the line,” but clarified he is “not saying coach crossed the line.” He suggested that given time, his coach “will surely think about it.”
The remark in context: what Conrad actually said
The controversy stems from remarks made by Conrad following Day 4 of the second Test against India national cricket team in Guwahati. As South Africa delayed their declaration deep into the final session — after building a huge lead — Conrad explained their strategy.
He said they wanted India “to spend as much time on their feet out in the field. We wanted them to really grovel, to steal a phrase, bat them completely out the game, and then say to them ‘come and survive on the last day and an hour this evening.’”
Though he defended the timing of the declaration as part of a tactical plan — citing the advantage of a new ball in fading light and giving his bowlers optimal conditions — the use of “grovel” struck a contentious chord.
Why it matters: history and sensitivity
The reaction to the phrase wasn’t merely about gamesmanship — it touched deeper sensitivities rooted in cricket history. The word “grovel” carries a heavy legacy; its use in such a context evokes memories of a racially charged remark made in 1976 by Tony Greig, then England captain, targeting the West Indies cricket team. In that era, the insult became a rallying cry for the West Indies, who responded with fierce cricket and unity.
Media and cricket-watchers argue that such loaded language — even if employed without “malicious” intent — is insensitive and tone-deaf in the modern, more historically aware era of the sport. Many felt the phrase undermined the dignity of the opponent and reflected poor judgment.
Though some defend Conrad as an otherwise thoughtful coach, there is consensus that this moment constituted an ill-advised turn of phrase.
Get the latest cricket news here, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter and Instagram for more such updates.