Going down with a fight

Of all the critical comments and cynical barbs born of disappointment and aimed at the Proteas, the most emotional and least informed was that they lost 'without a fight.'

There was too much fight from Graeme Smith and his team, not too little.

Eight years ago the majority of South Africa's supporters said they would have preferred to see the team beaten by seven wickets with 18 overs to spare rather than be eliminated following a tie, and to be honest the thrashing is a bit easier to digest. But only if you understand the reasoning behind the approach which led to the dismal collapse to 149 all out.

Six months ago Mark Boucher declared that the team were going to "try and WIN the World Cup, not just try and make the semifinals and take it from there."

That meant posting totals which were out of reach for the opposition, not just competitive. It meant trying to bowl the opposition out rather than merely trying to restrict their run scoring.

And against Australia on Wednesday in St.Lucia, it meant attacking the best team in the world rather than simply standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out. Graeme Smith wanted to dominate Nathan Bracken and Jacques Kallis backed himself to put man-of-the-tournament elect, Glenn McGrath, under pressure for the first time and then, perhaps, dominate him.

If South Africa had ground their way to 230 and then lost narrowly by three wickets with three overs to spare, would that have been better than being hammered? A loss is a loss; the players would have been boarding the plane on Friday night in any case. And would SA fans have asked: "Why weren't they a bit braver earlier on?"

But if the 'brave cricket' strategy had worked, then they might have put 300 on the board and won by 50 runs.

The trouble is, the ball swung and seamed more than had been accounted for in the pre-match planning sessions and neither the captain, the vice-captain or the other members of the top order seemed willing or able to change the plan. It was always a high-risk strategy to 'target' the opening bowlers but it patently became an unacceptably high risk approach once the ball started moving as much as it did.

Criticism is acceptable after such a meek surrender in such a high-profile contest, but the critics should identify their need or desire to criticise and then decide whether they believe it is the players who were at fault or the strategy which they chose to employ.

"We thought we needed to do something special to beat the Australians and that's what we tried to do. They are a very special team and you need to do something extra special to beat them," Mickey Arthur said afterwards.

As much as you may disagree with his sentiments, and they are shared by all of the senior players, at least understand that there was a plan, and a strategy. Smith did not simply lead his men on a merry kamikaze march to 27-5.

It may feel like a long time ago, but those who watched the SA captain carve up England's bowling attack in Barbados in order to reach the semifinals didn't complain about his aggressive approach then.

Only one player, Ashwell Prince, looked genuinely distracted by the enormity of the occasion, otherwise they chose to live by the sword - and perished by it instead. And perhaps Kallis was a little over 'spiked' by the criticism of his scoring rate, from teammates and opposition alike. But they tried their damnedest.

Call them names if it helps ease the pain, disappointment or even anger, but remember that they are also human beings and have feelings. Right now they are looking forward to being back at home after nearly nine weeks away.

Then, they will regroup. We all will. That is the nature of sport. And then they'll try again.

What else is there to do?