A semi-final is a crucial juncture of any global showpiece, a battle which determines which of the nearly-men progress for a chance to capture the much desired trophy. In the case of the South African cricket team, it represented an opportunity to banish their well-documented demons and finally, give a hopeful, anticipating nation something to celebrate.

When the team line-ups were announced on the 24th of March, just before the game could commence, eyebrows were raised throughout the cricketing world by spectators and experts alike. Why was there a change from the team that had so expertly dismantled Sri Lanka? Why was Philander, a man whose fitness was doubtful, replacing a clearly on-song Abbott? Indeed, it had been Abbott who had sparked the Sri Lankan collapse, removing Perera in his very first over. So, why on earth was he excluded from a team that needed to be at its best to beat the plucky New Zealanders?

Well, according to reports that surfaced days after the conclusion of the semi-final, the quota system came into play, one that was thought to have been abolished in 2007. The CSA CEO, Haroon Lorgat, allegedly texted the coach informing him to include Philander (a player of colour) in his line-up. Why abolish the quota system then, if it can simply be exercised by the bodies in charge? Why give the impression that a team is being chosen purely based on merit when there are clearly political factors motivating decisions? It is disheartening for any Proteas supporter to see such allegations being thrown around, especially when they had such firm faith that South Africa could truly bring that elusive trophy home this year.

While CSA did vehemently deny all allegations of political involvement with words from Haroon Lorgat such as “this is utter nonsense,” and “I would like to make it clear that this report is false,” the startling silence from senior players still left doubt in the minds of fans. Besides the single statement from the board, we had received no other comments from those associated with South African cricket until news surfaced this morning that perhaps the public’s initial fears were true; perhaps the quota system had really played a role in their team selection on the day of that fateful semi-final.

Mike Horn, the world-renowned explorer who was contracted as the high performance coach for the Proteas during the Cricket World Cup, stated in Shanghai last night: “What actually happened was the team was the team that played against Sri Lanka. We’re not going into any politics, but it had a role to play.” He went on to say that understandably a little energy was taken away from the quarter-finals where the right team played. His statement is in vast contrast to that propagated by the CSA, clearly emphasizing that a last minute change was forced upon the team, throwing them into an unnecessary quandary on what could have been one of the most brilliant moments in their cricketing history.

Granted, Philander is a world class bowler with impressive ODI statistics of 39 wickets in 28 matches and a best of 4-12 who normally would be selected based on his own quality, but in this particular tournament, it was Abbott who was an integral piece of the bowling attack during Philander’s injury-enforced absence. With Philander only managing to play a part in three of South Africa’s seven group games, it was clear to viewers globally that he was struggling physically, as even his figures were nothing to rave about when he did manage a game, his best being 2/30 in The Proteas’ very first match against Zimbabwe.

Abbott, on the other hand was simply supreme when called upon, opening the bowling magnificently in the pressure-filled quarter-final. In the four matches he played, he took a total of nine wickets, a splendid return especially when compared to Philander’s measly four in four matches. There is no guarantee that Abbott would have performed at this exceptional level in the semi-final but why fix what’s not broken? Why make any changes to a team that is still riding high after achieving their first ever win in a knockout game? The superb quarter-final performance was perhaps South Africa’s best effort in recent years so logic dictates that the same XI would take the field again in the quarter-final.

If Philander’s selection was political, which is looking increasingly likely, it would call the entire CSA into disrepute. As a firm believer of players being chosen on merit, I believe politics and cricket should remain unrelated. Sure, South Africa may easily still have lost to New Zealand but at least supporters wouldn’t be pondering “What if Abbott had played?” and “What if South Africa had continued with their settled side?”

New Zealand were ultimately worthy winners of the semi-final and for South Africa, the wait for World Cup glory continues. On the evidence of this political involvement scandal, however, it seems their own board is standing in their way, depriving them of their best chances of success.