The South African cricket fan community apparently constantly needs an object for negative emotions. For many years, Thami Bavuma was subjected to brutal attacks on social media, where criticism of his play often escalated into racist insults.
Now, Toni de Zorcy seems to have taken the unfortunate position of being the latest 'villain' in social media among Proteas players. The question is not whether these athletes should be criticized—certainly they should—but why the criticism so often turns into something much more personal and sinister.
The fact that they are leading Black players in South Africa cannot be a coincidence. De Zorcy has once again become a target of unfavorable comments after being included in the Proteas squad for the upcoming Test match against Bangladesh.
It is easy to forget that he missed the recent Australian series due to injury, having an average slightly below 40 in tests this year. The last time he played against Bangladesh, he achieved a career-best score of 177 runs.
The author admits to being surprised to see his teammate from the Western Province, David Bellingham, dropped, especially after he was offered a new role at number 3 against Australia. His failures in Newlands were subpar, but perhaps he still had potential for growth in that position.
A more important question was whether Matthew Britzke did enough, besides his score of 43 in the second innings in Cape Town, to retain a spot in the middle order after being called up mid-Australian series. This is a perfectly valid debate about the squad. What is unjustified is turning disagreements over player selection into personal attacks.
De Zorcy's situation brings back unpleasant memories of how Bavuma was treated in the early stages of his international career. The Langi player was repeatedly subjected to criticism that went far beyond his playing performance. Every time he failed, his selection was questioned; every time he experienced a slump, the issue of transformation was raised again, often accompanied by clear racial undertones.
Bavuma was repeatedly forced to defend his right to wear green and gold, instead of simply being judged as a cricketer. He spoke about the psychological burden of this persecution in a BBC interview in 2025: 'I would like to understand why it becomes much more viral when it is only me.'
These words should make some segment of the cricket public think. De Zorcy is a talented cricketer who has worked hard to earn his place. Before his debut call-up to Tests, he had an average above 48 in three out of four seasons and holds the highest first-class score of 304 not out, which remains the highest individual score in Newlands history.
Like any international player, he will have good days and bad days. His performances may be subject to close scrutiny, but this does not give anyone the right to humiliate or malign him. His experience as captain of the South Africa U-19 team at the 2016 World Cup also subjected him to criticism and abuse, which contributed to his withdrawal from the media.
Why should any player have to develop thick skin just to protect against the malice accompanying representing their country? Fans have the right to challenge selections, demand better results, and express disappointment. This is an inherent part of professional sport. However, there is a clear distinction between holding players accountable and subjecting them to personal attacks or racial bias.
Bavuma endured more than necessary. Becoming the first Black centurion in South African Tests and leading the country to the Test World Cup title, he could not completely silence his critics. It would be a sad indictment of our cricket culture if De Zorcy now had to go through a similar cycle of hostility.
The question is not whether De Zorcy deserves criticism. Every player deserves it. The question is whether we are so accustomed to online hatred that we stop recognizing when criticism crosses the line. Bavuma has already been through this. De Zorcy should not become the next example.
