Van Niekerk returns to an evolved dressing room

When Quinton de Kock returned from international retirement in Windhoek in October, his wife wasn't waiting for him in the dressing room. When Dane van Niekerk did the same thing at Newlands on Friday, her wife was.

And when, with 15 balls left in South Africa's innings in the first T20I against Ireland, Sune Luus was bowled by Ava Canning, no-one in that dressing room would have been more nervous than Marizanne Kapp.

The dismissal meant her wife was about to do what she had 194 times before, but not since September 2021. Van Niekerk hadn't played an international for the previous 50 months and 15 days. And here she was, padded up and carrying her bat and gloves and descending the stairs and preparing to take guard. Again.

She would do so not as captain, which she had been in 2021. A broken ankle and failed fitness tests kept her off the field, and she walked away in March 2023 in the throes of an angry, ugly episode over her conditioning. Or lack thereof.

Luus succeeded Van Niekerk as captain and was herself replaced by Laura Wolvaardt. And, while Luus and Wolvaardt were sharing 176 - a record for South Africa's second wicket - on Friday, it seemed the cricket gods were determined to remind Van Niekerk that the side she once led had moved on in her absence.

Even so there was still room for her, albeit that the support Luus voiced after the match for Van Niekerk's return came with a caveat: "With a player of her experience, it's cool for everyone that she's back. But as a team we have evolved a lot. We have new values and a whole new structure, so it's for her to adapt to that and the new brand of cricket we're playing.

"But I think she's done that brilliantly. And she and coach Mandla [Mashimbyi] seem to have a good relationship. So I think there's something very good brewing there."

At her press conference on Thursday, Wolvaardt was also welcoming of Van Niekerk: "She's a very smart cricketer. She has a lot to offer the team, more than her skill. It would be good to bounce questions off her. It's nice to have her back. It seems like she's really prepared to do whatever she can for the team."

Was it difficult having a former captain who had probably slipped out of sight and mind - except in Kapp's mind - back in a dressing room that included that former captain's wife?

"It's not a challenge," Wolvaardt said. "It's something we're used to as a group. [Van Niekerk and Kapp] played together for us for many years, and they're very good at keeping their professional lives professional. You wouldn't say if you walk into the change room that they're married. They're very good at keeping that separate from cricket."

What kind of presence did Van Niekerk bring?

"Every team needs a mixture," Wolvaardt said. "If everyone was quiet like me it would be quite a boring dressing room. She brings a lot of energy to the group. On the field she's normally vocal and loud. We can definitely use that. It seems like she's really enjoying being back. She's quite the joker as well. It's so far been really good for vibes. Hopefully that can continue."

All those good things said, Van Niekerk would have been forgiven for remembering, while she sat padded up for an hour, that this team had been to three World Cup finals in both formats without her. And that she had never made it to three semifinals but no further.

How might that feel?

"I've been very vocal about how chuffed I am for the team and their successes - on the sidelines, in the commentary box, or just as a wife, or a teammate or a friend," Van Niekerk said in an audio file CSA released on Tuesday. "Obviously I wish I was there. Who wouldn't?

"I think any person, even if they didn't play cricket, would have loved to walk out in India, against India in a World Cup final. I mean, that is just electric. That's the moment you live for."

Wolvaardt made a measured 101 in that match, in Navi Mumbai in November. Even so, India won by 52 runs to claim the World Cup for the first time. An innings earlier, in the semi against England, Wolvaardt hammered 169 off 143. Those two performances nailed down the truth that the team that was once Van Niekerk's was now, unarguably, Wolvaardt's.

If Van Niekerk was averse to the side evolving, she wasn't about to say so: "There's a lot of energy around. A lot of things have changed since I was part of the team, and for the good. The intensity is through the roof."

She was, unsurprisingly, bubbly about being back: "I keep joking and saying who would have thought? If you asked me, what, six months ago, if I would be here, I'd probably have said no. I didn't think the day would come. It means the world. I felt like I was in my kit for the first time. Got a new helmet as well. I was like a child.

"I want to prove a point and show people I'm still Dane van Niekerk. But the main thing is to prove something to myself; to tick the boxes I want to tick. I know if I do that I will contribute to the team, hopefully in winning situations."

Van Niekerk did her bit on Friday by hitting four fours in her unbeaten 21 off eight. Luus made a bristling 51-ball 81, hitting 50 of her runs in fours and sixes. Wolvaardt's half-century came off 26 and her century off 52; both South Africa records. Her 56-ball 115 - bringing up a hattrick of international hundreds and another national record, for the highest score in a T20I - was even more aggressive, with almost three-quarters flowing and flying on boundaries. South Africa's 220/2 was, that's right, their highest total.

That happened in part because the Irish's fielding, not helped by a raging wind, was a shambles. Their batting was worse. They were bundled out for 115 in 18 overs with Luus - who said she had learnt only minutes before the match that she would take the new ball - claiming 4/22.

The visitors' overall performance might have made a certain kind of cricket follower smirk. What kind? Men. More accurately, men who look down on, or deride, or even feel uncomfortable with women playing cricket.

Forget them. They are dinosaurs and they can't live forever. The converse is the notion that has taken root that it is somehow unseemly to recognise the differences between cricket played by women and men. In a sport still struggling to overcome centuries of sexism, that is understandable. It is also unhelpful.

Not to mention farcical. The boundary sizes, the bowling speeds, how hard the ball is hit... if you've watched even a little cricket, the contrasts between the women's and men's games in these respects are obvious.

This is no disparagement. Only idiots and sexists - they aren't always the same people - would argue that Serena Williams is a lesser tennis player than John Isner because his serve is faster than hers. But Williams and Isner do play on courts of exactly the same size, which takes some of the misogyny out of the conversation.

And Kapp and Van Niekerk do share a dressing room. So far, and as far as we know, no two male cricketers have married each other. Not for the first time, women have led the way.