READING this week's blizzard of clippings from the press and internet chatter on Mickey Arthur's resignation, it's no surprise that the country is dizzy with confusion. Why did Arthur resign? Was he pushed? Was it politics? Transformation issues? Lack of success in 2009? A breakdown in the relationship between Arthur and his captain Graeme Smith?
Hell, perhaps we should check if Nostradamus had anything to say about the matter when he published his prophecies 455 years ago.
One of the problems journalists have had when trying to track down the answer(s) is that hardly anyone close to the centre of power will speak to you. Of the few who do loosen up, some will only tell you the bits they want you to hear, some will lie outright while others will speak, but only on the strict condition that it is off the record.
If people are unhappy about the quality of the speculation, they have only themselves to blame for refusing to talk or deliberately obfuscating the issues.
I have been through this particular mill this week and it's not surprising that there are as many theories as people involved. Everyone has an agenda or an angle.
When someone tells me they "simply represent the interests of SA cricket", I know immediately that's a smokescreen for something else. Clearly, the truth is proving to be elusive and we may have to wait for Arthur's book for his unvarnished account of what really happened.
In the interests of a little more clarity on this vexed issue, I propose to try to answer six questions on the Arthur affair. Unfortunately, I can't quote anyone directly, but I hope to clear a little of the smoke that has gathered.
Did Arthur resign, or was he pushed?
Arthur was told that if he didn't resign he would be fired. His financial package - reputed to be R4.5 million until the end of his contract in 2012 - depended on him offering his resignation.
Did Arthur's relationship with Smith deteriorate to such an extent that this was a major reason for his quitting?
No. Smith did make a number of pertinent critical remarks - well documented in the press - about coaching problems during the England series. But these were issues that he and Arthur debated, sometimes argued about and mutually pledged to address. The two men have been the closest of compadres over the last five years and, despite the occasional disagreements that are inevitable in the most successful of marriages, they have remained so. Their body language at the East London press conference was so relaxed and friendly that it would have required an Oscar performance from both of them if they really detested each other. Frankly, neither man is heading for Hollywood.
Was the Proteas' poor record in 2009 a factor in Arthur's demise?
Insofar as it provided one of the excuses to wedge the coach out of his position, yes. As cricket people know only too well, a week can be a long time in the game. A period of 12 months can be an eternity. And yet this falling off from the golden heights of 2008 was not the decisive factor.
Was the issue of transformation a factor?
A big yes. Cricket writer Neil Manthorp, writing in a Johannesburg daily, described it eloquently as "the elephant in the room" during the East London press conference: The issue that was omnipresent and yet barely acknowledged.
In South Africa's current situation, there is a natural tension between the coach and the captain of the national team, whose job is to win matches, and Cricket South Africa, who are also concerned about teams at all levels representing the demographics of the country.
Last winter, CSA's president, Dr Mtutuzeli Nyoka, attended the season-ending awards dinner of the KwaZulu-Natal Cricket Union at which I was present. In his address, the president made an impassioned plea for the cricketing community to "change its heart" to help the cause of transformation.
He said: "When I consider the lack of opportunities available for young Africans, I am sometimes plunged into a universe of despair. I sometimes ask myself how, at the end of my tenure, I will answer questions about what I have done to help the under-privileged majority who have largely been onlookers to cricket's triumphs in this country."
One can sympathise with his sentiments, but these seemed like the words of an African nationalist at the time, and they still do. For Nyoka, the future of Africans (rather than "players of colour") in cricket is the Big Issue, and in this, of course, he is in perfect harmony with the beliefs of the African National Congress.
So it is Nyoka, and those who think like him, who represent "the elephant in the room".
Arthur, who also had his well-publicised clashes about team selection and quotas with former president Norman Arendse, had become increasingly distanced from the new president during the course of last year.
It is common cause that there is no shortage of quality players of colour (read Indian and coloured) in SA cricket, but a critical shortage of top-class African players and it is these players who Nyoka particularly wants to promote. How Arthur, and the national selectors, are supposed to promote African players when the franchises are producing so few, is another matter.
The dropping of Makhaya Ntini (for the third Test against England at Newlands) was clearly a very sensitive issue. Nyoka, it is understood, was particularly keen that the great fast bowler be given the chance, not only to complete 100 Tests, but also to pick up 400 Test wickets. Arthur blocked that possibility, at least temporarily, and that did not go down well.
How was the decision taken?
On Tuesday last week, the Board met to hear presentations from various stakeholders in the national team. Arthur, Smith, team psychologist Jeremy Snape, who is apparently close to Smith, and others offered their thoughts on the season and the 2009 campaign in general.
After the meeting, the Board reconvened and, according to my information, voted unanimously to end Arthur's term. Both Arthur and CEO Gerald Majola agreed to say at the press conference that their respective visions clashed.
Majola said CSA wanted to "interfere" in Arthur's coaching set-up; Arthur said he wanted to retain overall authority.
My understanding of what really happened is that Nyoka, supported by members of the board, used the Proteas' poor form, internal debates about the quality of his coaching as well as differences about how the coaching set-up could be improved, to vote Arthur out of his job because of his perceived lack of success in promoting/selecting African players.
What awaits the new Proteas coach?
Whoever finally takes over, the pressure to produce and promote African players will not go away. If anything it will increase. The only way of resolving this issue without resorting to symbolic - and damaging - quota selections will be a reversal in the current dismal record of franchises in producing top-quality African players.