Alviro Petersen has always been something of a loner. Asked to reflect about making a century on his Test debut, he said he dedicated the landmark to himself.
It was, he said that evening in Kolkata, the result of all the hard work and sacrifice he’d made. It was an unusual answer, one that spoke of a selfish player, but it was a reflection on who he was at the time. A loner.
Petersen, while observing other top South African players in the years before his Test debut in 2010, reckoned that in order to succeed at the highest level, he needed to be selfish and do it all by himself.
He’s mellowed over the years, become more outwardly looking, but that insular element of his character remained.
He took on a mentoring role at the Highveld Lions, working closely with Quinton de Kock as he took his first steps as a professional.
However, he also clashed with hierarchy, most notably then Lions selection convener Hussein Manack about the make-up of the Lions team. He accused Manack of interference, a charge Petersen could not prove.
At the peak of his international career in 2012, Petersen appeared to be fuelled by anger.
His highest Test score, 182 against England at Headingley, came as a result of a need to prove himself and any hint of criticism he viewed as a slight on his abilities as a player.
Surrounded by such luminaries as Smith, Amla, De Villiers and Kallis, Petersen was often regarded as the ugly duckling.
While it grated with him, he used that anger at what he perceived to be disrespect to drive himself to some magnificent deeds.
Those deeds will now always be tainted, however.
For while Petersen maintains that he isn’t corrupt nor attempted to fix a match, nor received any bribes, his mere involvement in this sordid match-fixing affair, limited though his role may have been - in Petersen’s eyes anyway - sullies his name.
Petersen has been on the front foot since Cricket SA banned him for two years for failing to report approaches in a timely manner with regard to the scandal.
He’s conducted interviews on television and radio, released a statement and even stated that when the banning period is over, he wants to return to the field of play.
Even in accepting responsibility, he says the nature of the reasons for the ban, were “open to interpretation”.
Apparently when to report an approach to anti-corruption authorities is something Petersen isn’t clear about.
That a player with his many years of experience in the game, having played at the highest level and having sat through numerous meetings about corruption in the game, can claim confusion about how he was duty bound to report any information about fixing in a timely manner, seems far-fetched.
Petersen should have known and certainly should not have played along getting himself further enmeshed in an investigation when he has no expertise in such areas.
It’s a terribly sad state of affairs for all involved including his young family.
He is right to highlight how he hopes lessons can be learned from his involvement in this scandal.
Hopefully, once he’s allowed back into the game, far more importantly than playing again - as he wants to do - Petersen must throw himself into the fray in terms of teaching young players in particular about the dangers of being approached to fix a game or any aspect thereof.
Most importantly, when approached, report that approach immediately.
He has some valuable insights to share about this issue and can be of help to South African cricket when the time is right.