Editorial | Dr Shallow’s fallacy

If Kishore Shallow is genuinely convinced that Caribbean governments are to bear the bulk of the blame for the collapse of West Indies cricket, he is obligated to take his analysis to its conclusion and test the internal consistency of his argument.

In that regard, Dr Shallow must offer a deeper explanation of his understanding of the role and responsibilities of Cricket West Indies (CWI), the governing body for the sport, of which he is president, and say whether it remains a relevant entity in the context of his observations. He might perhaps then conclude that CWI, as it has in the past been called on to do, should disband itself and cede oversight of cricket to a new body that is more broadly accountable, in which Caribbean governments have a voice.

For by his remarks, which have been widely reported across the Caribbean, and remain unchallenged by Dr Shallow, the CWI president implicitly embraced the idea of cricket as a public good, or a public service, thus making it subject to public regulation and juridically accountable.

For three decades, West Indies cricket has been the subject of much review and analysis, as well as a cause for much distress among Caribbean publics. It is not only that the achievements of the great team of the 1970s and ’80s have not been replicated. That has been compounded by the deterioration in the quality of regional play, especially in the game’s longer formats, as well as a sense that those involved in the game – players and administrators – have lost the appreciation of cricket’s powerful symbolic role in the Caribbean’s anti-colonial and post-independence evolution. When the West Indies won or played good cricket, it was not merely sport; it was also a politically assertive statement by small countries in what some might have perceived to be the global periphery.

EMERGENCY SUMMIT

Given the regional team’s long, downward slide, West Indian cricket fans might have felt that their team had hit rock bottom. They were, however, taken to a new low at Sabina Park in Kingston last week when, chasing 248 to win in the third Test against Australia, they were humiliatingly bundled out for a measly 27 runs – the second-lowest total in the history of Test cricket. Only the 26 by New Zealand against England 70 years ago is worse.

In the aftermath of the débâcle, Dr Shallow called an emergency summit of CWI officials and former great players to analyse the general crisis in cricket, and especially the deficiencies of the batters that were so badly exposed by the Australian fast bowlers at Sabina Park.

But as this newspaper previously noted, Dr Shallow did not address a key and critical element in the crisis in West Indies cricket – a governance structure that did not effectively acknowledge, or embrace, the concept of cricket as a public good, or something akin thereto.

However, in an interview that was widely circulated on Monday, Dr Shallow essentially blamed governments for the failure of cricket at the elite level because they had not done enough to support the sport at its foundation.

He complained that cricket infrastructure across the region needs improvement and that there was inadequate emphasis on grassroots cricket, including at the school and club levels.

RESISTANCE TO REFORM

Dr Shallow was quoted as arguing that it was ill-conceived to place the responsibility for this on CWI or the territorial boards/associations that are the owners of the regional body.

In a separate response to a St Vincent news site against criticism of CWI by that country’s prime minister, Ralph Gonzalves, Dr Shallow said: “... How can you expect to have batsmen of international standard competing against the likes of (Josh) Hazlewood, Pat Cummins and (Mitchell) Starc, but you don’t have infrastructure where players could go and practise on afternoons, or in the morning if rain (falls)?”

Keith Rowley, the former prime minister (PM) of Trinidad and Tobago, and recently chairman of the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) subcommittee on cricket, rightly pointed out that much of the investment in cricket facilities across the region, whether at schools or stadia for international matches, were by governments.

Dr Rowley noted, too, CARICOM’s consistent engagement of the CWI on regional support for the transformation of cricket – as recent as late last year. What the former PM did not explicitly say, but implied, was CWI’s resistance to deeply transformative reform. The territorial boards appear insistent on maintaining firm control of the body, even if what they control diminishes and disintegrates.

For example, nearly two decades ago a committee, led by the former Jamaica prime minister, P. J. Patterson, recommended a new governance structure for cricket that would include a West Indies Cricket Commission, with broad representation, which would act as a policy and oversight body for a new cricket administration entity. The new entity would be an accountable, publicly listed company.

The Patterson recommendation lay fallow, as did a toned-down version of the commission, a non-executive consultative Stakeholders Council, proposed by a CWI-appointed group chaired by Jamaican businessman Don Wehby.

CWI also rejected Wehby’s proposal to reduce the size of its board, including halving the number of members from the territorial associations, and fundamentally restructuring the executive management role of the president. What it has crowed about is the introduction of term limits for the president – for a maximum of three, three-year terms.

CWI cannot have it both ways, insisting on being a private club, but making demands as a provider of a public good or a public service.