Cricket, the West Indies way

Tony Becca, Gleaner Writer

From 1975, even with the great and glorious days of dominance in the mid 1960s and 1976 to 1995, the days when great players seemed to drop from the sky, when, after Frank Worrell, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott, Sonny Ramadhin and Alfred Valentine, men like Garry Sobers, Rohan Kanhai, Lance Gibbs, Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith, Viv Richards, Lawrence Rowe, Clive Lloyd, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Colin Croft and Malcolm Marshall appeared for the West Indies team, West Indies cricket has been, to put it mildly, a game of hit or miss.

It was in 1975 that the then Shell Shield tournament, the islands' biggest contest, came down to its final round with the then Combined Islands, the Leeward Islands and the Windward Islands, playing Trinidad and Tobago and needing six points to pass Guyana and to win the title for the first time.

Towards the end of the match, the Combined Islands' last pair was batting, they needed three runs off the last ball to win the match, they got two runs, and the match was ruled a draw.

Guyana won the title because, according to the rules, the match ended in a draw. If the match was a tie, the Combined Islands would have won the title.

According to the board, although the scores were equal, the batting team lost nine wickets in their second innings, the last innings of the match, and for the match to have been a tie the batting side needed to have lost the last wicket.

In other words, according to the rules, the side batting second should have deliberately ran out one or the other batsman in order to win the title.

Throughout the years since then, there have many strange decisions in West Indies cricket to suggest that although there has been talk about professionalism, there is nothing professional about the management of West Indies cricket.

The regional tournament, for example, started in 1966 and although changes are necessary and unavoidable, between then and now there have been many changes to it, far too many changes, including not only the name of the competition but things like the teams involved, the format, and the points system.

No-result

This year again, for example, a team comprising players from everywhere, most of whom could not have made their national team, reached the final of the tournament, Jamaicans bowled against Jamaicans and, obviously, batted against Jamaicans, and one wonders, just for a moment, what would have happened had a Jamaican, playing for the Combined Campuses and Colleges, been batting and Jamaica, for example, needed two runs to win with one wicket to go.

This year again, for example, Trinidad and Tobago finished one point ahead of Jamaica in the preliminary round. The semi-final match was played in Trinidad and Tobago between Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. The match ended in a no-result, and Jamaica moved into the final on the rule which said that the team which got the better of the other in the preliminary round would go to the final.

Trinidad and Tobago went to the courts to try and get the decision overturned but failed in their bid.

Although Trinidad and Tobago should not have gone to the courts, it may have been that they felt they had a right to contest the rule, if for no other reason than that it was a competition, that other teams were involved in the competition, that it was not only Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica in the competition, and that the tiebreaker, the first and second tiebreaker, should not be the result in the match between those two teams.

They should not have gone to the courts because it was in the rules governing the competition. It was there before the competition started, and they should have read the rules before the start of the competition.

It was strange, however, that the two teams had to meet before the start of the third day's play to deal with the situation, and it was not surprising that Jamaica batted to the end of their first innings for 664 runs well into third day.

The rule was there, no doubt about it. It is, however, strange, not only that the tie was not broken first by most wins and then by net run-rate but also that a league competition ended up in a knock-out competition, and that a semi-final could have ended up with one team not making any effort, any real effort, to win.

One team knew that barring a miracle, once they batted for most of the match, it had already won a place into the final.

The latest of this strange behaviour by the leadership of West Indies cricket is the selection of the squad for the first two one-day internationals against Pakistan.

International sport should be reserved for the best and only the best, people, be it the governments, private sector organisations, or the fans it is the people who pay their money to get these people to perform and to see them perform, and on top of that, the players represent the people.

Some times, most times, the players, the best players, serve as an inspiration, as motivators to the people they represent.

Nothing is entirely wrong with omitting the likes of Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and Ramnaresh Sarwan if those in charge honestly believe that they are not giving their best for whatever reason, and nothing is wrong with leaving out Sulieman Benn and Nikita Miller for whatever reason.

Something is wrong, however, with the selection of some of those selected to compete against Pakistan, either that or they must have some hidden talent. They have come on suddenly, since the World Cup, or the selectors must have suddenly seen things differently, so differently that some seven players who were originally selected for the World Cup a month or so ago can no longer make the team.

More importantly, however, is this: if first-class cricket is to develop players, if from first-class cricket the best is selected for international cricket, and if international cricket is for the best, why is it that the West Indies, in selecting players now, are looking five to 10 years ahead?

Exceptionally talented

In announcing the squad for the first two One-day Internationals, chairman of the selectors Clyde Butts said, "We have looked at a mix of players who will take us through the next five to 10 years, and with this squad we have put together a youthful but exciting combination, of exceptionally talented cricketers who we believe can win matches. There are some familiar faces who have not been included on this occasion, but we have already identified the core of players who we will build the team around."

And Ernest Hilaire, the CEO of the board, has echoed Butts' words.

The time has come for those in cricket throughout the region to tell the board what they want for their cricket, not to listen to what the board believes is good for cricket, especially as it is the people who elect the board.

Apart from the absence of any guarantee that the players selected now will become successes tomorrow, if the core of the West Indies team for the next five or 10 years has been selected already, some of them with average performances, what is there to motivate a youngster, 12 years old, to play the game now with the hope of one day representing the West Indies?

More importantly, no one likes a loser, and who, including board members, will watch or sponsor the team which is losing match after match?