Gayle wields power, but not for good of WI

Professor Sir Hilary Beckles has done what might be viewed in some quarters as the gentlemanly thing and expressed regret at what he says is his misinterpreted reference to Christopher Henry Gayle as being 'the don' of West Indies cricket.

Given that the good professor was not likening the former West Indies captain to the great Sir Donald but the man popularly known as 'Prezi', perhaps Sir Hilary did the legally advisable thing in 'sand-papering' what has been viewed, by some, as inflammatory remarks.

A 'don' in local parlance makes reference to one who elicits respect, though the entire country might not respect him. At minimum, a 'don' in Jamaica is expected to elicit respect from his community or those he surrounds himself with. In so doing, he wields this power through paper, what Ethiopian's refer to as 'bhur', what's referred to in the Eastern Caribbean as 'dough', or as Vybz Kartel might most eloquently put it, 'cash money'. A don also exudes control over his subjects by way of a combination of fear and charisma.

despised

While Brian Lara was not well liked among his peers, but more times than not got his way with the West Indies Cricket Board, with Christopher Henry Gayle it appears the converse. Apparently despised by the board but well liked and influential among the bunch of underperforming West Indian 'cricketers', Chris has been known to say after several series defeats, "I think we got a bit of respect." This is something I have previously publicly taken issue with him for in the past - the 'at-least-dem-nuh-diss-wi' mentality.

Alas, not unlike the local don, Chris might not be too perturbed about the anguish a loss means to the region or the country, so long as, by his interpretation, some respect is retained. Gayle's natural instinct appears to be to blast his way out of trouble, again not unlike the local don. He is widely acclaimed as among the wealthy, if not the most wealthy, of West Indian cricketers, past and present included. Perhaps such influence which he is reported to wield within the community of under-performers has to do with his 'paper power'.

Of course, we do not grudge Chris one dollar but we wish he would use this reported influence to inspire the bunch of underperformers to perform with more pride and obtain results, synonymous with the rich standards set by his predecessors.

Unlike Worrell, Sobers, Lloyd and Richards, whose influence resulted in an entire region being pleased, Gayle clearly appears to be influential among a team of non-producing individuals. It also is a truism that West Indies cricket elected authorities appear to be trying to uproot Chris Gayle for they have lost tabs on his influence, not unlike Sir Hilary's allusion to the documented events in Kingston, Jamaica, concerning the Jamaican Government and 'Prezi'.

It would be disingenuous to blame Chris Gayle for the multitude of problems which are the bane of West Indies cricket, surely the West Indies Cricket Board, fans and analysts alike cannot, and should not, be allowed to cast blame for the demise of the team on the broad shoulders of Christopher Henry Gayle, but perhaps with regard to the above in its entirety, Sir Hilary was not so inaccurate in his analogy and he should not be castigated.

Unpopular it may be, I, for one, regret that he has been reported to have expressed regret.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and abkafitzhenley@yahoo.com.