Stephen VasciannieWest Indies cricket remains rather firmly entrenched in the quagmire of mediocrity. England yesterday, Sri Lanka today, same result: the Test team from the Caribbean is in second place. In these circumstances, there is the risk that our representatives may become so accustomed to defeat that it will require careful psychological treatment to lift them from the doldrums.
In these circumstances, too, we could all overreact, or prescribe solutions that, really, have little to do with the basic problems that bedevil our cricket. There is scope for the view that the latest proposal/decision from the West Indies Cricket Board falls in this category of irrelevant solutions -- and, more than that, it really seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the spirit which helped to make giants of our cricketers in the Clive Lloyd/Viv Richards era.
In writing this, I do not wish to quarrel with the Board. To a significant extent, they deserve our understanding at this time: after all, it may be that the members of the Board, like the captain, just happen to be in positions of authority at a time when the pendulum has made its natural swing away from the West Indies. Who would have expected us to rule forever, one may ask. Also, in fairness, given the low level of performance by the West Indies team in recent years, it is understandable that the Board would feel hard-pressed to present apparently innovative solutions to the problems.
Again, as many cricket analysts have emphasised, the standard of cricket in our regional competitions does leave much to be desired. It is not easy to forget, for instance, that the Trinidad and Tobago team that visited Jamaica last year would probably have lost to a good Wolmer's or Kingston College Sunlight team from the 1970s or 1980s. So, there is undoubtedly a problem at the regional level, and, for this reason, the Board cannot readily be faulted for concentrating its efforts on raising the standard at that level.
Nevertheless, the idea of having the English A Team participate, as full competitors with a chance of winning the regional first class competition, is quite ill-conceived. In the first place, it goes heavily against the idea of a regional competition.
This seems so elementary: in England, they have English county teams participating; in Australia, the Sheffield Shield is not open to teams from beyond Aussie shores; in India, there is no opening for foreign teams to participate as full competitors. These teams have all lifted themselves from periods of decline without inviting others to participate in their national competitions. So, what might have motivated us to this unprecedented piece of openness?
Secondly, even if we make allowances for the desire to be innovative, the plan still falters. One of the main arguments for the plan is that the presence of the English A team (and other A teams in subsequent years, I presume) will motivate West Indian players to new heights.
Maybe; but consider the other side of that argument. What if the English A team wins the competition? It would be the height of embarrassment to know that the English A team had emerged victorious in the West Indies regional competition, and it might sap the energy from future generations of West Indian cricketers.
My impression is that, for all its problems, the regional competition still prompts friendly rivalry among West Indians. Jamaicans might jeer Cricketer X from Guyana, but once he grows into the West Indies team, we support him enthusiastically as one of us: this, more than any other phenomenon in the region reflects a sense of West Indian oneness.
This oneness has then formed the foundation for West Indian cricketing success against all sorts of resource obstacles.
If we value this oneness, this feeling that the West Indian team really represents us as a group, then the regional competition is essentially a nursery, or a testing ground, for our own people.
We nurture them in this regional competition, and then we invite them to the international stage.
The Board's proposal/decision on English A participation sets the matter on its head.
In essence, we are saying that we want others to take part in our preparatory activities; they can go ahead and win the regional competition if they wish, because it is of little importance to us. This makes many West Indian cricket lovers very uncomfortable. The Board has considered the pros and cons in its report on the question, but its members have come up with the wrong solution. At most, we should allow the English A to play against national teams, but not for points: the regional competition should remain just that.
Still within the sporting arena, there is, of course, much joy for Caribbean nationals from the Sydney Olympics. Jamaicans, Bahamians, Trinidadians, and Bajans all have points for celebration, perhaps with a touch of disappointment here and there.
In the case of Jamaica, there will need to be a post-mortem concerning l'affaire Merlene Ottey: incidentally, my own view is that Ms. Ottey should have been given the green light to run in the 100 metres from the time of the National Championships, and the matter should not have been allowed to fester as it did.
Purely
deterministic
Anyway, as we focus on the successes, perhaps we should pause to ask why we have been such leaders in events from 100 to 400 metres over the years. We did not repeat the feat at the 1976 Olympics of having a Caribbean national win the gold medal in all the men's short races; but, even a casual glance at the 100 metres finals, for both men and women in Sydney (not to mention the 4x100m relays) must prompt some reflection as to the causes of Caribbean superiority in sprinting.
Opinions on this question range from the purely deterministic through views based on cultural factors on to the highly controversial genetic possibilities. We can, I believe, reject the deterministic approach which suggests that all our cultural and other features combine to make us 'natural winners'; this is easy to reject because, of course, there are occasions when we do not win, even though many of the factors that might lead to victory are present across different Olympiads.
But, surely, cultural factors must play a role. Many of our leading young athletes have role models who have gone on before them. The memories of 1948 and 1952, the victorious combination of McKenley, Wint, Rhoden and Laing, the constant reiteration of the idea that true glory lies in the shorter races, the fact that our facilities for longer races, and other sports, are less than adequate in many instances, all combine to prompt emphasis in the sprints and, arguably, success in those areas of specialisation.
For me, these are the key factors. Other points are open to speculation, but earlier success leads to specialisation and the psychological feeling that if persons from our shores have done it before, so can we. Given the importance that I attach to the successful role model, however, I remain worried that a generation of West Indian youths may well grow up without knowing what it is like to be cricket champions of the world.
Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.
