Tony Becca, Senior Sport Editor
THE MIGHTY Australians are scheduled to play a Test series in the Caribbean next year and for the first time since their first visit in 1955 not one of the matches will be played in Jamaica.
According to the schedule, the four Test matches will be played in Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Antigua, two of the seven one-day internationals against Australia are scheduled for Jamaica, and so too one of the two Test matches against Sri Lanka.
As popular as one-day internationals are, however, a Test match is a Test match, as good as Sri Lanka may be, a Test match against Australia is a special Test match, and Jamaicans believe that not to play one of the Test matches in Jamaica is a slap in the face - particularly as there are good reasons why one should be played in Jamaica.
Apart from the fact that it is the largest of the territories, numbered among those reasons are these: Jamaica is one of the two or three countries that have always answered the West Indies call for financial assistance and, as demonstrated by recent performances in the regional competitions, as underlined by the fact that six Jamaicans are in the West Indies squad now in India, Jamaica's cricket is flourishing.
On top of that, despite the embarrassment of 1998 when the Test match against England was abandoned because of a dangerous pitch, Sabina Park won the award for the best Test pitch and ground in 2001 and shared it with Barbados this year.
There is also one other reason - and probably the best one at that.
According to the West Indies Cricket Board, West Indies cricket is short of money to fund its programmes, if that is so, then Test matches should be played at the venues that make the most money, and as Jackie Hendriks, president of the Jamaica Cricket Association, has confirmed, Jamaica is one of the most profitable venues.
The question, therefore, is this: why did the WICB decide not to play a Test match against a team like Australia at, all things considered, one of its best venues?
According to information coming out of the WICB, Barbados had to get one, Trinidad and Tobago had to get one, Antigua had to get one, and one was scheduled for Jamaica.
The next question, therefore, is why the change.
According to the information coming out of the WICB, it happened because Guyana took up arms, complained that with a Test match not scheduled for Bourda when England tour in 2004 it is being left out, won the support of the marketing committee, and when it came to the vote between Jamaica and Guyana, it was overwhelmingly in Guyana's favour.
In recent times Test matches in Guyana have been affected by rain, according to Guyana, it is because of the time of the year matches are played, and that is one reason why a Test match is not scheduled there during the England tour.
The Test match against Australia at Bourda is scheduled for April 10-14, however, and Guyana convinced the Board that it does not rain in Guyana at that time of the year.
As a traditional venue, as a country that has produced some great players, Guyana deserves to host a Test - especially if it does not coincide with the rain season.
So does Jamaica, however, and all things considered - tradition, great players produced, the number of players being produced, quality of pitch and ground, and money earned - particularly when the touring team is one like Australia.
