Tony Becca, Senior Sport Editor
THE FIRST round of the World Cup of cricket is entering its final set of matches and after three weeks of exciting cricket its heading for a thrilling climax with a number of teams still in with a chance of making it to the Super Six round.
Unfortunately for the West Indies, they are not one of them at least it does not appear so.
With one match to go against Kenya in Kimberley on Tuesday, the West Indies are on 10, if they win, they will go to 14, and with Sri Lanka and Kenya on 16, New Zealand on 12 with Canada to play on Monday, South Africa on 12 with Sri Lanka to play and only three teams going through from the group, the West Indies only hope is for Canada to stun New Zealand and for Sri Lanka to knockout South Africa.
It's not one or the other; it's both.
The only other hope that remains for the West Indies is for rain to ruin both matches - and even then, that should not be enough.
If the West Indies defeat Kenya, that would leave New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies tied on 14 points and behind Sri Lanka and Kenya. With all three teams then boasting three victories each, however, the tie-breaker would be who defeated the other; and lest it be forgotten, New Zealand nailed both sides.
To make matters worse, even if the West Indies defeat Kenya and the rain does unto New Zealand and South Africa what it did the West Indies against Bangladesh, and even if the head-to-head clash had nothing to do with it and the determining factor was run-rate, it still would not help the West Indies not with South Africa well in front on 2.10.
For the West Indies, therefore, as far as moving on is concerned, realistically it is all over regardless of what happens in Kimberley.
Apart from cursing their luck following the rain in Benoni, all that is left for the West Indies, therefore, is to ponder what might have been where they went wrong after getting off to a flying start by defeating the starting second favourites South Africa before their home crowd in the opening match.
Although Viv Richards chairman of the selectors, and captain Carl Hooper may not admit it, it must have been a mistake to start with and to continue with a combination of seven specialist batsmen and only three specialist bowlers.
In a bid to justify it, and as they have done before, those responsible for the selection of the team will point to the opening match when Ricardo Powell batting at number six but obviously the seventh batsman, and Ramnaresh Sarwan batting at number seven came together at 215 for five four deliveries into 46th over and blasted an undefeated partnership of 63 off 29 deliveries; and to the performance, at different times, of Christopher Gayle and Wavell Hinds as support bowlers.
The truth is, however, the team was unbalanced. It was one batsman too many, one bowler too few, and it must have affected the team psychologically.
Psychologically, with those before looking behind and seeing so many to come, it probably gave the batsmen a sense of invincibility - and that was probably the reason for some of the careless strokeplay, not only at the top of the order but also in the middle; and as far as the bowling was concerned, it probably put a lot of pressure on the three, knowing that basically everything was in their hands.
Apart from the fact that it must have been psychologically good for the opposing teams, as far as planning the attack, as far as managing the attack, and even though he was part of the decision-making process, it must have been hell for the captain when it came to use the bowlers.
The ideal thing in one-day cricket is to finish with the best bowlers. There are times, however, when the best are needed to come on in the middle to keep things under control, with only three specialist bowlers on call, it must have been tough on Hooper at times, and probably that is why he had to close with Gayle on at least one occasion, and why, despite Pedro Collins being easy pickings before, he had to finish with the left-hander in Friday's do-or-die match against Sri Lanka.
Whatever the selectors may say, seven batsmen in a 50-over match is a luxury, and without even thinking about Ridley Jacobs, the number seven batsman was a waste of time.
Although the number seven, Powell, flashed his bat for 50 against weak Bangladesh, lest it be forgotten, the West Indies, replying to New Zealand's 221 were 46 for five, and the number seven batsman, Powell, scored only 14 before he was out at 80 for six.
Against Canada, the number seven did not bat; and with the West Indies chasing Sri Lanka's 228 and needing to win to stay alive, the seventh batsman, Powell, was bowled for one as the West Indies lost three wickets for one run in seven deliveries and skidded to 121 for six from a comfortable 121 for three.
In other words, but for one afternoon in Cape Town when quick runs were the order of the day and there was no pressure, the number seven batsman never helped the West Indies; and even then, he probably did what, in the circumstances, Jacobs would have done and could have done.
While seven batsmen and three bowlers was a mistake, what really should be haunting the West Indies as they reflect on what is pointing to their early exit, was the treatment of Marlon Samuels and Jermaine Lawson.
It seems strange that the West Indies went through five matches with seven batsmen and the 22-year-old Samuels a gifted batsman, a batsman considered, along with Sarwan, the most talented of the young batsmen in the team, a batsman who was brilliant against India in the one Test match he played and in the one-day series, and a batsman who the selectors themselves have labelled as someone special did not play in even one match.
It seems even more strange that the West Indies went through five matches, played five pace bowlers, including Collins twice, Nixon McLean and Corey Collymore, and the 20-year-old Lawson - the talented pacer who, in his first outing recently not only impressed against India in both the Test and one-day series, not only demonstrated a capacity to perform, but was also the best bowler on the slow pitches in India and who took six wickets for three runs in 15 deliveries against Bangladesh did not even bowl one ball.
Regardless of what Powell did against South Africa when Samuels was out due to his late arrival, once the selectors decided to stick with seven batsmen, Samuels should have played. In fact, even if they were six batsmen instead of seven, there was a good argument for Shivnarine Chanderpaul to move up the order and open the innings with Samuels coming in the middle.
Regardless of his age, regardless of the so-called experience of McLean and company, and whether it was three or four specialist bowlers, Lawson, even more so than Samuels, should have played.
Such is the pace that Lawson generates - certainly in comparison to all the others, such is the bounce he usually gets, such is his accuracy, and such is his love for a fight, that he would have been, more than likely, more than a handful for batsmen on the lively pitches of South Africa.
Nothing may have been different, but by playing seven batsmen and only three bowlers, by not playing Samuels and Lawson, the West Indies lessened their chances of success and appears set to pay the price.
