By Tony Becca - On The Boundary 
Hooper
THE DECISION of Carl Hooper to pull out of the West Indies squad for the first Test against Australia has left a number of people unhappy - and none more so than the chairman of the West Indies selection committee, Sir Vivian Richards.
Sir Vivian wanted Hooper to be retained as the West Indies captain, in his own words, he delayed the naming of the West Indies squad for the first Test against Australia for no other reason than to hear from the deposed captain if he was interested in playing or not, and Richards must be hopping mad that after telling him yes, he then said no.
Based on Hooper's history, however, that kind of behaviour is nothing new and although, all things considered, Sir Vivian and his co-selectors should have told Hooper goodbye and thanks after he was removed as the captain and deserve what has happened, they are not the only ones who should now be unhappy.
So too should former chairman Mike Findlay and his colleagues and the Board members of two years ago.
Findlay and his colleagues were the ones who, despite his history, recommended Hooper as the captain, and the Board members of the time were the ones who accepted the recommendation.
In saying no to the selectors, Hooper said, among other things, that he made the decision after "careful consideration", that "it has been a difficult decision but it is one I feel must be made", and most importantly, that "though tempting to play, it would curtail the development of a younger player and I see it also as a backward step for West Indies cricket".
That sounds noble, and he probably meant every word of it - including the part about curtailing the development of a younger player.
Just a few days before, however, shortly after he was removed as the captain and after saying that he was "relishing the thought of facing the challenge of the touring Australians", Hooper had said that "I must be unselfish though and ask myself if my presence in the team would not be unfair, by blocking the path of some younger and promising player".
BOWING OUT
Based on those words, Hooper was thinking about bowing out, and the question is this: why wait until after he was asked if he was available and after he was selected to the squad to make up his mind?
Was it, as demonstrated in his captaincy on the field, that he takes a long time to make up his mind what to do, or is it that he is a man who simply does what he wants when he wants and regardless of the consequences to West Indies cricket?
Based on his history, the latter seems to be the case.
Saying yes and then no is nothing new for Hooper. He has done so on a number of occasions - including the 1996 World Cup when he told the selectors, yes, I will go, and then changed his mind a day or two before the team left the West Indies.
Should Sir Vivian be unhappy? After standing up for Hooper - for whatever reason, after waiting on him to say yes or no, he should be. As far as he concerned, he must feel that Hooper has let him down.
Should Findlay and company, should the Board members of two years ago, be unhappy? They should be - and more so than Richards. They were the ones who, despite his record of unfaithfulness, of selfishness, of doing what he wants when he wants regardless, brought him back and elevated him to the captaincy of the West Indies.
If that had not happened, what happened on Monday, four days before the start of the first Test against the mighty Australia, would not have happened.
