Stephen Vasciannie FOLLOWING THE debacle at Sabina Park, cricket spirits collapsed to an all-time low. Interestingly, though, there were divergent assumptions about the cause of the calamity. Some people held to the deterministic line: so, for example, Wilmot Perkins insists, and has consistently insisted, that the current round of under-performance is entirely predictable, nay, even inevitable.
The Perkinian argument is that once the West Indies cricket authorities restored Brian Lara to the captaincy (after Lara's show of indiscipline in refusing to proceed to Africa several years ago) all will be doom and gloom for West Indies cricket. The assumption here is that the wrong message was sent, the river was polluted at source, and we are now forced to drink the dirty water of defeat downstream.
NICE THEORY
A nice theory, but not entirely convincing. This approach assumes that the cricket authorities were fundamentally at fault when they restored Lara, so many years ago. But my recollection is that Lara and other team members were in a labour dispute with the authorities, and held to their bargaining position: hardly an instance of the type of indiscipline that sullies cricketing performance years later.
Moreover, the deterministic approach assumes that West Indian cricket has been deeply damaged by that one episode in which the cricketers stood up to authority, full stop. This cannot be right. There are numerous causes of the current malaise in our cricket, including structural issues such as the significant growth of alternative sporting opportunities for young men (including heavily marketed and more affordable basketball), and the lack of infrastructure to encourage youngsters to embrace cricket at the club level.
Similarly, there are grounds for assuming that there were more immediate explanations for the 47-run embarrassment at Sabina. The West Indies team consistently has been troubled by injury problems, and it could well be that the reliance on so many left-handed batsmen in the line-up facilitated the English strategy built around Harmison.
Again, there are unverified accusations, and assumptions, that some of our cricketers were seized up by activities at Caesar's (leading to their delayed Ides of March). L'Affaire Caesars has also been held up as further evidence that the players really have no sense of legacy: thus, we assume that had the West Indian cricketers realised the symbolic importance of whipping England, they would have turned in early with sober thoughts of the cricket ahead.
BE MORE SOBER
And yet, sober thoughts would have to be distinguished from Sobers' thoughts. One point that emerges from Sir Garfield's recent autobiography is that the great man showed no great respect for curfews and things like that. Indeed, there is a story to the effect that on one occasion he went directly from a drinking round in St. Andrew on to a century at Sabina Park this story coming straight from the old warrior himself!
If Sir Garfield is the model, should we then say that the river was contaminated even further upstream than from the point of Lara? Or should we suggest, with a mischievous smile, that there can be one law for Sobers (who was naturally brilliant) and another for the current crop (some of whom are mediocre at best)?
Clearly, the Sobers model will not work just now, and the cricketers have to be more disciplined in their approach to the game. They may, in fact, draw inspiration from Clive Lloyd's approach. For teams playing with Lloyd, when the captain was ready to leave a function whether of Caesarean or Homeric dimensions all players were required to be ready as well. And this discipline carried itself on to the field, with positive, much-heralded results.
HOLDING OUT
Perhaps because he is so familiar with, and was such an integral part of, the Clive Lloyd era, Michael Holding finds it almost impossible to look with favour on any aspects of the current team. He recently indicated on Nationwide that he has grown thick-skinned about West Indian cricket, and that he simply goes to work as a commentator (presumably without allowing his heart to be troubled by a score of 47 all out).
But even the most pachydermous will be troubled: when the bowling is fast, it tends to be wayward; when it is on a good line, it is often a schoolboy pace. If you remember the days of pace like fire, this will bring tears to your eyes.
Finally, in the midst of the troubles, some have assumed that a management change, or at least a change in the captaincy will bring about different results. This assumption is essentially wishful thinking. With respect to Skerrit & Co, there needs to be more careful analysis of the problems in order to determine whether changes should be made.
As to the captaincy, is there a stronger contributor than Lara on the horizon? Many of those now calling for Lara's head have been doing so for years. And yet, they still cannot make a coherent, convincing case.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head, Department of Government, UWI. He is also a consultant in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
