I KNOW a senior lawyer, perceptive, careful, and recently published on the pages of this newspaper. He is, however, maddened by the successes of Brian Lara. For him, the story of Mozart and Salieri is apt. Mozart, the little pipsqueak, idle, ungrateful and wanton, could almost certainly turn a tune while chasing young girls under the Austrian Emperor's dining table, as Peter Shaeffer suggested in Amadeus. The talent had been deposited by God upon the wrong man.
Enter Salieri, a conscientious, patient, systematic composer, a musician with everything but the ultimate touch of talent. So, Salieri lumbers on, producing competent, even workmanlike material, but always skirting the fringes of mediocrity. In contrast to Mozart the careless cad, Salieri the serious, is just not touched by God.
As it was with Mozart, so too it is with Lara, the maddened lawyer is known to proclaim. No doubt God could have made a better berry, but He didn't; and no doubt He could have given greater talent to any one of the zealous Australians now exhibiting systematic prowess on the field, but, again, he didn't. I am not certain that I share the premise underlying this assessment of Brian Lara's success in cricket. The argument, though inventive and even alluring, fails to match the full set of facts on the ground. The talented Mr. Lara could - to be sure - devote more time to cricket training, a point that was also true of that other golf-loving cricket prodigy, Sir Garfield Sobers. But, surely it is an exaggeration to suggest that Lara is careless and unprofessional about his cricket.
VERITIES
There is, however, an element of truth in what we may call the madden thesis. In all fields of endeavour some will come to the business with more talent than others, and in the area of sports, this is immediately evident. So, some batsmen will spend a lifetime seeking to develop the late cut, while others will only need to see it played once to reproduce it with finesse, and even disdain.
Lara falls in the latter category; and for this, many people feel, like the donkey, that the worl' no lebel. In our daily lives, professionals are inclined to preach the virtues of diligence, consistency, and application, pointing out that these are the keys to success. Indeed, teachers have a duty to pass these values on to the next generation, as a matter of course.
Yet, with each century that appears to flow from an arrogant bat, with each cover drive that appears to be the product of a naturally high back lift and a sharp eye rather than from careful training, Lara appears to undermine the verities. This is maddening to many.
Starting with the premise that there is something implicitly unfair about Lara's successes, some of us proceed to blame him for real and imaginary sins in West Indies cricket. All right, there was a time when Lara led a strike against the cricket board; and all right, he has been guilty of some of the indiscretions of youth; but much of the venom heaped upon our greatest living batsman seems out of proportion to his perceived faults.
DECLARATION
Take, for example, the recent issue of the captain's declaration against Bangladesh in the Second Test of the recent series. Ramnaresh Sarwan (may his tribe increase) had made 261 not out when the captain called the innings to a close. Immediately, the pundits questioned that decision; and, I suggest, because the captain is Lara, the pundits offered a one-sided analysis of the factors that must have gone into the decision to declare. Thus, in our anxiety to hang the dog with the bad name, some of us accused Lara of insensitivity to Sarwan's best interests: the vice-captain should have been allowed to proceed to 300, and even 400, never mind that Lara's declaration allowed the West Indian bowlers a chance to take advantage of the fatigue that was the lot of the Bangladeshi players.
Some critics went even further: they offered the view that Lara declared because he feared the loss of his new record, and so, the declaration was consistent with the type of selfishness the West Indian captain had exhibited throughout his career. Notice, though, that it is almost impossible to answer this kind of charge, for no one can read a cricketer's private thoughts.
We can say, however, that Lara was taking no chances with Bangladesh - after all, he had staked his captaincy on a victory in this match. When the declaration came, the main opponents of the West Indies were bad weather and the possibility that Bangladesh would mount a rearguard attack to hold on for a draw. The fact that, in the end, Bangladeshi resistance wilted does not undermine the view that the declaration was motivated by the team's interests, and not the selfishness of the captain.
So, the maddening Mr. Lara lives to fight another day. Many swords are still drawn against him - perhaps this will always be so. My hope, though, is that we do not attack the man only because he is talented.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law, Head, Department of Government, UWI, and a consultant in the Attorney-General's chambers.
