Tony Becca
BENNETT KING, the Australian coach of the West Indies cricket team, is under pressure.
Following a call by Chetram Singh, president of the Guyana Board, the West Indies Cricket Board has set up a four-man committee to review the performance of the team, the coach and his hand picked assistants - all Australians, and although nothing is wrong with a review of a man's contract at any time, this call for a review, the decision to have a review so early into King's contract, seems a move to find a scapegoat.
One year and a few months after King became the number one man in West Indies cricket, the team's performance continues to be poor, the results show one victory, eight defeats and two draws in 11 Test matches, two victories, 15 defeats and one no-result in 18 One-day matches, and the question posed by Singh is this: is King and his comrades worth the one million US dollars a year being paid to them and particularly so when the board, by its own admission, is broke?
NOTHING HAS CHANGED
Based on those results, the answer is an emphatic no and it has nothing to do with whether or not the board can afford it. It is simply that as far as results are concerned, nothing has changed since the coming of King and his fellow Australians. In fact, remembering that under Gus Logie, a West Indian coach, the West Indies, who defeated South Africa, Pakistan and England along the way, won the ICC Champions Trophy a month or so before the arrival of King and his entourage, things have gotten worse.
The question, however, is this: should King be blamed for the non performance of the team?
The answer, although not emphatic, is no - even though he has the kind of control no other coach of the West Indies team has ever enjoyed.
Lest it be forgotten, King is not only a member of the selection committee, he also has the casting vote, he is "the principal authority" in consultation with the captain in the selection of the final 11, and while the captain leads the team on the field, he carries out the strategy and tactics as determined in collaboration with the coach.
With so much control, it stands to reason that King should be held responsible for the team's performance. One year and a few months, however, is a short time to judge the effectiveness of a coach and especially so in the West Indies where there is no professional cricket, where the first-class season is so short, where the clubs are suffering, where facilities are minimum, and where the talent, particularly as far as the bowlers are concerned, is so scarce that almost every fast bowler in the region has represented the West Indies, in Test matches and One-day matches, in the past year or so.
ROUGH TIMES
The main reason why it is unfair to blame King for the continued poor performance, however, is the fact that West Indies cricket has been going through some rough times since his arrival so much so that he does not know, from one camp to another, from one series to another, who will be available for him to coach and for him to make his selections.
There were times when King simply had to do with who were available and even when they were all available, he had to deal with the lack of team spirit caused by the 'bad blood' between those who were unavailable and those who were available.
ACCOUNTABLE
Whatever the cost, Bennett King should not have been employed as the West Indies coach, although, based on his contract, he is accountable for the performance of the team, he should not have been allowed to hand pick his assistants, and on top of that, they should not have been all Australians.
One year, however, is a short time to judge the man as a coach, in the circumstances, King would have to have been a miracle worker to change the fortunes of West Indies cricket, and remembering that he was not around at the time, while one can understand president Ken Gordon's decision to review his performance, one wonders where was Chetram Singh, a Board member, when the West Indies board offered King the job, when it agreed to his demands and gave him total control, when, despite its financial problems, it agreed on his salary, and when it allowed him to bring in, at whatever cost, three Australians as his assistants.
