Tony Becca

JOHN DYSON of Australia is the new coach of the West Indies team, and while there are some West Indians who agree with his appointment, there are those who, right or wrong and regardless of how good he might be, are strongly opposed to it and with good reason.

What is interesting, however, are some of the reasons being put forward by those who support the move, and none more so than those coming from Julian Hunte - the latest president of the West Indies Cricket Board.

According to Hunte, West Indies cricket is in need of "positive results" and because of that West Indies cricket needs a coach "who we expect to deliver".

And then he went on to say "we do not want any obstacles that would get in the way of progress, in picking a coach we expect results; it is no longer a situation of picking a coach and that's it; we expect results, and the board will give the support that is necessary but we need results now".

'Upliftment'

And then, while saying that the board is concerned about the lack of performance on the field, he went on to say that "we have appointed Mr. Dyson, who is well known around the cricketing world, and we will be looking to him to help with the upliftment of the game in the West Indies".

According to president Hunte, the board is very conscious for the team to do better on the field. "We really need to go up," he said, "On-the-field deficiencies affect us throughout in all we do at the WICB."

Although these reasons may sound good to some people, they really do not say anything.

Reason

The reasons given why a coach is needed are the reasons why any coach is needed and are obvious and what Hunte said is expected of Dyson what should be expected of any coach in any situation.

The real problem with Hunte's reasons, however, is that they do not address the controversy. The controversy is not that the West Indies do not need a coach. The controversy is this: Why should the West Indies go foreign for a coach?

According to Hunte, the board, for example, is concerned about the lack of performance of the West Indies team, and it should be concerned.

That, however, is one reason why it should not have gone for a foreign coach.

Although things were bad before, they were not always bad. The West Indies were once the best in the world.

As bad as they have been since the glory days ended in the late 1990s, things have not changed since the coming of Australians Bennett King and David Moore. In fact, when it comes to the lack of fight, to the lack of team spirit, to meek surrenders, to attitudes on and off the field, to batting collapses, to bowling no-balls and to dropping catches, things probably have been worse since the West Indies last memorable performance in 2004 - the magnificent, unbroken ninth-wicket partnership of 71 between Courtney Browne and Ian Bradshaw that led the Windies to victory in the final of the ICC Champions Trophy.

The coach then, and for the last time up to now, was Gus Logie, a West Indian.

No sir, there is no justifiable reason to go for a foreign coach. There is no proof that Dyson is better than Logie, than Roger Harper, than Phil Simmons, than either David Williams or Eldine Baptiste.

Another reason being put forward by some in support of a foreign coach, including members of the board, is that West Indians do not respect their own, and that may well be true.

The fact of the matter, however, is that based on what those close to West Indies cricket knew all along, the West Indies players never had any respect for either King or Moore.

Respect

Lest the members of the board forget, it is the board which must see to it that the players respect and listen to the coach, whoever he may be. It is the board which, for example, did not support coach Rohan Kanhai on matters of indiscipline during the 1994 tour of India and to use the lack of respect for local coaches by the players for the selection of a foreign coach, for the insult to West Indian coaches and the West Indian people, is simply an excuse.

According to Hunte, while talking about the importance of employing Dyson, on the field deficiencies affect the board, and certainly in terms of gate receipts, sponsorship and probably revenue from television rights, that might well be true.

It is also true, however, that the deficiencies of the board - including its inability to build the kind of team spirit, confidence and pride which will motivate the players to perform, to do all that is necessary to perform - affect the performances of the players.