The parallels, as far as they go, are obvious.
They are both 32, two of the most commanding batsmen of their time and highly paid box-office attractions wherever in the world they play.
Chris Gayle and Kevin Pietersen also share something else – the conflicts with authority that led to Gayle’s 15 months exile from the West Indies team, only just over, and Pietersen’s more recent exclusion by England that, according to many of those in the know, might even end his international career.
The causes differ in many ways – Gayle’s centred around his dealings with the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), Pietersen’s were more to do with his strained relationships his captain and teammates – but they renew the debate over how administrators manage their special players, those with extraordinary talent, marketable value and strong egos so common among sporting superstars.
Should their status afford them concessions not available to others? Or, especially in team sports should they not set examples to others less talented or experienced – the “to whom much is given, much is expected” concept?
It is a difficult balance usually shaken by a lack of communication and understanding on both sides.
Gayle’s position was clear a few weeks after he was reluctantly appointed by the board as captain in 2007. “There is no love lost between myself and the board,” he asserted then after refusing the board’s demand for an apology following sharp criticism on his internet column.
In a widely reported interview two years later, he extolled the Twenty20 game, said he wouldn’t be too sad if Test cricket died and hinted at quitting the captaincy.
These were all warning signals of what would lead to last year’s dismissal after his censure of board, chief executive and coach in a radio interview.
Gayle was far from blameless in the affair but, given his stated disenchantment, a genuine effort to sort matters out from the start could have ensured that it didn’t come to such a pass. As it was, had it not been for the political intervention of a couple of prime ministers, Gayle might still be on the outside with little prospect of a return for neither side appeared inclined to back down from its entrenched stance.
Pietersen’s future now depends, not on any political assistance, but mainly on the indulgence of coach Andy Flower and captain Andrew Strauss.
His issues are far more complex and deep-seated than Gayle’s ever were. They involve the disruption caused in whatever dressing room he’s been in – English counties Nottinghamshire and Hampshire and now England with reported messages on his mobile phone, disparaging of Strauss, to what were supposed to be his South African opponents. His batting brilliance has been was one of the reasons for England’s rise to the top (ironically, his last Test innings was 149 against South Africa extensively hailed as one of the best) yet this was proof for England fans wary of his South African origin that he could not be trusted. In contrast, Gayle has been popular with players and public. And there can be no doubt over his heritage. His disputes have been with the WICB.
Yet there is a view, not necessarily minority, that Pietersen is too vital to the England team for him to be discarded. So it was with Gayle, an importance confirmed as much by his own 150 in his first Test back, against New Zealand last month, as by his influence in guiding Kieran Powell, his young partner, to his first Test hundred in an opening stand of 254.
Mike Selvey, the former England swing bowler now cricket writer for the Guardian newspaper, has suggested the Pietersen imbroglio be sorted out, not by those directly and emotionally involved, but by “an independent arbitrator used to conflict resolution”. In Gayle’s case, Ralph Gonsalves and Baldwin Spencer were the “independent arbitrators”.
If arbitration is not a function favoured by the WICB at the moment, Selvey’s is a proposal administrators everywhere should heed. It is as likely as any to avert future damaging high profile rows.
It would certainly have been useful in the most contentious individual case in West Indies cricket prior to Gayle’s. The cricketer then was the incomparable Garry Sobers and the issue involved his omission from the 1973 home series against Australia on the grounds of fitness.
The “greatest cricketer on earth or Mars” declared himself unfit for the first Test because he hadn’t fully recovered from a knee operation. After playing a Shell Shield match against Trinidad and Tobago, he said he felt fit enough for the second Test; the selectors weren’t convinced.
They wanted an examination by the official orthopedic surgeon, Sobers declined, insisting that he had never let West Indies down and that he should now be taken at his word. The selectors, and the board, would not be moved and Sobers did not play in the series, prompting the comment from the winning captain, Ian Chappell, that he was not satisfied his team had beaten the strongest West Indies team.
Within three months, Sobers was back and signing off his Test career in England with an unbeaten 150 at Lord’s.
Without Gonsalves and Spencer, the WICB and Gayle himself would probably not have shifted and Gayle would not have returned for his own 150. Without what would be non-political invention in England, Pietersen might be confined to the Indian Premier League and other such tournaments in future.
THAT decisive final over in the Australian city of Townsville on Monday that cost the West Indies a place in the under-19 World Cup semi-final will haunt Justin Greaves for the rest of his life.
Fortunately team manager Courtney Walsh, West Indies’ highest wicket-taker in Tests, was there to comfort the young Barbadian medium-pacer with personal experiences with which he could identify.
When Greaves started the 50th over, New Zealand needed 18 runs to pass West Indies 237. Their last pair was at the wicket. West Indies were surely through. Six balls later, the team into the semi-final was New Zealand as Ish Sodhi, a heavy-set Indian citizen of his adopted country who previous innings were 11, 0, 8, 6, 2 and 6,, pounded 4, 1, 6, 2 and a final ball 4, to add to a third ball leg-bye, to seal the incredible result.
Memories would have come flooding back to Walsh, nervously following each ball from the pavilion. Twice in the 1987 World Cup, the great fast bowler had been similarly pummeled in the closing overs as West Indies let slip certain victory. In their opening match, in Gujranwala, he went for 16 in the 48th over and then 13 off three balls in the last as England snatched the win by two wickets. A week later, in Lahore, Pakistan’s last pair, Abdul Qadir and Salim Jaffer, took 14 off Walsh in the final over for a pulsating victory in front of a screaming crowd of 40,000.
Still, that result has been overlooked in the passing years by Walsh’s exceptional sportsmanship. With two runs needed off the last ball, non-striker Jaffer was backing up so far out of his crease Walsh could have broken the stumps and run him out to secure West Indies’ victory.
Instead, Walsh merely halted at the end of his run, gave the embarrassed batsman a knowing look and went back to bowl the decisive ball again. It is a story the current under-19s manager might have retold to the disconsolate Greaves and one Greaves would do well to remember.
