Dear Editor,
In the struggle to improve West Indian performances in international cricket, there are, no doubt, a number of issues to tackle. It is important that cricket people recognize the need for humility in seeking solutions to the problems. I have consistently criticized the WICB, not because I know so much, but because one cannot know whether they appreciate constructive criticism as their garrison mentality forecloses even the acknowledgement of receipt of correspondence.
I would like here to focus on an issue that does not receive much press coverage, the only avenue through which a person without contacts in the hierarchy can learn something about the thinking behind decision-making. It is the difference between coaching and preparation which arose out of the observation of the CEO of the WICB in explaining why the dismissal of coach Simmons immediately before the current tour should have no impact on team performance. His answer in substance was that the players were all professional cricketers. I don`t think he appreciated that the difference between coaching and preparation is not unlike the difference between “the shot’ and “the innings”.
Cricketers are taught, and sometimes learn by themselves, how to make the right shots, how to swing and spin balls, and how to field in different positions. Winning matches requires preparation, which may well be what is most lacking in our cricket. It often seems enough to get good, modern West Indian batsmen out by bowling accurately even without much guile and to score against West Indian bowlers by simply batting patiently and waiting for the inevitable bad balls. What is more there often seems to be a significant lack of confidence in our players.
It is notable how often West Indies teams seem to surrender strong positions during games. Psychologist Rudy Webster once described that phenomenon as a “fear of winning”. What can be done? It might be useful to consider the notion of emotional intelligence, of which the core component is the ability to choose the ultimate over immediate gratification. Resisting the sweetness of “the shot” for the long term pleasure of the victory is often the key to winning. In the last innings of the second test against Pakistan, chasing about 450 runs on a good batting pitch it is difficult to account for the soft dismissals of batsmen Bravo, Brathwaite, Samuels, Johnson, Blackwood and Holder; and in at least three cases the satisfaction of “the shot” took pride of place. A problem of such a nature can never be completely eliminated, but the frequency of occurrence can be reduced by preparation in the form of mental gymnastics in which emotional intelligence is emphasized. Preparation also involves working on individual weaknesses, explaining to batsmen what strategies bowlers are likely to apply against them, and to bowlers what strategies batsmen are likely to apply to score runs. There may well be a variety of methods of preparation, but the odds are high that the mental element is the most important.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
