Dear Editor,
When the West Indies manager Joel Garner was recently told that most English fans would want to see West Indies strong, he was sceptical, and asked whether the questioner was aware of modern English county cricket policy with respect to the West Indies in contrast to other Commonwealth countries.
That response demonstrated, fortunately, that management were not naïve about the struggles ahead for West Indies cricket.
On the morning after our glorious victory in Sharjah, the headline in the West Indies section of cricinfo was not about the game. It was about the decision of Darren Bravo, Marlon Samuels and Carlos Brathwaite to reject contracts proffered to them by the board. Carlos did not even play in the Test series, Samuels’ performance was less than mediocre, and Bravo had only two truly outstanding innings. Shortly thereafter broadcaster Ian Bishop expressed the hope that players would be willing “to give back something” to the West Indies, presumably by accepting whatever financial offers management could afford.
It is important for fans to recall that when Gayle, Pollard, Narine and Dwayne Bravo ‒ T20 stars ‒ had contractual difficulties with the board, the consensus of opinion among managers and fans alike was that the greed of those players was the core of problem. When first Captain Sammy, and then Captain Holder sought permission to play in foreign professional leagues, it was reasonable to expect the fans to consider the likelihood that there was more at stake. Now that unlikely Captain Brathwaite and aging Samuels are apparently following the same path, isn’t it about time that the board and fans try to dig a bit deeper?
It should not be too difficult for anyone to grasp the obvious fact that the supply of talented sportsmen is limited,which tends to drive up their market value, and that sportsmen are not professional only because they are, relatively speaking, good at what they do, but because they do what they do for a living. They usually do love what they do, which makes their jobs more satisfying than those that most of us pursue, but nonetheless, they do it for a living. Young people are sometimes asked to make sacrifices for their countries in war or in some unusual circumstances for short periods, but it is not normal in enterprise economies for young people especially, to accept less than their market value in the service of their country, especially in circumstances that are not vital to the country’s survival. Normal people tend to try to earn as much as they can, and when their working lives are relatively short, as are those of cricketers, the pressure is even greater to be uncompromising. So the issue has never been about greedy young men. It is about the iron laws of economics, which we seem quite capable of understanding in our personal lives. Realism demands creative accommodation to those laws.
Garth Watley wrote recently in the Trinidad Guardian about the difficulty of finding consistent selectors and broad-minded administrators. The challenges faced by West Indian cricket are manageable. As inconsistent as our cricketers are, those who pay close attention cannot fail to see that they can play this game. Contrary to popular belief, international cricket, if scheduled properly, is in fact now quite competitive. We may well have been the most successful cricket team in the twentieth century. It is critical that our approach to administration be rational to the point of being scientific. We cannot have selection or other policies that are rationally indefensible, nor attach too much significance to place of birth or ethnicity. We must do everything we can, reasonably, to help our players to face the challenges that experience teaches us await them, and recognize the necessity for participating in the making of decisions that affect us internationally. Fundamental to our success moving forward is the willingness to put the interests of the players first.
Yours faithfully,
RomainPitt
