Dear Editor,
If WI could select an eleven from a squad that includes Badree, Blackwood, Chase, Carlos and Kraigg Brathwaite, Darren and Dwayne Bravo, Bishoo, Charles, Dowich, Gabriel, Gayle, Shai Hope, Joseph, Mohammed, Nikita Miller, Narine, Pollard, Roach, Russell,Sammy, Samuels, Taylor, Simmons and a few of the young promising players, assisted by a full coaching staff and sports psychologist, their odds of winning games starting with the upcoming series against England would increase considerably. I use the words ‘if’ and ‘could’ because the WICB, unlike any other cricket board, has rules, written and unwritten, that make it impossible to select their best team at any time for any form of the game.
I saw my second live international cricket match in 1974 after having been away from the Caribbean, and indeed away from cricket for the preceding twenty years. What struck me most during that Test match were media reports that Garfield Sobers, already recognized as the greatest cricketer ever, was required by the board to prove his fitness to play in the face of his insistence that he was in good health and ready to play. It struck me as remarkable that the governing body of WI cricket believed that the world’s greatest cricketer would lie to them about his fitness. Over the next several years I continued to be surprised at the frequency of disputes between the best WI players and the board. With my limited avenues for information it seemed that administrators considered the top players almost as natural enemies. What perhaps was most remarkable is that the board always emerged victorious in those disputes, with the players being banished from participation. For a long time the WI had such an enormous qualitative competitive advantage, that notwithstanding the conflicts with the board the teams kept winning. The winning stopped in the mid-nineties for reasons not limited to the conflictual nature of the board-player relationship. In an article published in the Trinidad and Tobago Review about the time of the banishment of Gayle and Taylor, I outlined briefly the history of this peculiar relationship. Notably, none of the disputes involved truly egregious behaviour by any of those players. The latest case, of course, is that of Darren Bravo. Over the period reviewed, the board would, on occasions, take on broadcasters like the late Tony Cozier and Mike Holding, people who obviously knew a great deal more about the game than most board members. Clearly the board’s persistence over such a long period in its bullying indicates that they are convinced of their invincibility.
The Caricom leaders’ struggle with the board seems doomed to failure for lack of a unified stance, and at any rate, it is a long-term battle. It must be a priority of all WI fans to field their best team at all times. In order to achieve that objective, those fans, including the media and regional leaders, must not see the exclusion of the best players as opportunities for their favourite players. They must lay down the gauntlet, demand, and take any steps necessary to enforce their demand, that except in cases of truly horrendous conduct, the one criterion for team selection or exclusion must be cricketing ability, or lack thereof.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
