Chris Gayle (l) Sunil Narine (r)
Cricket loving fans in the Caribbean have been reacting to the news that a solution to the Gayle WIBC impasse is imminent. Reports in the regional media indicate that a high level mediation led by Prime Minister Ralph Gonzales [Chairman of the Caricom sub-committee on cricket] and President of the WIBC met with Gayle in St. Vincent last week. The fact that Gayle will need time to mull over a proposed deal continues to illustrate to those of us not intoxicated by the emotion this issue has generated that the underlying problem for the WICB and the West Indies team remains.
The real problem for the WICB is to recognize that the foundation of the problem is money and greed. Defenders of Gayle’s position suggest that loyalty cannot be taken to the supermarket. It does not matter that Sir Viv Richards and other prominent cricketers of yesteryear spurn attractive money offers to play in South Africa as one example of principle trumping money considerations. To think they were paid far less than present day players by the WIBC! There was a time when individuals were prepared to stand on a principle, any money consideration although important was not the ‘over-weight’ consideration factored to arrive at a final decision.
The leadership (used loosely) in West Indies cricket needs to reconcile what are the overriding perquisites to building a cohesive team now and the future. One does not have to be Peter Drucker to appreciate that a team requires members to committed to team objectives, as important, is the need for team members to manifest behaviours which lend to the team achieving optimal cohesion. All other considerations must be weighed secondary if the West Indies team is to achieve success.
Ironically it is the WIBC who has to give permission to players to sell their services to bidders like the IPL and BPL. How can team members like a Gayle and emerging star Sunil Narine be loyal to the ideals of West Indies cricket if there is the lure to become multi millionaires in less than 3 to 5 years? In his first year in international cricket Narine has been ‘auctioned’ for US$700,000 in the IPL. It is instructive that the numbers 1,2 and 3 teams in the world do not have the problem of their best cricketers taking flight, why? How does the WIBC and other bottom of the ladder teams affected by the new order in world cricket, ring fence the potential of their cricket programs to achieve success, a success which is a requirement especially for the good health of the national psyche of English speaking West Indian countries.
The recent concession by the WICB, in the spirit of compromise, demonstrates that the WIBC has surrendered its leadership role in West Indies cricket at the altar of political expediency and public opinion. The underlying issue remains. The West Indies cricket team cannot sustain success if its best players are allowed to peddle their services to the highest bidder. If they want to be individual contractors then they MUST surrender their right to be part of a team. The folly which currently exist where the WIBC routinely issues NOCs (No-Objection Certificates) because it is intimidated by the legal implications makes a classic example of the need to dismantle this monolithic structure which has surrendered its leadership role in the sport.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) which is responsible for governing world cricket must accept that the time is now to intervene. How can a body responsible for the oversight of world cricket ignore the effect businessmen with deep pockets continue to compromise the strength of the sport? Surely the Kerry Packer experience can be used to fashion a win win for all stakeholders?
How long before these deep pocket franchises start recruiting non test players, thereby removing them from the dictates of the WICB? Should this happen; those players are now further removed from developing the West Indies, why not look for a way out for all concern. While we are all great full that Sir Viv and others took a stand against playing in apartheid South Africa, I don’t think a comparison can be made. The situations are not the same, i.e., making a decent sum in the IPL vs. playing in a country that thought Viv then was scum. I do remember, however as a boy many W.I. cricketers missed matches, because they were away honoring their English contracts/county cricket…………they made money while honing their skills.
Viv Richards and others’ deciding not to go to South Africa was a moral issue, since apartheid was abhorrent. This is not the same as going to play in the IPLor any other T20 tournament, for which you can’t blame players, given the way the WICB has treated their colleagues in the past. Remember how the same Viv was treated when he indicated his desire to play in the World Cup? And this was a man who always put West Indies cricket first!
Why would any cricketer ( Narine ) turn down 20 years salary ( for six weeks work ) to play for the West Indies under the current WICB ?
West indies cricketers are picked base on the whims of the Board and selectors and players are not paid like the Australians.
Australian cricketers are patriotic because they are very well paid by their Board and have lots of job opportunities after cricket.
What exactly is the ” West Indies” ?
Do we think the moral fiber of all the players who turn down the offer to go to South Africa did so on moral grounds?
Do you understand that we have to look at a solution to the issue of financial tycoons destroying cricket as we know it?
Do you understand it is the same WICB and other country board which hone the kills of our crickters from school level only to have the same cricketers trot off to far away land because of the lure of money?
Think big? This is a cricket governance problem.
where is the ICC?
I would like to congratulate the West Indies” team for beating Australia and wish them well tomorrow.
I would like to see Tino Best play but it is not looking good for him right now.
I’d rather Gayle not get back into the WI team.
He is making his money and is happy.
Let him continue to do so …. and be so.
We are happy too without him.
Everybody’s happy!!
Is it really that PM’s of the many ramshackle economies in the region really don’t have anything better to do with their time than champion Gayle’s cause?
David the ICC and the Boards that govern cricket should negotiate with the IPL, ,Australian Big Bash and other T20 tournaments to create schedules that do not conflict with each other.
I would like to see a “West Indies” team that includes Gayle and Narine but I would never ask anyone to turn down opportunities to make life changing income.
Why you think Hants still in Canada?
eff yuh doan know leh muh tell yuh.
Cause I does mek mo money in dis “freezer” dan I cuh eva mek in beautiful sunny Babadus.
Is the Barbados vs Leewards match being broadcast?
Tried CBC and VOB but no luck.
@Hants
Until you find a link you can follow updates here:
http://www.bcacricket.org/2010/articles.php?link=2982
Everything I’ve just read here, as one would expect, is reflective and experienced. But Hants raises a question which is fundamental – and fundamental questions are so often ignored. His question was ‘What is the West Indies?’ To which I want to add what I regard as an equally fundamental question, which is ‘What is meant by “West Indian Cricket DOMINANCE”?’ – that is, what does the title to this post mean? I’ve not read anything about that but, rather, about the perceived problems for the team and it’s individual players relating to the lure of money which, of course, for discussion purposes is entirely proper – though it has nothing inevitably to do with ‘dominance’.
@robert
Yet again you seem to have problems understanding the big picture? With respect of course.
Why do we play cricket as a unit in the West Indies?
Do we play to win or lose?
Why do we persist with the UWI model anyway?
Given the investment in cricket as recent as CWC2007 how does this translate to judging the commitment of the political directorate to the importance of cricket?
The directorate if we can interpret correctly is representative of the people.
In the wake of Packer what did we learn?
Cricket can change but opposing sides must appreciate the benefit of being conciliatory so that all might benefit.
The ICC is responsible for planning future tours, the private initiatives like IPL, BPL and Big Bash would become even more exciting if players who turn their backs on these 20/20 competitions because of commitment to country or contractual obligations were made available to be auctioned.
We need to examine the big issue. Whether Gayle or Narine should command big salaries is not the issue.
@ David
Equally respectfully, the question about ‘dominance’ IS the big picture. It’s actually bigger than winning or losing, about who gets what and how. Remedies for this and that may vary you see in accordance with how we see WI cricket in relation to the rest of the world, or how we want to see it. All of the matters you raise are self-evidently matters for discussion about the ‘state’ of cricket – it’s management, it’s players and all the rest – but set against what over-arching precept?
@robert
Have you watched Fire in Babylon?
http://www.desipad.com/miscellaneous-cricket-videos/91890-fire-babylon-dvd-rip-2010-dp-exclusive.html
@ David
Yes, I looked at the link and it confirmed what I had suspected.
Of course, in those years the WI had a marvellous team – outstanding opening bats, a battery of devastating fast bowlers, a super wicket-keeper, a captain with great authority. But now, the post caption is “Dominance threatened” – as if to say that only recently has this “dominance” been thrown into question. In fact, it was lost a long time ago – and you know that.
Are you in fact saying that this ‘dominance’ is something which is inevitably ‘ours’ by reason of divine right? As if to say that that is something which defines ‘us’? And this because at a particular moment in history we were ‘on top’? No, surely not. Yet that, I suggest, IS the over-arching precept of the post and why I said it was a fundamental question.
For years people have scoffed at and belittled the team for its failures with this same sense of disappointment that things were not as they once were and as they ought to be – somehow, as I say, by divine right; and yet have simply failed to understand the movements of history, the rise and fall of nations and cricket teams, that nothing ever remains static. For a time Australia is ‘on top’ – at that moment they have they right mix of this and that; at another it might be Zimbabwe or even (gee) poor old England. But none of this ‘defines’ anything like the truths of mathematics.
None of this is to disparage any of the questions which you and fellow bloggers have raised. Quite the contrary: they are relevant and purposeful – and they boil down to this – how can we best secure the talents that are on offer
in this game of cricket, with all the challenges that there are, at the present moment? In a sense, the rest takes care of itself and not least because we have no control over it. To obfuscate that issue by reference to an illusory on-going historically orchestrated ‘dominance’ I think is to suffer from a self-inflicted wound which only winds up the ego with an entirely false sense of self-hood.
@robert
Dominance becomes relevant if you accept that the West Indies is the only team which dominated a team sport for 15 years.
The fact that we are at the bottom of the ladder today speaks to a failure which must be viewed against what we have achieved in the sport.
History continues to record the West Indies as a premier cricketing nation.
It is therefore incumbent on the present leadership not to betray our history.
This is one of those issues which glaringly point out the biggest problem in the Caribbean / West Indies.
Federation failed, Caricom failing,Trinidad exploiting Barbados (Investment,Business and property ownership) but would not allow 50 Bajans to fish in their water.
When Bajans stop getting arrested for fishing in Trinidad waters and a Jamaican can get on a plane and come to Barbados looking for work, or when
I can come to Barbados, go to Trinidad and tell their Immigration that i will be there indefinitely then “West Indies” will have meaning.
When “all uh we is really one” then we will be “West Indian”.
Wheel an come again allyuh. “learned that phrase from a Trini back when I was trying to show goodwill to “West Indian” females without consideration of insularity.
What you say maybe true based on how one defines Caricom/West Indies integration.
The flip-side is that one can promote functional cooperation through agencies like the UWI, WI cricket, CXX,CDB etc.
It is all in the definition driven by what is practicable.
@ David
While I agree with much of what you’ve just written, it is still nuanced to confirm what I have been trying to suggest. ‘Must not betray our history” – what on earth does that mean? Is the next move to demand reparations? But if you mean that administrators and others must use their best endeavours in the service of cricket in the region and that they are accountable at the bar of public opinion, then of course. And yes, I still regard Hants’ question as fundamental. It raises all sorts of questions about loyalty – to what? A team? A country? A mythical entity? Self-interest?
But David, please understand I am NOT questioning anything that has been written here about the problems NOW or the way to address them. I have only addressed the possible mindset, insinuated by the post title, which may lie behind our discussion. And – in the light of what you’ve said to me – that was an entirely proper thing to do.
@Hants
In case you are interested Winwards at 4.35PM is 37/6 chasing 145 to win.
Yes indeed, mock cricket.
SUCH LOUSY CRICKET AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE NO LONGER DOMINANT
Thanks David. I have been following on cc.com.
Proves your point. Why schedule a regional series to coincide with the Australian tour?
Regional teams weakened because their best players playing for West Indies.
@Hants
In the case of Barbados we are missing Roach and Best, bowlers!
“we are missing Roach and Best,”
Luck for leewards. lol
45 for 8
72 all out.
Must have been a really bad pitch.
@Hants
What about when Barbados was bowled out for 58 at Kensington Oval recently?
Greetings BU family:
This article is an interesting piece but it is not very factual in my opinion at all. The problems with WI cricket were manifesting themselves long before T20 cricket came to the fore, so this nonsense about cricketers running behind money is a non issue. Did they not run for money in the Packer days when 50 overs cricket became the craze of that era? What is the difference now? The game has become more commercialized, more money to be made by the players and they are seizing their more beneficial opportunities in similar systems, that are all using them for the same purpose of financial benefit at the end of the day. It is all business.
The main performance problem in WI cricket is a culture has evolved over a long period which has embraced talent but not rewarded professionalism. This has resulted in inconsistent/mediocre team results for some time now. Chris Gayle is not the heart of the problem either but just a part of a sick system that spoke out and has been ridiculed/ostracised by those whom he spoke out against, who unfortunately for him are the ones who hold the power in WI cricket. It is unfortunate he has to be a sacrificial lamb, but he appears to have accepted his role as martyr on behalf of his colleagues on the field of cricket.
Why is it that WI cricketers can go into professional leagues and perform like the most consumate professionals, but when they return to our system where they should continue to emulate these characteristics, we see the opposite in most cases? A the end of the day it all boils down to poor leadership at the top. If the head (WICB) is not functioning effectively, everything else will be in continued turmoil until the situation is resolved, or everthing simply will wither away to nothing eventually. If the WICB is accepting mediocrity consistenly from players, how will they ever improve? The WICB itself seems to be more concered with maximising financial gains out of the mess rather than accept some losses to improve the peformance on the field, and the professionalism of our cricketers on and off the field.
The cricketers I must say have a responsibility to be professional first and foremost, and maintain a high fitness level at all times as professional sportsmen who are paid a lot of money for doing as such. That being said, it is difficult to watch dedicated, loyal, professional cricketers being pushed over the edge. Chris Gayle is the first to come to mind due to the present circumstance, but what better an example than Chanderpaul. Who has been more loyal, dedicated, committed (I could go on and on) to WI cricket, but yet he is treated like a doormat by the board and shown little respect. He has been the most consistent WI cricketer over the last 15 years easily, with a lot to offer, but was discarded in the most callous manner from the ODI side because of age and not underperformance. Nonsense, he would have to play for me till he dies if he could maintain his levels of committment and consistency to the team, especially under the circumstances during this period. If you are developing the team, going in the direction of youth, keep your performing elders in the ranks to guide the youngsters. If recycling the like of Marlon Samuels as an elder to guide the youngsters with his poor attitude because he is younger than Chanderpaul is considered a step forward, that is not good enough. We are rewarding the player who did the wrong things, and punishing the player who carried the burden through thick and thin. What can a young player learn from Marlon Samuels versus what he will learn from Chanderpaul? This is taking me places I did not intend to go so I am signing off for now BU readers. I look forward to some positive and negative feedback from you.
Don’t play for them Gayle. West Indies cricket is dead. Let ignorant Otis Gibson and Julian Hunte and Darren Sammy play for West Indies.
@John Cumberbatch
Perhaps you should reread the blog.
@Baje
Is it not interesting to note that if you speak to 50 West Indieas they offer 50 different solutions?
What does it say?
How can you have a system in the Caribbean which breeds amateur cricketers and expect them to graduate to the international stage where their opposites have forged their skills in a domestic system which is semi or professional?
Yes you can blame Gibson et al but the root problem remains.
@David
Is your sense of humour working overtime? What West Indies cricket “dominance”? I didn’t get the impression that you were speaking in the past tense. The current crop of cricketers are mere shadows of those who preceded them, they have ceded the bit to others who will not surrender it without a fight.
So save those tales of “dominance’ for your grandchildren, they may wonder why some people continue to play the sport.
however as i read these comments one questions comes to mind :would the greats play under the same conditions of back then given the same scenario of today.Does it mean that today’s players are less dutiful because of the trappings which embodies the game ? or are we all so trapped in the past that we somehow forget that the challenges of the new breed of cricketer was never a force to be reckoned with for those of the past?time has change everything and the world of cricket as we knew it has been revolutionised by money and greed ,Something we must think about!
Sargeant wrote “The current crop of cricketers are mere shadows of those who preceded them”.
I disagree. We do not have as many as we did in the “glory days” but there are still very good cricketers playing in the Caribbean today.
WHY isnt this article about congratulating the Windies for beatin’ the Aussies for the first time in 6 years and in a position to win a series against the Aussies for the first time in 17 years ??
WHY all this shite about Piss Gayle aka Chris Fayle ??
YOU think that Piss Gayle really want to play cricket for the West Indies??
WHAT is a cricket Mercenary ???
YOU dont know this a big trap the men just set for he because they know that he didn’t really want to sign and that they will get the last laugh ???
JUST ASKING along with
JUST OBSERVING -(GRANNY)
i do believe the cricket alumni and all have congratulated the westindies anyhow it might only be shortlived that is why the response is kinda luke warm and not as highly received as much back in the glory days. however it was well noted of you to hightlight that win again!
@ David
An ‘honest’ question…what is the UWI model you referred to?
I understand that there is a UWI cricket academy – but I have never understood what it means or what it does or how, precisely, it’s supposed to further the interests of West Indian cricket. Does it mean reading books about the past? Or reading a sort of ‘Trevor Bailey’s Book of Cricket’ which shows you how to play strokes? Or is it about being gentlemanly on the pitch? I suppose I should go in one day and ask. I suppose Herod-Beckles had it very much in mind when he sneered at Gayle in St Kitts some time ago and got us all such a bad name with the Jamaicans.
@ Hants
I’m sure I remember you saying that the wheel will turn – and I’m sure you’re right. How can we help it turn I wonder?
@robert
Going back to the issue of dominance. The article was the view that a WI team having achieved the greatness derived by being 15 years a champion does not lose that greatness despite a losing record. What that team was able to achieve has made WI, a criketing country, great forever and hence the descriptor ‘dominance’. You and others may disagree but is does not detract from the point.
Regarding the UWI model is meant to empasize the fact the UWI organ is regarded as a regional symbol which although not perfect is one of the better examples of cross border sharing. The West Indies cricket team is one other example. It is about ‘holding up’ the few examples we have as regional success many which continue to define who we are as a people. Sir Hillary would have to dymystify what he is doing with the academy because he alone seem to be championing it.
@ David
Oh I see. Thankyou. I thought you had in mind some kind of cricket model coming out of UWI and naturally assumed you referred to the Academy which, as I say, I know nothing about.
But on the UWI model as you explain it – you are right to mention its imperfection and, in fact, increasingly that august institution is making Hants’ point for him. You will know that Jamaica now has its own Faculty of Law and that Trinidad will shortly follow suit. It’s basically about national identity. I’m not sure whether the other territories still operate the quota system – but at least at one time, for example, something like six students a year only came from Antigua into law. Guyana has its own university (though its activities are imperiously monitored from Barbados) and I’ve no doubt we shall see the same in Jamaica in just a few years. Meanwhile medicine is now also in Barbados. Before too long I’ve no doubt that Barbados will have its own professional law school since, apart from the point above, the others are bursting at the seams.
In short, David..there’s not very much left of this model, is there?
@robert
What it means then in much the same way we are discussing WI cricket we need to do the same concerning the UWI and its continuing role. It was interesting to listen to Opposition Leader Arthur recently speaking during the Estimates Debate about the business model the UWI plans to build out that will result in increase revenues for the UWI and country. Who is responsible for articulating the vision of these regional institutions? One would think if the government of Barbados has to heavily subsidize the institution on the Hill that it is a partner at the table when strategy is being mapped.
@ David
I think your blog went haywire towards the end..but I think you’re saying that cricket defines who we are as a people. That is the root, I suppose, of our disagreement. You see in saying this, I think you’re selling us all short.
@robert
Do you accept that our history defines who we are as a people? If the answer is yes…
hants keep all the money you got in the freezer and allow me to continue enjoying life in the sun with the little i got. wouldn.t swap with you for nothing in this world.
@ David
If we keep meeting like this…..
(1) Note in the first response you speak regionally one moment and then refer specifically to UWI in Barbados. In other words, the plight of UWI here – the consequence of massive and arguably irresponsible capital expenditure – is not really a regional question at all.
(2) Yes of course history is a defining feature though not the only one. But 15 years of history (to use your figure)? But what I think our exchanges have shown is that as much as anything the post is about how best to keep the regional dynamic in our cricket team – and, actually, I have no problem with that at all – since, at root, it goes back to the question Hants raised. Neither would I quibble if the question be put ‘How do set about restoring WI cricket to its former greatness?’ – because great it was for a time.
@robert
BU rarely post about matters of a cricketing nature for obvious reasons. Hopefully the fact that the blog provoked some useful exchanges satisfied the effort it took 🙂
@ David
Of course it did…and I don’t think it’s finished yet. This is only day one and Zoe hasn’t chimed in yet.
Can I tell you a story? It relates to the lecturer I mentioned on another post in the Poverty Law class. A student, who happened to be a social worker, gave a lecture to the class on the legal implications of aids. She brought with her a collection of condoms, a femdom (?) and some sort of table in the shape of a bookmark which she distributed to the class including the lecturer. Some while later, and just before another class/clinic the lecturer looked at this bookmark/table and found it was a table about the size of the male member in different races. Now remember the lecturer was white. Apparently the table suggested that the average size of the white male member was a fraction more than the black. The lecturer was flabbergasted at this and so was seen mounting the stairs to the class muttering to himself that it simply could not be true. Outside the class he met two Jamaican female students and told them what the table said. Seemingly the girls went ballistic insisting that the table was ‘lies, lies, lies’. Now affronted by their own assumptions and unwillingness to evaluate the information, the lecturer stormed off and was heard to say “For Christ’s sake. Is that all we’ve got here – Big Ones and Cricket”. So you see……
We all should be practcal here, there’s life after cricket, hence I believe that Gayle and Narine has the right to honour their IPl contracts
@robert
Getting back to your 12:31 comment. Are you saying that UWIs in the four countries do not collaborate on curricula? Are you suggesting there is no cross pollination and sharing of best practices? Are you telling us that our regional centres of excellence have become 100% autonomous?
@balance wrote, “wouldn.t swap with you for nothing in this world.”
If I didn’t have family to support I wouldn’t be in the freezer.
I am happy for you. Barbados is one of the best places in the world to live.
In the normal working world people have expectations of continuous employment and personal development.
How can you expect people to play cricket for the West Indies for a few years and fend for themselves when they are dropped.
Until the West Indies can MATCH the level of FEES and structure of the Australian cricket Board, they will lose the best players to the IPL and the Australian Big Bash.
Who would turn down $700,000 for 6 weeks work?
Should Gayle turn down the $2million he will make?
For the record I don’t remember ever using the term “West Indies” other than when referring to cricket.
When asked “where are you from?” I say Barbados. if next question is where is that? I say it is in the Caribbean and if necessary describe where it is relevant to the USA and South America.
@Hants
The issue is not that these players should not make money. It is that the cricket boards and the ICC should work with the IPL etc to find a win win. If the situation continues teams from the WI and others with less ressources will never achieve success because the best players would always be snatched away by the lure of big bucks.
this is a different ball game the rules are different the younger generation is not playing for the love of the game or country but for the love of the money and family. but who are we to judge them. recently i heard a minister begging to have one of the greats name be placed in historical perspective . Look the past cricketers were seen as heroes but many did not get respect due from their country today’s bunch look back into the past and makes a decision that the bottom line trumps all else and in a way even though it may be selfish it may be the way they see how the past crop of cricketers were abandon and left to fend for themselves and has made a real decision it is not going to happen to them. First we must look at the way we have treated our greats before harping and chastising the newer generation of cricketers for it is the past that might have been the final arbitrator in forming their decisions
@ac
With respect. Why is it that other countries are able to manage their history better than us? Do you think the decimation that is taking place with WI cricket would happen to football or cricket in the UK or basketball or baseball in the US? Why not?
David wrote “the cricket boards and the ICC should work with the IPL etc”
Absolutely correct.
How is it that you and me can see the obvious but the mcguffees of cricket don’t.
Every major professional team sport has made adjustments to allow players to represent their countries.
The USA sends the best NBA players to the Olympics.
Canada and the USA send their best NHL players to the World cup.
One other thing. It is my understanding that the WICB gets 10% of all fees paid to Chris Gayle and any West Indian playing in the IPL,Big Bash and other approved tournaments.
Could it be that the prolonged absence of Gayle has been profitable to the cash strapped WICB ? Just asking ( but not Just Asking )lol
@Hants
It is clear that the management structure managing regional cricket needs to be changed. We have changed captains, players, format of competitions etc, we have not changed the WICB.
But if we see the circumstances and those involve in managing the game they have the same feeling of entitlement that the cricketers have. The game is no Longer be dominated by a “feeling of servitude”which was worn as a badge of honour by those of the past but has lend itself to a regulator boards of managers and directors who himself feel that they are entitled to set the rules and the cricketers should take it or leave it. this is no longer the case and what we are seeing now is a silent revolution by the majority of cricketers with gayle the one man out willing to stand up and openly opposed. In the USA a matter of this kind would have been resolved because the stakeholders always see the horse before the cart while in this case the stake holders prefer to have the cart before the horse. Remember last year when there was talk about not having a football season because of a strike but you see what happen.
I woke up at 3.30 this morning to watch a Formula 1 race. I am a Lewis Hamilton fan.
There was a time when I would do the same to listen (on the radio) to West Indies cricket when Sir Gary was still playing.
I would not get out of my bed to watch the current team play.
I must say the team should be praised for the efforts they are making .
I also do not understand why Tino Best was picked as a water boy.
David wrote “Do you think the decimation that is taking place with WI cricket would happen to football or cricket in the UK or basketball or baseball in the USA?”
No. There is a colonialistic elitist mentality that pervades our caribbean culture.
@ David
My answer to our questions is a sort of ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘ yes’. Remember that traditionally for law Jamaican and Trinidadian students have come here after their first year. There was one Dean – in Barbados. Interaction was basically at the Faculty Board level. Barbados lecturers would act as Course Directors for the various courses including for those taught at first year level in Jamaica and Trinidad. It was a situation which doubtless caused much frustration in those places and, of course, did not permit the lecturers there to develop new courses. Examiners’ meetings would be corporate affairs but the paper was set at Cave Hill. Notionally there was inter-campus second examining but in practice it really didn’t take place and not least because there was a rule which said that in case of disagreement the first examiner’s mark prevailed – so that, eg, even the Course Director in Barbados could not over-rule the first mark of someone in Jamaica. Marking standards differed considerably. Cave Hill examiners often complained that the marks awarded in at least one other campus (I’m speaking of the first year) were way too high.
Until recently Barbados didn’t have a medical Faculty so our people had to travel to the other Campus’.
As you’ll see from what I’ve said, interaction between Campus’ was really pretty minimal though so far as syllabus’ were concerned, in principle all members of Faculty Board had a say in the way they were fashioned and even though the subject would not be taught in the other Campus’, ie for 2nd and 3rd year subjects.
Well, I could go on but I guess you get the drift. As I said, the structure of minimalism caused a lot of frustration in the other Campus’ – and basically explains why they decided to go it alone – as, of course, is the case for all other subjects. It’s posing many problems for Cave Hill – naturally – and ultimately it will mean a loss of something like 160 students or more a year over the two year (2nd and 3rd year) period.
@robert
Interesting response.
As the UWI Cave Hill takes on new services e.g. medical and expand others how will it impact the government’s subvention expected annually.
Of importance is how will the current model be sustained and whither UWI the regional entity?
The foundation problem is piss poor management by the WICB and Country Boards for NOT developing a cohesive and all encompassing plan in a professional manner. For instance, do players have to sign a professionally drawn up contract like other professional sports organisations demand at an early age eg Soccer, Basketball et al ? If not why not? Provision should be made for open window periods like IPL.( Or bonuses for NOT going to IPL et al). Would Peter Drucker advocate spending tons of time and money on cricketers development without locking them in to a ironclad contract where big money is paid to the organisation for a trade?
You say that the players are greedy unlike those of yesteryear BUT when Packer came along with deep pockets nearly every WI player (besides Kallicharan who became Captain) and players globally all desired to take the lucre. These WI were the very same guys who formed the greatest WI teams of that Golden generation starting in the mid 1970s.
While it appears to make sense that the WI is not or ever likely to be one political entity this is also a failure of the WICB for not having a PR Campaign pointing to the fact that no single WI country is in a position to go it alone for the long term. Right now T&T is performing well in T20 etc BUT this is because their current crop are the best they have ever had simultaneously and projecting this performance into the future would be a major error. The overriding fact is that the component countries NEED the WI on the global stage as this is OUR HERITAGE and is very likely the ONLY HOPE for dominance globally. We MUST STICK TOGETHER!
@Moneybrain
The chink in your submission is that WIPA has made good claim that to restrict the players from selling their services violates a basic labour tenet i.e. restraint of trade.
Maybe we still see cricket as simply a game, for many young cricketers it is a job, a career, therefore they must maximise their chances. It is such a frckle game the next game could be your last, through injury. The other thing we must look at, at 35 or 40 these guys cricketing days are over and they are still relatively young men, therefore I don’t blame them for making their money NOW. Finally, I’m sure these guys saw how the WICB threated great players like Mike Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, and many others, so the commitment to the WICB is not that strong.
while all of this inaction is going on who is losing the WICB or Gale? Gayle is in the drivers seat . he is in demand by other leagues and he is making lots of money. all this pettiness and egostitical drama by Wicb could have been over by now. only if the the WICB were professional enough to put the game first and its importance to the fans and leave the stinking odor of small talk about what was said out the door and apology crap.
@ ac | March 25, 2012 at 5:06 PM |
You got my total support on this one.
The WICB is made of men with egos a million times bigger than their brains.
If this was in some other more ‘enlightened ‘ jurisdiction their heads would be called for and placed on platters for the fans to see long time ago. But we like it so! Crap rub in our faces even by our very own homegrown bullshitters.
A bunch of jokey tired men that can’t even make one run between the wicket off a long hop delivered as a no-ball.
@ David | March 25, 2012 at 1:20 PM |
“Of importance is how will the current model be sustained and whither UWI the regional entity?”
Now that you have spotted the growing weakness in the major three links that make up this important regional institution, the chain is about to be broken irreparably in the coming few years primarily because of funding issues. I suspect the St. Agustine Campus is gearing up for ‘self-determination’ and going it alone. 1 from 3 leaves none will be the new motto for the UWI. Mona might survive by an alliance with some American state University. Cave Hill might commit ‘self-termination’. The University College of Barbados has been in the pipeline for too long now. Maybe the current financial crisis is not only the wake up call but could be the ‘kick-up-the-backside’ for those to stop the long talk and implement. Only expenditure savings earned from combining the various post-secondary learning and training institutions in Barbados can save this tertiary body from total collapse. The educational investment model in Barbados is under severe stress and needs radical surgery; but not a plastic job.
@David
Still poor management by WICB because good managers NEVER let unions dictate the pace! This is exactly what happened in 1990 when Stemple of GM allowed the AWU to out negotiate him at a time when he should have said NO MORE and locked them out since he had loads of inventory in a recession. This led to eventual total hourly costs of $80 when the Japs were paying $55 with a better product, which resulted in BANKRUPTCY! ( admittedly there is more to the story BUT this is the CRUX). DUMB!
How come other professionally managed sports don’t have this problem?
See what happened to Basketball this season? The players through their money down the drain!
@Moneybrain
Tend to agree.
It must be accepted wordwide that test cricket is on its way out. Only a few tornaments like England vs Australia, can draw a good crowd, and that is tradition. True I love to watch test cricket, but how many young people are willing to sit for five days and see a game end in a draw? This is a fast food world and “fast food” cricket is the thing, therefore those who get a chance to make millions out of it should do so NOW. Patriotism and loyalty to a region cannot be taken to the supermarket for food or to a bank for money to build your home or school your children.
Today’s press confirms that Gayle has initialed the agreement which would see his return to the team but hold on, he also sent a ‘side letter’ which had caveats.
The saga continues.
The longer this impasse went on the more time gayle had to sort on in his mind what is good for gayle. now what is happening is that the wicb thought that there fast bowling would have clean bowl gayle for a duck but instead gayle batting performance against wicb has been fierceless and this is a mighty six which gayle has delivered to the. them right outb the ballpark wicb has been backed in a corner and now it is up to them to accept gayles terms and conditions.they need gayle.gayle doesn,t need them
RED jet…..come on …$ 8 million ….where we go find that bail out.?
ac …you could help me ?….if they offered to sponsor cricket by flying the boys fa free …maybe I can say yeah .. you know ac ?
Boy the Star Boy got his hands full..early this Monday morning ac… LIME now BNB pun war path….cat piss n pepper (your words) start boy !
@onions
and if your prediction is right and the BLP wins all them problems you gloating about would be A well deserved gift from the DLP to the BLP.
As if we did not know that was the PLAN. Look at it this way , we know of the incompetence and will gladly TAKE OVER and Rescue, Restore and Rebuilt…Its only a matter of time with all the DODGING about and pretending Don’t knows.. and Blaming of leaks…..people just know that to just tell you all only, nothing will happen..that why some of your own people let things conveniently drop off the turnip truck .Just a matter of time babes.
@ ac
$5 Billion and nothing to show for it except feeding frenzies and summer camps.Granted the free bus fares for school children was a worthy idea, but the truth is we paid for them thru the increased gasoline charges.
True to Form..your stint was all about FAMILY FIRST…with no capital assets to show….Now the regular advertisement ….$ 5 million put aside in a Welfare Grant to held the disabled, and indigents…ac that sounds so bad. Have you heard of the embarrassment involved in visiting the outlet ? People say they rather bathe at the stan pipe and burn a kerosene oil lamp first.We are going forward or backward ?
Some will rejoice at the news that WIPA CEO Ramarine has quit the post:
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/ramnarine-quits/
Former Barbados Captain Ryan Hinds charged with rape.
Fill text of the resolution document between Gayle and the WICB.
Well done ALL….thankful it is over.
THe most interesting part is the WICB acknowledging that their rules were outdated as always in life stories the odd man out always get the beating standing up for principle in most cases is frowned upon because it is always easier to be part of than to be isolated , gayle did what was right in standing up to the board his feelings of regret maybe just that. however in the final analysis issues which were given a ‘Maybe” or deaf ear was challenged and for all we know this might have be the catalyst the WIn team needed to help rebuild confidence and team moral. In order for a team to win there must be cohesiveness and a determined team spirit demonstatedfrom the top and that begins with management
Look at all de asses that get mileage from all of this. If I were Gayle I would never had said what he did … NEVER
Gayle and the WICB have acknowledged mistakes were made by both so why blame one over the other?
And Gayle is playing where he is a “superstar” and will make millions in fees and endorsements.
David you are right. The ICC and the Boards must change tour schedules to allow the cricketers to play IPL type tournaments and for their country.
@Hants
Absolutely!
4day match. Days 1 and 2. Barbados 223 and 116 for 5. Trinidad 84
This good bat and ball not cricket.
@Hants
Have you checked the scores in the other simi?
A true representation of the standard of WI cricket many will say.
balance | March 26, 2012 at 6:07 AM |
I am publishing these comments on behalf of Mr Jeff Layne which suggests deficiencies in the application of the Duckworth/Lewis method to the resolution of rain affected cricket matches and his alternative proposals for bloggers to offer their opinions..
Why a New Method is Needed ?
From the inception, of one-day limited overs cricket. Resetting the target when play was lost has been problematic. Over the years seven methods have been tried. Coincidentally all of them were devised by the three countries; England, Australia and South Africa who formed the International cricket Council (ICC). Since 1999 the Duckworth- Lewis method (D/L) have been the ICC preferred choice. Yet it continues to produce some of the most controversial revised targets and results, therefore the Average Run Rate method (ARR) is still being widely used.
The D/L Method is a mathematical system, based on a premise that both sides have a combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets i.e. 100% of resources, but if play is lost after a match start the side batting last will have the advantage, that advantage has to be neutralized. The Neutraliser is a 50- over innings average score of 225.A table of resource percentages Computer program-CODA is the key to the application and the revision is in accordance to the run-scoring resources of the two sides.”
For instance, ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe May 3. S L 173-7 full 20 overs, Zim with the minimum 5 overs was set a revised target of 43 official match target. (ARR exclusive) However,. S L 173/ 20 overs=8.65 ARR x Zim 5 overs=43 with all 10 wickets. (CODA show S L used 58.9% Zim had 18.4% 173×18,4/58.9%=54-run target 11 run differential.
ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, England v West Indies May 3, Eng 190-5 full 20 overs, W I with 6 overs was set a target of 60./6 overs=10 A R R x Eng 20 overs=200 scaled up score/20 overs=10 ARR same as W.I 60-run target. (CODA Eng 58.9% W.I 21.7% score 190×21.7%/58.9%=70). This match prompted Eng, Captain Paul Collingwood who said, “there Has to be a recalibration of the D/L method because it is clearly unfair to the side that bats first. And Frank Duckworth terse response, there will be no such recalibration, Mr, Collingwood is the only Descenter on two occasions in the 74 matches where the D/L were applied”. (However, the new D/L Professional Edition, speaks to the adjustment of the tables recalibration).
Tri-Series, West Indies v Zimbabwe Jan, 21, 2001 Australia. W I 235-5 in 47 overs, Zim with same 47 0vers was set a revised target of 253. Zim target253/47 overs=5.38 ARR x W.I 47 overs= same 253 scaled up score/47 overs=5.38 ARR same as Zim (CODA show W.I used 89.4% Zim had 97.4% Score235x97.4/89.4=256-253=3-run differential in targets which is the root of the controversies.
Average Run Rate method; W.I 47 overs 235-5/47 overs=5 ARR x Zim 47 overs=235+1 with all 10 wickets
.
JEFMAR method; W.I 47 overs 235-5, Zim same 47 overs target 235+ 1 with 5 wickets. W.I utilised 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, Likewise Zim must also utilise 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, The target shall be reached the loss of the 6th wicket.
The above comparison of the three methods show indisputably that The jefmar is the fairest. It was submitted to the ICC as an alternative. However, the response was unbelievable! “As we are in partnership with Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, I have to send them your method for their views. This is our normal procedure.” Clive Hitchcock, Cricket Operations Manager.
Review of the D/L mathematics tri-series match: when rain stopped play, the first innings concluded and Zimbabwe had done exactly the opposite of what West Indies had done. i.e 47 overs, conceded 235 runs, took 5 wickets and lost its last 3 overs of bowling. So obviously could not have held an advantage.
First innings: W.I batted 47 overs scored 235 runs, lost 5 wickets used 89.4%
ZIM bowled 47 overs conceded 235 runs took 5 wickets used 2.6%
Totals 0 0 0 W.I 86.8%
Second Innings: ZIM batting 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 97.4%
W.I bowling 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 10.8%
Totals 0 0 0 ZIM 86.8%
First innings W.I batted used 86.8% more, second innings ZIM batted used 86.8% = 0 same(this is a wash). Therefore the D/L calculations unwittingly show the target 235+1 but with 5 wickets (match Equity vs Preserved) Rather that ZIM having used 2.6% to bowl 47 overs and W.I 10.6% to bowl its 47. This is farcical nevertheless, score 235× ZIM 97.4% ÷ W.I 89.4% = 256 target, 3-run differential in targets but ZIM target 253÷47 overs =5.38 ARR×W.I 47 overs =253 scaled up score, same as ZIM target ÷ W.I 47 overs = 5.38 ARR same as ZIM.
The D/L system is an ARR method. It neutralizes the runt-rates of the two teams which automatically scales up the first side score to suit the target. Even when the first side have batted its full quota of overs the side batting last has to score at a higher rate in order to win. How can this be fair?
Review Of The Below; (New) D/L Professional Edition
The review of these two matches show that the premise (combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets = 100%) is fundamentally flawed.
1. Overs and wickets cannot be combined, the batting side is utilizing its wickets, whereas the bowling side is utilizing its overs.
2. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (New Edition) or the same number (Tri-Series)
3. The system is multifarious (a fair system is rigid), which is the root of the perennial controversies, almost every time it is applied. Since evidently whether the first side have scored smaller 173, 190 or greater 235, 359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic. Because there is no such things as resource-percentages or neutralisers when a match is in progress the D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed.
Bio
Jefmar
The D/L system widely regarded as the fairest way of settling games spoiled by the weather was deemed to b unfair. “After Australia scored a massive 359-2 in its 50 overs, setting India 360 to win World Cup 2003 final. India of 145-3 after 23 overs, were only four runs behind par. Losing no more wickets and scoring 12 runs in the next two overs followed by a terminal down pour would have ended the title to India. We have always been aware that when the first side total is greater than average that revise targets and par scores are unrealistic. Using the Nee Professional D/L Edition, India would have been 20 runs behind par. A match fairer reflection of the state of the game. This, mean the tables had to be adjusted.” Duckworth-Lewis said yesterday on the day ICC accepted the new method, October 2, 2003 (AP).
Australia 359-2 50 overs used 100%, India 157-3 after 25 overs used 57.1%, score 359 × 57.1% ÷100% = 205 as India target. India 205÷25 overs = 8.20 run rate × Australia 50 overs = 410 scaled up score ÷ 50 overs = 8.20 run rate same as India’s 205 target. So India could not have won after batting for only half of the quota. But would have won because whatsoever the D/L computer shows is treated as gospel.
However score 359 average score 225 = 134 runs greater than average, 134×57.1% ÷ 100% = 77 more runs, 134-77=57, 77-57=20 new par score, 134+20 = 154, Ind 205 target + 154 = 359+1 the original 50 over target India were chasing.
Now 205-154=51, 57-51=6 run differential÷57.1% =10+ old average 225=235 as the new average score. Which show that the tables have not been adjusted. (225×57.1% = 128, 235×57.1% = 134, 134-128=6 run differential) see matches since October 1, 2003. For instance: Cricket World Cup 2011 match, Pakistan vs Zimbabwe. Zim 151-7 in 39.4 overs used 79.1%, Pak with 38 overs had 88% and was set a target of 162. Score 151÷79.1% × 88% =168-162=6 run differential in targets.
But Pak target 162÷38 overs= 4.26 run rate × 39.4 overs =168 scaled up score ÷39.4 overs= 4.26 run rate same as Zim 38 over 162 target. Hence the perennial controversies, the system is multifarious. A fair system is rigid. The above confirm that the tables have not been adjusted but remain the same only the average score increased from 225 to 235.
The review shows that the D/L is fundamentally flawed. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (new edition) or the same number (tri-series) and the revisions are multifarious (a fair system is rigid) so whether the first side have scored smaller 173/190 or greater 235/359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic since there is no such thing as resource-percentages or neutralizers when a match is in progress.
The D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed. But it would be some other reason. Rather than the D/L is the fairest available method and hence the Icc’s retention. Having seen The Jefmar comparison.
Jeff Layne was born and raise in a small village “Edey’s” in Christ Church, Barbados. Like almost every little bajan boy back in the 1950’s, he was attracted to the game of cricket. He represented his School” St. David’s as an opening batsman and at 15 his village in the Barbados Cricket League (BCL). Cricket is his passion; He follows it like a religion and is a visceral supporter of the West Indies Team.
It was in the wake of an English County One-Day Limited overs match in 1998 when he first saw the Duckworth-Method D/L implemented .and from the outset he realised that it could not be a fair system. Since the side batting last with fewer overs was set a target much higher than the first side score, and hence the Jefmar undertaking.
THE JEFMAR METHOD
The JEFMAR Method mirrors the fundamental principles of cricket.(game of glorious uncertainties). In the one- day limited overs version, when plays is lost while a match is in progress, inevitably, the side batting last will have fewer overs or the same number as the first side. Because of the time constraint adjustments are mandatory to preserve equity. therefore adjustments are made, only when the second side is batting, there is an interruption of play, overs are lost but play is resumed. However, should play be abandoned at any stage after the minimum overs for a completed match is or can be met the side that is ahead shall be the winner or the adjustments shall be made commensurate with the first side score at the same stage. In matches that end with equal scores the winner shall be the side that lost fewer wickets.
Cricketers are human beings. Two sides matching wit and finesse simultaneously. The side that is more resilient on the day/night will prevail in accordance with the law. (Please see examples and comparisons below and on following page.)
Example (1): CWC 2003 Australia vs. Holland. Australia batting first had scored 103-1 in 26 overs when play was interrupted. There was a resumption of play and Australia faced another 10 overs, therefore 14 overs were lost, Australia’s total was 170-2 in 36 overs. Holland with the same 36 overs was set a revised target of 198 with all 10 wickets.
Example (2): CWC 2003 South Africa vs. New Zealand. South Africa scored 306-6 in 50 overs. New Zealand were 182-1 in 31 overs when rain stopped play, on resumption a further 8 overs was possible giving New Zealand a total of 39 overs and a revised target of 225.with all 10 wickets.
Example (3): West Indies vs. New Zealand, Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002 New Zealand batting first had scored 212-5 in 44.2 overs when play was interrupted, on resumption West Indies could only face 33 overs, and was set a revised target the same 212 with all 10 wickets.
Comparative Revisions of
The JEFMAR and Duckworth-Lewis Methods
JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
Australia vs. Holland CWC 2003
Australia 170-2 in 36 overs Australia 170-2 in 36 overs 74.3%
Holland’s target 171-2 in 36 overs. Target shall be reach before lost of third wicket. Holland with same 36 overs 85.5% was set a target of 198 with 10 wickets.
JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003
South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs
New Zealand 182-1in 31 overs Play interrupted, Resumption of play, further 8 overs, total 39 overs. The revised target would be, South Africa’s 306 minus the total from the 11 overs lost between the 31st and 42nd overs which is equal to the period lost by New Zealand (see JEFMAR revision table over leaf) South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs 100%.
New Zealand 39 overs 73.5% and revised Target 225 with 10 wickets
West Indies vs. New Zealand
Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002
New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs
Play interrupted innings closed West Indies 33 overs, revised target would be New Zealand score at 33 overs. New Zealand 44.2 overs, 81.8%
West Indies 33 overs 81.5%
Revised target same 212 with 10 wickets
JEFMAR Revision Table “example”
South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003
South Africa New Zealand
Explanation Score Wkts. Overs Explanation Target Wkts. Overs
South Africa 306 6 50
New Zealand 307 10 50
South Africa score equal to lost period ~~~ ~~~ 11 Score @ Interruption 182 1 31
Total runs From lost Overs 83* ~~~ ~~~ Required 125 9 19
Revised Score 223 6 39 Overs lost ~~~
~~~ 11
Total from Overs lost 83 ~~~ ~~~
Required 42 6 8
Match revised Target 224 6 39
Target shall be reach before the lost of the 7th wicket.
*This figure merely represents a hypothetical total at the commensurate stage.
Examples: glorious uncertainties of cricket
England vs. India Tri-nation final, Lords August 4, 2002
England scored 325-7, 50 overs. India on 145-5 in 35 overs seemed to be facing certain defeat. But amazingly went on and won, reaching 326-7 in 48.5 overs. Had the match been abandoned at that stage (with India on 145-5), England would have won using the revised Duckworth-Lewis Method; India’s target would have been 211 runs.
England vs. Australia CWC 2003
England scored 204-8 in 50 overs, Australia on 134-8 in 37 overs, would have lost, if the match were abandoned at that stage. The Duckworth-Lewis revised target would have been 171 runs, but Australia went on and scored the required 205-8 in 49.5 overs.
West Indies vs. South Africa Bridgetown, Barbados May 2004
West Indies needed one run from the last over with 3 wickets in hand. South Africa unbelievably took those wickets and won the match. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have been the winner by the D/L.
West Indies vs. Sri Lanka Port of Spain, Trinidad April 2008
West Indies needed 10 runs from the last 2 balls with one wicket in hand and got those runs by hitting a 6 and a 4. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have lost by the D/L. Let’s suppose these last two examples were rained off at the respective stages. The question to be answered is this: with 99% of these two matches completed. Why is there a need for a computer?
It would be with much regret when i report to the gentleman who has gone to such lengths to expose the deficiencies in the duckwoth/lewis method that there seems to be no support from the cricket loving barbadian public on the blof for his efforts to correct the syatem for the adjudication of rain affected matches by offering an alternative.It is nothing short of surprising that this issue would not have stirred or stimulated the enlightened minds like miller or observer or mr ross or bro franklyn even though i know he has never held a cricket bat.
you simply cannot expect “loyalty” without paying enough to your employees. of course money is an important factor. Therefore, a person/ cricketer should give his highest priority to his country, no matter what the circumstance is. I love to see Gayle batting in IPL. he is getting bigger… even bigger than WICB!
The ICC/WIBC will have to find away to negotiate with the IPLs of this world. It is killing our cricket. Don’t expect to be a strong team given the prevailing circumstances.