West Indies decline

[Shiv]

Following yet another series loss, this time at home, it is no doubt a good time to look at some of the problem plaguing West Indies cricket, examine the reasons for the decline and look to make suggestions to turn things around. One main problem is the attitude of the current players. The issue of attitude problems among West Indies players is a varied and complex one, ranging from indiscipline in individual players to a lack of cohesion in the team, and a seeming lack of pride among the cricketers.

And off the field it is present too. During the England series at home, players were known to break curfew and to show disrespect for captain Brian Lara. These discipline problems did result in the reprimanding of Tino Best,Ramnaresh Sarwan,Chrsi Gayle and Adam Sanford after they were caught at a bar following the West Indies shameful performance on day 4 of the 1st test. Sanford, with a history of discipline problems is unlikely to play at this level again while Sarwan and Best seem to have learnt their lesson. Gayle on the other hand along with Wavell Hinds and Merv Dillon were known to have discipline problems in the recent ODI tour to Australia. They were known to show up late for nets and be more intersted in beaches and women's phone numbers than the cricket. All three had poor tours especially Gayle.Perhaps by taking harsh action against players that show this lack of discipline is neccesary. Some players will feel they are above this, but they must be shown that such behaviour is unacceptable.

One other problem is the lack of a great captain and the West Indies have lacked this for some time. The great captains over the years - particularly Worrell and Lloyd - were able to achieve much of their success by bringing the players together and ensuring that everyone played their role in the team structure. The biggest display of a lack of team unity came before and during the West Indies tour to South Africa in 1998(the start if the decline), when Lara and Hooper both complained about their fees and refused to accompany the team to SA. The impasse was eventually resolved but clouded the entire tour. I am not convinced that the new captain Chanderpaul will be able to build the team into a strong unit. In order to achieve this, Hooper must have the full respect and support of his players, and that may be a challenge for him.
One thing people have said which I disagree with is that the current players do not understand the tradition of West Indies cricket. I can't believe that the players don't understand the importance of the game to all West Indians or that they don't respect the achievements of previous WI teams. But perhaps they do need to be given a few reminders to rekindle the sense of pride that they seem to be lacking.

Some fans have suggested that West Indies always seem to have bad luck with umpiring especially against England and South Africa. Personally I can't agree with this argument - look at the appalling decisions that Pakistan had on their just concluded tour to India and it did not prevent them getting a great draw there. Furthermore the South Africans and English had quite a few bad decisons themselves.
Yes they have been given some bad, sometimes match-turning decisions, but I think that has more to do with generally poor umpiring than any particular bias by the neutral umpires.
Here's my humble opinion. They need to go back to basics...find competent MANAGERS who are dedicated to the glory of Windies cricket, & yes, go to the 12 & 13 year olds, look for the basic talent that can be nurtured. If a prolific on-side hitter always gets out flashing on the off-side, he will forever make ducks unless molded into the legend he can be. Cricket is very much a physical game, but it is also a "head" game. The "pool" of windies players should comprise no fewer than 25 players, i.e, two "teams" who can battle each other in practice to the "death".
The 25 need to be resilient, determined, proud men who are delighted and honoured and humbled to serve the great cause. The 25 should be selected by past greats...Sobers, Holding, Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes....these men can recognize future greats as well as the weaknesses that need to be curbed.

The players should be well paid because they embody the hopes and dreams and aspirations of our collective "nation"not only those who play, but those who stand ready as well. Once again, I am in no doubt that talent abounds, it flows in the blood,but above all, lets find some good management.”

[Shiv]

I suppose you have something to say to do that eh?

[Rachael]

Strikes me that the focus on "discipline" is just one part of a greater problem with hard work, dedication and old fashioned professionalism: even the most talented and "natural" of the greats worked closely with coaches to sort out the technical side of their game... applied themselves to the problem of contributing when they were NOT finding it easy... learnt the discipline needed to stick to a plan.... and basically showed the respect to elders and betters that was necessary for learning FROM those elders and betters.

The complaint from so many of the former players would appear to be first and foremost in terms of the graft necessary to master a craft: something that applies as much to Gayle (who clearly find the game easy when he's seeing the ball well and striking it cleanly and is about as much use as Phil Tufnell when he ain't) as to this raft of new young bowlers (none of whom have seemingly mastered the pretty basic trick of bowling one side of a wicket).

The first of two striking things to come out of the most recent England tour was the lack of preparation of the batsmen: they simply hadn't bothered preparing properly for the first Test. England, as a touring side, had more cricket under their belt. Moreover, not ONE player had been preparing on pitches like the new Sabina Park pitch... leaving them completely unprepared for the steep bounce they actually encoutered.

The other striking thing that came out of all of the interviews done when England were last in the WI was an Andy Roberts tip (given to Mark Nicholas). Roberts was complaining about the youngsters thinking they were being clever by hiding the ball from the batsman during the run-up. He demonstrated what he would do and even stading net to him, Nicholas took a few goes to pick it up: Roberts would show the ball one way around.. then rotate it 180 degrees as he swung his arm so that it came out the other way up.

You don't get that proficient by resting on your laurels.

The above strike me as highlighting the gulf in committment and professionalism that's missing: if this new coach can get THAT sorted then I think there's hope.. but that's a big "if".

[Zainub]

Coaches are important Rachael. But eventually players not coaches will win you matches. Commitment and professionalism will not merely come with putting high profile coaches in chargae of the national side, it will come from the very grass root levels of the system - THAT not test cricket is where the role of the coach is the biggest and most important. And the game at the grass roots levels in West Indies (if I'm to believe everything I read) is in pretty dodgy state. Harsha Bhogle has written quite an excellent article on the issue of coaches over at the ESPN Star Sports Website, and even though it is written with India in mind, its well worth a read in its own right, or in my opinion anyway.

Originally Posted by Bhogle

Somewhere, in this relentless obsession with unearthing India's new coach, it might have slipped the minds of some that coaches don't win matches. Players do and they always have. Coaches might tinker or straighten their game, play a benevolent uncle or a stern elder brother, show a little window of opportunity maybe even open a door, but they cannot win matches. And so while it is important to get a good man, we cannot look upon him as a messiah.

Any cricketer who believes so is diverting his responsibility elsewhere. That is why I love John Buchanan's theory of having a coach but trying to make him redundant. Australia’s players are not encouraged to come to the coach with a problem unless they have worked out their own solution. It suggests that a player is capable of analysing his own game, his own weaknesses and has a clear path, or at least a dusty lane, towards finding an answer. His solution is then debated and between coach and player, they figure out what to do.

Otherwise it is no different from a rich parent appointing an expensive tutor and believing that both his and his child's responsibility is over.

People have played without a coach before. Viv Richards didn't have one, neither did Sunil Gavaskar or Ian Botham. Even Sachin Tendulkar, in his formative years, found that his coaches were changing faster than the calendar on his wall. They got by because they thought about their own game and found solutions within. They might have used a bouncing board but they were capable of independent thought. All good players today are as well and that is why we need to be careful in not equating the arrival of a new coach with say, an ambulance or a fire-engine.

It has long been my conviction that it is the best administered, rather than the best coached, team that wins matches. True, administrators don’t win matches, players do, but they create the systems that allow players to do well. The two best teams in world cricket at the moment are Australia and England and the team that makes the most of its potential is New Zealand. They are the three most professionally administered.

The most wasteful teams in world cricket are India and Pakistan and there are huge problems in the West Indies, in Sri Lanka and in Zimbabwe. These are also the most poorly managed cricket boards. When India and Pakistan enjoy stability at the top, they make the right choices and that leads to good performances on a cricket field. The appointment of a coach is merely a good choice that comes out of a stable administration. In the absence of that it would be hoping for too much to expect a hero to ride in from nowhere and take Indian cricket to the top. Those messiahs exist only in the movies.

[vvvrulz]

Very true Zainub, many of these teams will not move forward until their boards are given a thorough work-over. The West Indies simply need to do away with crazy conflicts such as sponsorship problems, and get on with focussing on the game.

[Xiwang]

Shiv,
You've got some good points there. The two biggest are Discipline and Team Unity. The state of West Indies cricket is deplorable and as West Indian fan I really would like to know whether they really know what this sport means to the region.
You mean with 2 runs to get off 3 balls (after Bradshaw got himself bowled) we could not make a run a ball? I would love to know where the hell Powell and Bradshaw heads were when they played that shot, ah know they weren't thinking about the fans or the team... A run a ball, how easy is that! They both wanted to hit the winning runs and feel on top of the world. Where are we now!
As a team there is no Team Pride and not everyone gell well. In essence, when do they really play together? Only at international matches... First Class cricket, they are competing and when they are picked for the team they have some lame camp that is all but a few days (if everyone shows up on time ) Lloyd, Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Kanhai etc played together on and off the field... They played county cricket together, and some of them for the same county, plus they had first class caribbean cricket too, and best of all they were usually all in the same country...England. Ah mean after the international season Sarwan goes back to Guyana and Bravo to Trinidad and ah really ain't seeing Sarwan calling up the boys and saying lets make a 'lime' to Maracas bay. It's one thing to say you want team unity but you must have the infrastructure to foster it. Back in the day players used to hang around after a match in the players lounge , have a beer and get to know each other. Now everyone just take their tail home. I think with team unity, real team unity, everything will sort itself out. It is going to foster Pride as well Discipline. The coaching staff can do so much but if the student is not willing to learn then what is the point?
My insane suggestion is to take all those players and have them live together, eat , sleep and breathe cricket for atleast one year. If that don't kill them it sure as hell will make them stronger. It is tough having a team made of countries, rather than a country.

[vvvrulz]

Very good point, they are more like a collection of players rather than a 'team'.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Xiwang

Shiv,
You've got some good points there. The two biggest are Discipline and Team Unity. The state of West Indies cricket is deplorable and as West Indian fan I really would like to know whether they really know what this sport means to the region.

They do. If us sitting in front of our computers do then they do. Let's not make unfair claims.

You mean with 2 runs to get off 3 balls (after Bradshaw got himself bowled) we could not make a run a ball? I would love to know where the hell Powell and Bradshaw heads were when they played that shot, ah know they weren't thinking about the fans or the team... A run a ball, how easy is that! They both wanted to hit the winning runs and feel on top of the world. Where are we now!

All three wanted to be the triumphant hero who hit the winning run(s). At no point, did anyone work out HOW they were going to do it and so they just prem-meditated that it would be a crashing boundary.

That has zilch to do with team unity but personal cricketing intelligence.

The balls coming would always be straight and full. I knew that, You knew that. Everybody knew that. Except Bradshaw, Powell and Collymore.

As a team there is no Team Pride and not everyone gell well. In essence, when do they really play together? Only at international matches... First Class cricket, they are competing and when they are picked for the team they have some lame camp that is all but a few days (if everyone shows up on time )

All set up by the board.

People always make a big song and dance about gelling and can never put a finger on what it actually means. In any successful group you will find people who actually don't get along and you would be surprised.

The difference is when it comes to the business of why they are together, everyone knows their rols and how to do it in the best way to ensure success.

There were bigger disagreements amnogst the players when we were the best in the world than there are now and i get this from talking to people in the know.

Lloyd, Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Kanhai etc played together on and off the field... They played county cricket together, and some of them for the same county, plus they had first class caribbean cricket too, and best of all they were usually all in the same country...England. Ah mean after the international season Sarwan goes back to Guyana and Bravo to Trinidad and ah really ain't seeing Sarwan calling up the boys and saying lets make a 'lime' to Maracas bay.

The lack of enough opportunities for the players to hone their skills is a symptom of a bigger problem.

It's one thing to say you want team unity but you must have the infrastructure to foster it. Back in the day players used to hang around after a match in the players lounge , have a beer and get to know each other. Now everyone just take their tail home. I think with team unity, real team unity, everything will sort itself out.

Disagree.

How is team unity going to solve the fact that our players don't know the basics. Batsmen can't play the proper shot at the right time and bowlers are not disciplined enough.

It is not a lack of team unity that caused SA to score 280+ but poor bowling early on. It could have been more but Bravo, for one, bowled well and restricted them.

That is why we have tried nearly 20 bowlers and none have secured their place and are still looking for 2 batsmen to jump up and secure theirs too.

Issues like team unity are all important but a united team that is not that good is just that, not that good.

Back in the day when we were the best, we had the best bowling attack ever, the best batsmen and the best opening pair supplemented by other top class bats.

Trust me, a lot of cussing used to go on, and their exploits off the field, well the less said the better!!

But when they took the field they knew what to do to win games.

Simple.

They had a habit and culture of winning and we don't have that now.

[b]It is going to foster Pride as well Discipline. The coaching staff can do so much but if the student is not willing to learn then what is the point?
My insane suggestion is to take all those players and have them live together, eat , sleep and breathe cricket for atleast one year. If that don't kill them it sure as hell will make them stronger. It is tough having a team made of countries, rather than a country.

But even when we were the best ever, we still were a team of countries.

Forcing them to live together for a year makes no sense whatsoever.