Is the WICB still relevant? (Part 1)
by RAWLE BRANCKER
(Editor's Note: This is the first part of a lecture delivered by former Cricket World Cup 2007 chairman Rawle Brancker at UWI's Sir Frank Worrell memorial lecture. Read Part 2 here.)
I am extremely grateful to the UWI and especially Professor Beckles for so highly honoring me with this opportunity, as we formally remember this Icon of the world, Sir Frank Worrell – to have been thought fit to speak about this global colossal is the most humbling and at the same time, exhilarating feeling, a life long admirer of Sir Frank could have and I am profoundly grateful and will try my utmost over the next few minutes to justify this confidence placed in me by the UWI.
I believe that spiritually, Sir Frank's desire is that I speak tonight about the "Relevance of the West Indies Cricket Board, to West Indies Cricket today, especially given its present structure." The unacceptable decline of our cricket, the Board's apparent disconnect with the players and supporting public and its seeming unwillingness to be transparent and accountable.
It would seem that the Management of cricket globally is also in question as last week’s feverpitch reported the former Australian Captain, Chappell, castigating the ICC, its management, CEO and strongly calling for a restructuring of the organization beginning with the removal of Speed.The former Chairman of the England & Wales County Cricket Board is reported in the last Sunday Nation as saying that – the ICC needs to be reviewed and its structure carefully examined.
So cricket globally seems to be in crisis.
My years in business and sound advice from one of my mentors, the late N.E. Wilson make it pellucidly clear to me that if you have given an idea or a business venture your best effort, provided all the cash and other resources necessary and it’s still not working, you must cut the cord and let the kite fly.
Your first loss is always the smallest loss. Never continuously throw good money after a bad business or idea – instead, close it, look at restructuring – rename it, refocus – change personnel, possibly relocate, and if then it still can’t work – forget it – move on – but I will return to this later.
Tony Cozier said after our defeat by Sri Lanka a couple weeks ago and I agree with him, “that we had reached our lowest on that day and he wished he hadn’t been there to witness it.”
What would Sir Frank have said, had he been there? Or, had he been alive today, would our cricket be at its worst???
I sincerely believe that given Sir Frank’s stature, intellect, his deep understanding of people and ability to work with them and get their maximum effort, the natural authority he exuded, his ability to almost perfectly articulate and his unswerving love and commitment to West Indies cricket with all his other attributes – he would still be extremely influential today, even more so than the influence Sir Don Bradman had over Australian cricket.
I will take it even further. The nonsense we see today of cricket and its development being sidelined, because of the egos and separate agendas of board members or officers - this could not exist. He would loom high over all that nonsense and our cricket would be supreme – the exceptional ability of this Icon impressed me, that, had he been here today, cricket would be an industry, with not only our supremacy in place, but our players would be central - clearly understanding their role, but playing with conviction, commitment and purpose – performing as if their very lives depended on their success.
I believe we would, long ago, have had academies moulding youngsters talent and minds – the University and cricketers would have been inextricably linked with players also developing sound academic and business backgrounds and being minutely trained in diplomacy, public relations, the Management of the media and marketing, all important elements in a modern cricketer’s playing career.
The Caribbean would have become the “centre of learning” cricketing skills – as Cricket Schools and Academies would have been zones across the region, specializing in batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping, thinking cricket and leadership, using the resources of our former greats and attracting youngsters from all around the world.
Can you imagine the marketability and profitability of a faculty of batting or batsmanship to which the visiting professors are Sir Everton, Sir Garry, Sir Viv, Rohan Kanhai, Seymour Nurse, Desmond Haynes, Gordon Greenidge and Brian Lara to mention a few.
Every private school boy in India, Pakistan, South Africa and the U.K. would wish to be there and the other aspects of cricket would be similarly attractive and desirable. Not only would it gainfully employ our former greats – it would also provide an opportunity to enlighten the world through the transfer of skills wherever possible, and indelibly establish, that we in this region are no less capable than anyone else.
The consequential linkages, to tourism and business generally, would follow.
If the children are at Cricket Schools in the Caribbean, parents and friends would visit from time to time, so it would depend on our marketing and promotion people to extract the ultimate from those opportunities. We by now would be manufacturing cricket gear, clothing, memorabilia with an internationally recognized brand, arguably earning as much or more foreign exchange that tourism itself.
What a pity Sir Frank is not with us today – it would certainly be a different Cricket World Cup.
Let us, however, be thankful to God for his life and all that he left with us.
Sir Frank and the other 2 W’s established new standards, by which we were judged and to which all of us aspired.
He tried to establish the paramountcy of the cricketers, in an environment where the board had long established that they themselves were paramount, untouchable and unquestionable.
The Board needs to pay attention to the Australian commentator who in December 1995 said, “people don’t come to cricket to see the umpires adjudicate or administrators pontificate – they come to see cricketers operate.”
If you permit me to use a business analogy, after all, cricket is big business.
Can you imagine a large corporation being serious about achieving the set goals by continuously failing to settle the conditions under which it’s employees operate? Especially as it moves from project to project in the same way cricketers move from series to series????
How motivated are your players or workers going to be if they are going off to a new project or series and the crucial matters of salaries and conditionality are unsettled? Can you really expect success?
That, in simple terms is how our cricketers are treated and expected to perform in a time when a brick layer who is paving your driveway, demand a tent, under which he can be protected from the sun while he works – the Board seems not to understand the exacting times in which we live today.
It is true to say that over the last ten years, we have seen the most conflictive period between the Board and its employees, the players – no wonder Tony Cozier says, it’s the lowest our cricket has even been.
How can an employer such as the WICB expect to have success on or off the field of play, if it cannot settle fundamental matters with its employees (the players). Conditionality of employment, decorum, pay, and in general, expectations, especially in areas of performance and discipline.
It is important that you bear with me and permit time so I can outline the level of continuous conflict which has plagued this important organization, and demonstrates the ineptitude and incompetence of the board.
In 1998 – the players strike prior to the tour of South Africa – spent a week in London before settlement was reached with WIPA – a noted commentator said that the players do not believe, in general, that the board considers itself their agents – but instead its the enemy.
2002. - The team threatened to withdraw from champions trophy in Sri Lanka over ICC’s restrictions on players’ endorsements – this threat action was taken along with several teams, notably, including India.
2003. Strike threat from WIPA prior to World Cup and this was over contracts with the Board. Of course our team was knocked out in the first round – we wonder why!
In this same year – actually, it was the first day of the Carib Beer Cup Semi-Final – WIPA called a strike – over pay and conditions.
2004. -The change of sponsors from Cable & Wireless to Digicel created, probably, the greatest confrontation of all times.
WIPA, the WICB and senior players got locked into an extremely high level of disagreement, to the extent that WIPA declared, and I quote, “the Board wants to unilaterally assume infinite ownership of the players’ endorsement rights.”
The Board in an apparent effort to reach a basis for settlement, appointed from within itself, the Lucky Commission and afterwards distanced itself from the report and vehemently resisted demands for it to be made public – much in the same way it has failed over the years to demonstrate transparency.
In November of this same year 2004 – the players refused to sign the proposed contract under which they would participate in the triangular one day series in Australia, with WIPA again claiming, and I quote, “the Board attempted to exploit the players for commercial purposes.” The contract was eventually, temporarily settled through the intervention of the Hon. Prime Minister of Grenada.
2005. - Six players with apparent conflicting endorsements with Cable & Wireless omitted from the 1st test against South Africa.
Brian Lara quits as captain and players reinstated to the team for the 2nd test
Later, 10 players selected for a tour of Sri Lanka withdraw on WIPA’s advice – WIPA stated and I quote - “we are facing a tyrannical and despotic WICB that has suspended its discretion, jettisoned all reasoning and is hell bent, at all costs, to do the bidding of its sponsors”
In 2006, WIPA and WICB disagree again over players’ pay package for the DLF Cup Series in Malaysia.
This year so far, WIPA and WICB reached “eleventh hour” agreement (so to speak) on match tour fees for one day assignment in India.
And for the current World Cup, arbitration was needed on two occasions to settle pay contracts with players – this of course was only settled after the tournament was on its way - so our players entered the World Cup without clearly knowing what the Board’s expectations were, the level of discipline required, how much they would be paid and relevant conditionality and if not delivered, what would be the penalties.
That evidence, Ladies and Gentlemen, suggests a Management and Board disfunction which ordinarily in the corporate world, could and would not be tolerated.
We bash the team, and with good cause, most of the time – but the team is clearly a reflection of the Board apparently suffering from an unusually mountainous level of incompetence and arrogance.
Which other corporate entity you know, whose shareholders would continuously permit and support such nonsense, where the main asset, the players, is being profoundly mismanaged.
The Board, as it is presently structured, has not worked. How can we continue with business as usual?
Our performance in the world cup has been shockingly disappointing – rather than urgent review, after a miserable performance in the middle of the Super 8’s we allow the team to split and go home for rest.
Rest from what? Nothing has changed since the humiliation of the South African white wash in 1999 –how did the Board respond then? There was no evidence of a review, instead, they proceeded to select a team on Monday March 01, and the team assembled on March 02 in Trinidad and was thrown to the Australian lions on March 05 – after a sarcastically long, long 2 days of mental and other preparation.
We are seeing history repeat itself, as there is likely to be little review, if any, after our debilitating and mentally crippling performance in the World Cup, a new team will soon be selected and sent off to a test series in England – our egotistical Board members will perhaps fly off 1st or Bus Class to Lords, paid for by a Board which has no money, sip tea in the long room and our cricketing woes will be pushed aside yet another time, with business and cricket development continuing as usual.
Why should we leave it like this – with our Governments being asked repeatedly to use millions of our hard earned tax dollars to support inefficiency, the building or renovation of stadia and other infrastructure for an organization which hides behind a private corporation established outside of our jurisdiction, which chooses its Board not on merit, but based on who will support whom and what – it establishes committees to look into what bothers the public and then refuses to make the reports and findings public or adhere to the recommendations because it says it is a private company and has the right in management of all resources, not realizing that the right extends to excellence in its operations.
Apparently, transparency, accountability and prudence are not enshrined in their corporate or moral by-laws.
The Board in my view could not easily accept that from the Worrell to Richards era it had lost control. The world recognized the new West Indies team, not its board.
Sir Frank’s application of leadership and focus enhanced the individual excellence of the team members and he turned out to be the intellectual father of West Indies Cricket, while moulding his team into world champions. The teams looked to Worrell, not the Board. The process was then taken to fruition by Lloyd and Richards, who consolidated the West Indies team into a dynasty – dominating the sport for a decade and a half.
The dynasty was born out of the death of the calypso cricketers when we were defeated by Australia in 1976 and then came the birth of a new team, nurtured by Kerry Packer and the revolt of almost the entire team which had bonded with Lloyd and stood up against WICB.
A successful team like a successful army succeeds more on its leadership, morale, focus and espirit-de-corps as well as its capabilities – Dr. Aubrey Armstrong, a leading International Management Consultant in his notes to the board on the future of W.I. Cricket, as far back as 1995 made the point, and I quote, “that team spirit is so fundamental to any army that when a unit is mauled in battle, reinforcements aren’t sent in one by one, instead, the entire remaining unit is withdrawn and another one put in place. It is a recognition that makes men perform under such extreme ‘battle’ conditions. It is that “teamness,” more than ideology or love of country. The new West Indies team, the dynasty, seemed to grasp this truth. They instinctively understood that their teamness, their bonding, their core covenant was the most important thing enabling them to stand up to the year round, day to day, intense pressure and scrutiny.”
The Board seems not to have learnt.
* In part two of this lecture, Brancker suggests a replacement for the WICB.