Beckles' history Lesson falls short

Mon, May 9, '11

 

commentary by JIMMY ADAMS

I have had the opportunity to listen to Professor Hilary Beckles’ speech made at a function in St Kitts and to hear a few sound-bites that he contributed to the documentary “Fire in Babylon.” I am of the opinion that the esteemed professor, for whatever reason, has not fully explored some of the fundamental issues affecting our game. In the following commentary, I seek to highlight one area in which Professor Beckles could have spent a bit more time reviewing, as he and others search for answers to some of the issues affecting our beloved game.

[ LISTEN to Hilary Beckles' Lecture in St Kitts ]

The professor, in both the documentary and the speech, refers to the effect of socio-political issues and its influence on the collective thinking and psyche of players from the early days of West Indies cricket right up to the modern era. He cites Headley, Constantine, Martindale, Weekes, Worrell, Sobers, Lloyd, Richards, Lara, and Gayle in an attempt to understand and possibly reconcile perceived mindsets, decisions and actions by the various players within the context of the social, political and economic environment which existed in each era.

I am concerned about the professor’s unwillingness to complete his discourse, or, if it is finished, that he has left it incomplete. There is ample amount of information given by him on the battles that Sir Frank Worrell was involved in with the administration of the day. Sir Frank is projected as a man who was fighting perceived injustices within the cricket administration which were a reflection of injustices in the wider society.

The professor, in his speech in St Kitts, asserted that the decision by Frank Worrell not to tour with the West Indies in 1948 was based on the fact that Worrell wanted to be paid a professional wage and this was denied him by the games regional managers. So in a simplistic sense, the regional managers/administrators of the game, made a decision concerning a player and the player responded with a decision of his own. My opinion, though obviously having not been there, is that the decision by the administration, although played out in the context of a financial decision, actually originated in the prevailing prejudicial mindset of those managing the regional game.

At this point in his talk in St Kitts, the professor concentrates on the various icons of West Indies cricket in their varying capacities, and at times draws some interesting analogies (some of which could be considered highly provocative). However, what he does not do, is to continue to explore the then West Indies Cricket Board of Control’s (WICBC) ability to effectively manage the regional game in each of the eras he discusses. Though he was happy to do this with Worrell and those before him, his failure to continue to examine this subject gives me the impression that the professor would want the conclusion drawn that, with independence, the end of colonialism, and results on the field, all the issues with the game’s regional caretakers suddenly melted into eternal bliss.

This is a peculiar decision from such an erudite scholar of West Indies Cricket. In his defence, maybe time did not allow for him to do this topic justice and he intends at some point to provide us with some insight into this interesting facet of our sport’s history and correct the imbalance of his delivery in St Kitts. Although nowhere near as educated in things related to cricket and history as the professor, I would attempt to follow this particular thread in an attempt to provoke some more thought on this topic.

If we fast forward from Worrell to the late seventies, we had the events related to the advent of Kerry Packer’s involvement in world cricket. And if memory serves me right, this was probably the first time that players around the world were being offered a particular level of remuneration, and to fulfil their obligations to Kerry Packer, there would be a direct clash between players and their relevant Boards both in terms of scheduling and on ‘principle’.

Again, in a simplistic sense, the players wanted to earn more money than they had ever seen in the game up to that point, and the managers of the regional game, for whatever reason, wanted to deny them the opportunity.  History tells us that the top players in the region went to play for Kerry Packer not knowing whether they would ever represent the West Indies again. (Can you imagine the loss to our region, and indeed the world, if this decision by the managers of our regional game to ban Clive Lloyd and company had stood!)

History also shows us that after a couple of years, and the winding up of the Kerry Packer experiment, the WICBC reinstated Clive Lloyd and his team post haste. Again I want to make the point that the entire process can be looked on simply as players wanting to make more money and all that goes with that in terms of security. But the question I ask is, given every human’s desire to better themselves, why did cricket Boards around the world, including the WICBC, not manage the process better than they did?

In the case of the WICBC, it is my belief that this failure to properly manage the situation stemmed from an unhealthy opinion of the players under their management. In my view, it was pretty similar to the thinking that existed 30 years previously when Worrell was alive. It just couldn’t be exhibited as openly.

Please be very clear that in this writer’s opinion, the regional body managed the lead-up to Kerry Packer cricket and the subsequent exodus of our top players poorly, and were saved years of regret only because Mr Packer eventually got what he had wanted all along and disbanded after a couple of years.

The professor then goes on to make the point in St Kitts that Brian Lara disappearing and then re-appearing on the ’95 tour of England was confirmation of an era where “the individual transcends the team” and that “the pursuit of individual stardom and financial welfare............. are now hegemonic in respect of the performance of the team” and these actions and their implications were in opposition to all that Worrell had stood for.

My question with regards to Lara would be simply this: Was Lara involved in a process that was not being managed? If the process of representing the regional team was in fact being “managed”, then do his actions at the time speak to a process that was managed poorly?

I would ask similar questions given his recounting of Gayle’s arrival in the United Kingdom from the Indian Premier League (IPL) the day before the start of a Test match.  It is common knowledge that the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), without consultation with its players, agreed to the UK tour long after Gayle had signed a lucrative contract to play in the Indian tournament. I can think of many ways in which the situation that ensued could have been handled differently but I will simply say the region’s governing body, long before Gayle de-planed in London, had planted the seeds of mismanagement.

 Surely West Indies Cricket in 1995 could not have been the only existing sporting entity with players pursuing “individual stardom and financial welfare”. Was this the death knell for all these other sports as well or were these athletes and the existing commercial opportunities now available simply managed as part of the responsibility of those mandated to do so?

My reason for this discourse is not to take away from the professor’s desire in his St Kitts speech to give hope of a better tomorrow, especially given his knowledge and intimate involvement with the High Performance Centre (HPC) and the Combined Colleges and Campuses (CCC). These are all worthy endeavours. But I would only seek to “bring past the post” his early efforts to educate us to the fact that whenever you have a poor and prejudiced view of the people you manage, and you allow this view to influence your decision-making about processes involving your ‘workers’, to the extent that they perceive an impending inability to produce or earn to their potential, then the result will inevitably be conflict and confrontation.

I have deliberately attempted to substitute the word ‘manager’ for ‘administrator’ in this commentary for the simple reason that one implies the other in modern sport. Those called to administer sometimes forget this and would seek to remove themselves from accountability when their efforts to manage/administer are found to be severely lacking either by players, contemporary standards or history.

Maybe the good professor might conduct further research into the hypothesis held by some that, not unlike the main actors in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the working class have won their struggle to become the ruling class (and I for one applaud their effort) but have been found to be in all ways similar to the ones they replaced.

Professor Beckles finished his talk in St Kitts assuring the listeners of a better day for West Indies Cricket in three to four years based on programs he was involved in – the High Performance Centre and the Combined Campuses and Colleges. These are worthwhile projects, representing a huge investment in time and resources, which will undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on the ability to better prepare our upcoming talent.

Given his assurance of the future success of our international team, I await his follow up talk with keen anticipation. I sense the learned professor will outline the second non-negotiable component of our return to excellence – a “managerial class” capable of managing the processes in which these players will exist.  Given that this has never existed in the regional game, from Headley through Worrell and Sobers to Gayle, I pray the good professor doesn’t keep us waiting too long.

* Jimmy Adams played for the West Indies from 1992 to 2001 and was captain from 2000 – 2001. He served as Secretary of the West Indies Players Association from 2006 to 2010, and has been President of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations since 2008.  From 2008 to 2011, Jimmy served as the Technical Director of the Jamaica Cricket Association's cricket programmes.