Letters to the Editor...

Sun, Feb 16, '03

It has been a while since we cleared our inbox and published letters sent to CaribbeanCricket.com. The latest sampling of e-mail includes responses to Ryan Naraine's analysis of the West Indies v New Zealand World Cup game and some thoughts on the Marlon Samuels issue that preceded the tournament.

Here are a sampling of feedback from readers...

Mr Ryan,

Leave King Carl alone. He was brilliant in the first game -- 40 runs from 40 balls, two wickets and two great catches -- but you didn't write about that game. As soon as he fails (yes, he did play a lousy shot), you write a long-winded piece just to criticise him.

Leave the man alone. He is out there fighting hard to win the World Cup. Let's support him and stop with the brutal criticisms.

I still love your website. Keep up the good work.

Maggie London

Dear Sir,

In your analysis, you've spoken words of truth and wisdom about Carl Hooper. As a leader, he lacks self-belief, strategy, and method - fatal flaws. He can't function under pressure - he always fails when the going is tough. If the team is improving it is because young talents will inevitably improve given the appropriate exposure.

Indeed, players like Sarwan, Gayle, Hinds and the other young talents can't help but improve, despite the lack of guidance and true grit of a "quick-pick" leader like Hooper. The team would have been far more improved if the selectors had gone with Ridley Jacobs, who unfortunately may have wilted under the pall of Hooper.

With Hooper at the helm, the West Indies could expect a solid "cutarse" in our own backyard when the Aussies are here for the Test Series. Cricket is as much about t attitude and selfbelief as it is about technical skill. Hooper has the skill but he does not have the mental strength. He is nothing but a calypso cricketer, capable of pretty shots and even big scores when the West Indies is on top. But he does not have the mind of a warrior, a strategist, which are essential in a leader and is so necessary on the field.

As a leader, Hooper is a donkey in a horse race. I am not saying he is an ass, but definitely, he is not in the same class as Nasser Hussain, Fleming, Ponting, Pollock. He is never able to endure when the going gets tough. In fact, he is often the first to go.

I'll always remember the great Greg Chappel during the Packer Series in the early eighties. The West Indies had them down 5 for 28 in the first innings. Greg batted like a true warrior, making almost a double century that made it possible for the Aussies to win the match. That is true grit, and you can't help but admire that fighting spirit.

Unlike Greg, Carl does not inspire confidence. He is not mentally tough, and I hope that his tenure soon comes to an end, in the hope that someone who can lead in the great tradition of Worrel, Lloyd, and Vivian Richards would arise.

Earl Green

Dear Ryan,

Excellent piece. I was and am still sold on Hoops, but he must take the blame squarely for this one.

Sham Samaroo

Dear Editor,

I am sickened when people like Ryan Naraine just wait for every opportunity to vilify Carl Hooper and other members of the West Indies team. Yes, Carl played a bad shot in the match but to make it out like he was the only person to blame was not right.

Our team is battling hard at the most important tournament and, instead of looking to cast blame, Ryan should spend him time encouraging the players, including Hooper.

Let's put aside the negativity and rally!

Belinda Craig,
Barbados

Mr Editor,

It's so hard to believe that after a gallant fight against South Africa in the opening match, the West Indies gave away four easy points that could come back to haunt them when it reaches the time for the Super Sixes.

On the issue surrounding McLean's selection, the selectors and the captain deserve to be sacked. Put simple, they mean the team no good at all. This is a bowler who has been tried and proven to be a failure, (one who is not learning the art of bowling). This man was under the wings of Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose, two of the game's great, but he has learnt nothing about bowling other than pitching the ball at his own toes instead of pitching on a good length up to the batsman.

Now to the skipper. He seems to lack the tactical capability to bring victory when the odds are against us (like a Sobers, Worrell or Lloyd). How ridiculous it must have sounded at the presentation ceremony when Hoops said that a drop catch by Samuels cost us the match. The Kiwis were struggling in the match and lo and behold Hoops and his bowlers failed to give the "killer punch."

However, credits must be given to him for bringing on Wavell Hinds who did the job for the skipper. But carelessness on the part of the batsmen cost us the match. The Kiwis had posted 241 off their 50 overs already, we could do nothing about that while we were at the crease. The openers will always fall so cheaply when the bowling gets tight because they fail to take the singles which will keep the run rate going. Their main concern is 4s and 6s and that's not good cricket at all.

Then came Lara's run out which was quite ridiculous for a batsman of his calibre. Hoops is undoubtedly a good batsman but he seems to give his wicket away when it requires for him to be resolute and resound. He needs to realize that he is the leader and his performance will reflect on how the team is playing.

Overall, the Windies have a good chance to reach the final but the main problem is the bowlers. What do we do in a crisis such as this now facing the twice champions of the World Cup. We will continue to watch and support Windies' cricket and we wish the team will adopt a "killer instinct" which will enable us to do well not only in the World Cup but in future series.

R. Nascimento

Mr Editor,

The article by John Pinnock is just about the most wonderful ending to this whole episode that could be envisaged. I salute his magnanimity and wish for Marlon and John all the best.

Let those with their sour grapes learn from this.

Denzil J. Wilks,
Jamaica

Mr Editor,

This fiasco surrounding the rather hasty and irresponsible decision to omit Marlon Samuels from the Current team without fully comprehending Dr Mansingh's report, points to the inadequacy and paucity of managerial skills that exist at the highest levels of the WICB.

The good doctor's report did not suggest that Samuels must be withdrawn, but was careful to say that he can play, but must not be exposed to the same rigorous exercises that the rest of the team goes through. The report further indicated that he can play the entire competition, but that his physical condition should be monitored, periodically.

The question is: what was the mechanism utilized to arrive at this inane decision? On the surface, it appears as though the Chairman of the Selection committee,Viv Richards, arbitrarily amde this decision. And it is very clear now that a careful reading of the doctor's report was not done.Was there any follow-up consultation done with the doctor to ascertain the the true condition of Samuels' injury, and the attendant limitations of his capacity to function at this level? These and many unanswered questions have given rise to a whole raft of negative speculations.

Is there some measure of animus existing Richards and Samuels? What is the real problem? One recalls the recent "incident" during the recent India tour which almost led to Samuels' expulsion. Had it not been for the intervention Of the president, Rev Wes Hall, we would not have been privileged to witness what is generall considered the best One-day century, so far.

As I said, there are several troubling questions that concern West Indian cricket supporters, and we need answers to this obviously, bungled occurrence in the Samuels affair.

Burch Moore