Two Cheers For The West Indies

The West Indies/India 2002 Cable & Wireless Test series is over. The West Indies have won. It was a series that they were not expected to win, coming as it did after the three Test series defeat in Sri Lanka. In contrast, observers believed that India stood a good opportunity of winning a series for the first time outside of the sub continent. This victory therefore was bracing as it was significant.

Indeed, the winning of the series reflected a much more focused and performance-driven West Indies team that has been seen in recent times. The attitude was there in the batting of Hooper, Chanderpaul and Sarwan; in the discipline bowling of Dillon and Cuffy; and in the improved standards of fielding. The inexplicable indiscipline and loss of will, so often on display, temporarily so during the second Test in Trinidad, seemed to have been banished. The question is whether the West Indies will maintain this attitude in future Test series.

Several times, as in the case of the first Test at Bourda when danger threatened, Hooper and Chanderpaul buckled down to the task of putting the West Indies beyond the realm of defeat. During the third Test in Barbados, they were to repeat this feat again, scoring centuries and engaging in a long partnership. Both players struck a rich vein of form which paid handsome dividends for the West Indies.

The batting of Sarwan justified the high praise he has received. He did not score a century but his good technique and sometimes sumptuous rich stroke play signalled that he is a player of the future. Wavell Hinds too, in scoring a century at Sabina Park, hinted at a return to form, which seem to have deserted him after a promising start against Pakistan during the 2000 series in the Caribbean. The West Indies had come through in the batting department even though Lara could not find his touch after his phenomenal performance in Sri Lanka some six months ago. That the West Indies could come through in a series without the usual dependence on Brian Lara spoke volumes for the improvement in the batting department.

Our bowling too showed some encouraging signs. Merv Dillon finally seemed ready to fulfil a promise that he had often given indications of in the past. His bowling was much more accurate and controlled. The accuracy and consistency of Cameron Cuffy were factors in the improved performance of the West Indies. Pedro Collins? improvement was obvious to everyone. He seems quicker and his ability to get the wicket of Sachin Tendulkar, which he did three times in the series, played an important part in the West Indies? victory. When Collins bowled Tendulkar in the second innings at Sabina Park to bring to an end a stroke filled innings which threatened to change the course of the game, the West Indies could think in terms of the victory which seemed obvious from the time that India was bowled out for 102 in the first innings. Adam Sanford, new to Test cricket, at the age of 28, took vital wickets at key points in the series. Good bowling and improved fielding gave the West Indies the air of a competent and purposeful side.

A West Indies victory, after the humiliation of South Africa, the trauma of the English tour in 2001, and the loss of matches in the entire series against New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in recent times, must be cause for celebration. But it is also cause for reflection. That is why I say two, not three cheers, for the West Indies. There are obvious troubling signs during the series against India. The West Indies do not have an established opening pair. In the wicket-keeping department, Ridley Jacobs is good but how long could he stand up to the wear and tear of doing duty in Test matches and one-days. There is no young wicket keeper of proven ability on the horizon as yet. This must be a source of concern to our selectors and the WICB.

Similarly, while the West Indian bowling was good, it was decidedly not penetrative. Again no bowler has emerged who could single handedly win a game for the West Indies, as Hall or Gibbs or Ramadhin did at different times. Cuffy bowled well but he is in his thirties and a fast bowler. And our bowlers seem unable to make any meaningful contribution to our batting, something which is a necessity in the modern game.

There have been false dawns before. This victory must not be seen as necessarily heralding a reversal of fortune. For victories against Zimbabwe and Pakistan in the Caribbean, did not prevent the West Indies from sinking to defeat against England in the 2000 series. Having said that, however, the careful nurturing of talent which clearly exists among the young players of the region could provide the foundation for a return to dominance.

The current New Zealand tour and the World Cup next year offer the selectors the opportunity to blood a number of young players. Devon Smith, for example, should not be kept waiting for too long. They will also have to face squarely the prospect that in five years? time, they might have to do without the services of Hooper, Lara and other players. The time for radical surgery might be now in order to ensure the future of West Indies cricket. At what should they be aiming? C.L.R. James has said that a good Test team should have at least one super batsman and several good ones. An all rounder is an absolute necessity. Since Winston Benjamin left the West Indies team in 1995, we have not been blessed with such a player. The selectors should do all that is necessary to encourage the blossoming of all round talent. If these things could be done, then there is hope that we can return to dominance. In that case, it will be three cheers for the West Indies and not two.