Stupid Eligibility Rule Destroyed W.I Cricket
It is popular to blame the captain, the players and/or the
selectors for the current decline in West Indies Cricket. In my
opinion the real culprits are the West Indian cricket
administrators who in 1994 maliciously utilised the ridiculous
eligibility rule to blacklist Desmond Haynes, for failing to tour
India, and have persisted with this illogical and
counter-productive rule ever since.
"Rubbish", you say, following the line of the WICB and resorting to
emotive attacks on the captains and his players with their huge
egos and fat pay cheques and/or the selectors, who regularly
disagree with your picks.
A person who wishes to identify the real problem that caused the
decline of West Indian cricket must begin the search outside of
cricket and recognise the following three incontrovertible truths
regarding all West Indian sports.
Truth #1: West Indian countries produce world class teenage
talent in all sports.
Truth #2: That teenage talent fails to develop into world
class adult talent unless exposed to world class competition on a
regular basis.
Truth #3:The West Indies does not possess domestic leagues
that provide world class competition nor tertiary institutions that
satisfactorily develop sporting talent.
Before applying these truths to cricket, we must place the period
during the 1980's and early 1990's when we were the undisputed
world champions in its proper context by finding out if this period
was the general rule or whether it was exceptional.
My generation wrongly believes that our fifteen-year stint as world
champions was the general rule. Factually, it was the exception,
when considered in the broader context of the twentieth century.
Exceptional superstars like Constantine, Headley, the 3 W's, the
Spin Twins, Sobers, Kanhai, Hall and Gibbs were never members of a
world championship team much less a team that dominated cricket for
more than a decade.
The three truths stated above are the major reasons why, as a
general rule, our cricket teams never dominated the world. Though
we undoubtedly produced world-class players we could not develop
the depth of world-class talent and the consistency of performance
necessary to dominate the world.
This analysis poses an obvious question - What was it that created
the exceptional situation that made us the world champions of
cricket in the 1980s and 90s?
The answer is clear -- Professionalism. In the 1970s, our
top and second level cricketers got professional cricketing
opportunities in England, Scotland, Wales and even Holland. The
result was that two sets of players benefitted:
1. Those that learnt the valuable lessons of regularly playing
cricket abroad for money in all types of conditions, and...
2. Those that got into national and club sides in the West Indies
because of the professional exodus.
The rule in that period was, if you were good, young and ambitious,
you could get a professional contract - whether at county or league
level.
Take for example the institution of the four fast bowlers commonly
credited with our world dominance. If Roberts, Holding, Croft and
Garner were all unavailable, we had Marshall, Daniels, Clarke and
Davis to replace them.
The irrational among us will seek to blame the English for
drastically reducing the number of county cricket contracts
available to West Indian cricketers. But the English did no more
than defend their local players to develop their team. On
reflection English administrators will be quite pleased with the
results of their decision.
It was not English administrators but West Indian administrators
who failed West Indies Cricket by not identifying other
professional options to develop our young talent, for example, in
South Africa and Australia, and then by imposing the unbelievably
stupid Eligibility Rule.
Our administrators chose instead to put all their efforts into
developing and improving our domestic regional and national
competitions. This was and is an admirable policy initiative, for
the long run, but cannot fully replace foreign professional
competition in the short to medium term.
The Eligibility Rule has destroyed the very ingredient that led to
our dominance of world cricket by providing that you cannot
represent the West Indies unless you represent your territory in
all the rounds of the domestic regional competition. In other
words, if you secure a professional contract you cannot play for
the West Indies.
What is the equivalent rule in the other international sports?
There is none!
Does Dwight Yorke have to play every match in the domestic season
for Joe Public to represent Trinidad and Tobago in football? Do
Brazil and Argentina prohibit their best players from playing
abroad?
Such a rule would be impossible to conceive in any other
international sport but in our case, the national association
(WICB) unbelievably imposed it on themselves, without any input
from the ICC.
So we choose to compete against Australia, South Africa and England
who have the advantage of their highly competitive professional
leagues, by excluding our top young players from similar exposure.
The impact of the Eligibility Rule has been to reverse the 1970?s
trend when it was our young players who got professional contracts
to aid in their development. Ask Richards, Roberts, Lloyd and
Hooper and all the many others about the benefits of professional
cricket at a young age.
Can Gayle, Hinds, Ganga, Samuels, Powell, Garrick and the others,
freely take up such opportunities? Not if they wish to play for the
West Indies.
Who can take up these opportunities? Jimmy Adams, Franklin Rose,
Otis Gibson and others who have been discarded from the West Indian
team.
In this context it must be remembered that young West Indian
cricketers do not generally have agents and therefore primarily
rely on the WICB and their national cricket boards for their
development. In my opinion the cricket administrators of the WICB
have failed this new generation of West Indian cricketers by their
inability to recognize and apply the lessons of our recent
cricketing past.
Is it any wonder that the youngsters have such a hard time
successfully establishing themselves in the West Indian team?
Any person in their right mind would ask - Why impose the
eligibility rule? I offer two answers to this question:
1. The reality - to maliciously blacklist Desmond Haynes, for
making himself unavailable for the India Tour and thereafter to
maintain an iron grip over the players;
2. The myth - to protect and give maximum benefit to the sponsor of
the domestic regional competition by ensuring that the top players
stay at home.
I really do believe that the WICB acted maliciously against Desmond
Haynes in the imposition of the Eligibility Rule. If proof is
needed please recall that:
-
Haynes, our number one opener, never played for the West Indies again and when in 1995 the selectors stated he was in consideration for the team to England, they amazingly preferred Williams, Campbell and Simmons
-
A couple of years ago the WICB again attempted to blacklist Haynes by seeking to prevent him from opening the batting with Gordon Greenidge in the Vice Chancellors XI. The alleged basis - he had an ongoing suit against the WICB in the Barbadian Courts.
It would be a shortsighted sponsor who consciously contributed to the decline of West Indies cricket by requiring that our young players stay at home while having no problems with Jimmy Adams and Franklin Rose playing in South Africa. I wonder why Nike had no such problems sponsoring the Brazilian national team despite the fact that Brazil's best players compete in Europe.
When Pat Rousseau came to the fore promising a new approach and removing the word 'Control' from the WICB?s name, did anything change? I wrote a letter to him in March 2000 identifying professionalism as the factor that was abandoned leading to our decline and requesting a new approach.
No such luck. On December 6, 2000, the banner headline in the Jamaica Observer was "WICB Maintaining Eligibility Rule", Rousseau stated:
"If we permit players to remain outside of playing in the Busta Cup and still to gain selection what we will end up with is more than likely very weak Busta Cup . . . . . (players) would be able to seek alternative opportunities to play overseas for money and just don?t play in the Busta Cup".
Is it any surprise that what we have achieved since the creation of the Eligibility Rule is an average West Indian team at home and an extremely poor West Indian team away from home?
If our players are required to compete with the best in the world, we must demand the same level of competence from our administrators, as international cricket is no different from any other highly competitive international sport regulated by an international body.
We must do away with the eligibility rule and stop blaming the players. If that requires new administrators from the ranks of our former professional players, lets do it.