Lessons From the Samuels Affair

I was in Jamaica two weeks ago when the "Samuels? affair" became topical. Several features of this "affair", as it evolved, have given rise to concern. One aspect of the matter that must be disturbing to West Indian cricket fans is that the planning and care that should go into the nurturing of a young cricketer seems to have been absent.

The young and talented Jamaican batsman had been withdrawn from the West Indies squad for the World Cup after Dr. Askhai Mansingh of the WICB medical panel had determined, as a result of an MRI scan, that his injured left knee would be an impediment. So far, so good. Everyone applauded the fact that the WICB had taken the right decision. It seemed to many of us that the WICB was thinking of the long-term interest of Samuels? career. The decision was applauded in some quarters and by as eminent a commentator as Tony Becca.

Yet, doubtful voices were raised. I noted that during several sports programmes, many Jamaicans felt that Samuels was left out to relieve the West Indian selectors of the dilemma of making the choice among the younger batsmen as to who would be omitted. There was no doubt in their minds that there was a plot of some kind. I am not in a position to comment one way or another on opinions of this kind, except to say that only the availability of information can preclude the taking of extreme positions.

Also, one of Jamaica's reputable commentators, Mr. Simon Crosskill, in an early morning programme, pointed out that since Lara was given a choice of determining whether he should play in Sri Lanka or not, after it was felt that he was not fit enough, Samuels too should have been given the same option. There was not a dissenting voice in Jamaica. Crosskill?s conclusive argument was that Lara came good in a big way for the West Indies on that tour.

The situation became murkier and the reputation of the Board is again placed under scrutiny when two doctors in the United States, Dr. Ainsworth Allen of New York and Dr. Michael Mont of Baltimore, cleared the way for Samuels to play in the World Cup. They in fact had overturned the decision of Dr. Askhai Mansingh. Consequently, the West Indian Cricket Board, and especially its President, Rev. Wes Hall, are frantically trying to get Samuels reinstated for the World Cup. It seems likely that he will be. However, he is unlikely to be in the big showdown between South Africa and the West Indies on Sunday. This is a pity because most West Indians would have liked to see him measure himself against the likes of Shawn Pollock and Alan Donald. But questions will remain.

Samuels did not play until the Third Test in India. He himself has said that even during the Bangladesh tour his knee was not giving him the best service. Previous to this, after the Sharjah Tournament a year ago, Samuels had to miss the tours of India and New Zealand to the West Indies, as a result of injury. Was it not therefore incumbent upon the WICB before the training camp to determine the exact nature of Samuels? fitness or unfitness? And moreover, after Dr. Askhai Mansingh had made his diagnosis, should not the WICB have sought a second opinion as quickly as possible, given the fact that Samuels felt that he was fit enough to play? Lastly, in this day and age when the psychology of a player matters so much, should not those who superintend our cricket have considered how all of this would have affected a player as young as Samuels.

Fitness in modern cricket cannot be compromised. It is an essential and vital ingredient for success. The WICB therefore must demonstrate to the rest of the region that fitness is a priority in its planning for the future. I am sure that Rev. Wes Hall will remember that the change in fortunes in West Indian cricket in the 1980s turned on the exceptional fitness of the players of that period.