Viv Must Correct Findlay's Gaffe

Sometime tomorrow, the West Indies selection panel -- Viv Richards, Joey Carew and Gordon Greenidge -- will huddle up to identify a captain for the home series against Australia. Barring a dramatic last-minute change of heart, Richards will recommend Carl Hooper retain the job and they'll all nod in approval, scribble his name on a sheet of paper and send it for the WICB rubber stamp.

It won't be a hugely popular decision. But, it will be a logical decision. Actually, Hooper is the only viable option for Sir Viv and company and if you want someone to blame for that, look no further than Mike Findlay.

I have long been a fan of Findlay and the open, straightforward way he handled his duties as West Indies chief selector. Findlay was always willing to do the extra interview to explain a pick (or omission). Once, when Clive Lloyd complained about not being invited to attend regional tournaments, Findlay took the extra step of issuing a press statement to point out that Lloyd was never left out of the personnel decision making process.

But, Findlay's open-door policy is not enough to absolve him and his panel (Carew and Joel Garner were his partners in crime) of blame for today's captaincy conundrum.

Findlay's selection committee did one of the greatest disservice to West Indies cricket when it failed to identify a long-term captain for our team when Jimmy Adams was unceremoniously dumped in favour of the returning Hooper.

Now, exactly two years later, we are still scratching our heads and running around in circles wondering who will lead the team when Hooper departs (there is no way his knees hold up past this year).

I have long been a bitter critic of Carl Hooper, one of the chosen who couldn't deal with the heat. Back in 1994, the day before Chanderpaul would make his Test debut, I almost got punched in the nose by Alan Igglesden, the tall journeyman English fast bowler who was then a Kent teammate of Hooper, all because I used the word "failure" to describing Hooper's career.

Back then, he was averaging a shade over 30.00 after 40 Tests. Today, 62 matches later, his career average stands at 36.46 and the word "failure" might even be considered mild.

Hooper's shortcomings have been well-documented. He succumbs to pressure. I've spent most of this week jolting my memory bank for a few match-winning Test match innings by the captain. I tried hard. In 102 Tests, I found one. The six-hour, unbeaten 90 on a Queens Park Oval dustbowl against England in 1998, when tiny David Williams stayed with him, was the only time Hooper delivered.

When his team needs him most, he disappears. I need not go over my anger at that shot he played against New Zealand that, for all intents and purposes, cost us a World Cup Super Six spot.

Yes, I'm not quite fond of Carl Hooper. But, the reality is that Hooper is our only option to lead the team against the Aussies. Since his return from retirement, even I have to admit we have seen a different side of Hooper. His captaincy skills have been ridiculed as conservative but, give this team to Clive Lloyd and I'm willing to bet he will lose badly to all the big teams away from home.

Remember, when Hooper took over from Jimmy Adams, the team was in the dumps. He inherited one of the youngest, most inexperienced batting line-up and was able to squeeze some competitiveness out of them. Let's be fair now, if we are going to slam Hooper for his captaincy record, then he has to get some credit for the emergence of Sarwan, Gayle and Samuels during his tenure.

Chat for 15 minutes with Sarwan and his genuine adoration of Hooper comes from an appreciation for those quiet moments when the captain reassured him he was a certainty in the team, giving him the confidence to go out there and play his shots, even amidst the glaring eyes of the critics.

In 22 Tests as captain, his average is a solid 45.97 and if the knees didn't collapse on him, I have no doubt his domination of the Indians would have continued into the series away from home.

The other reason -- and this is even more important -- that Hooper is the only option for the captaincy is the question of who would replace him. If the selectors think the South African gamble of going with a 22-year-old will work for us, they need to have their heads examined.

I'm on record as saying Sarwan will be the West Indies captain one day. Just not today. Shouldn't he at least lead the Guyana first-class side first? Wavell Hinds, the other name being mumbled, should be left to battle with Devon Smith for a place in the line-up.

Going back to Lara would be repeating the mistake of Findlay and not properly planning for the coming away tours. So, Hooper it is.

Tomorrow, after Hooper's name is scribbled on that piece of paper, Viv's panel has a more important decision to make. And it concerns an understudy to take over after Sri Lanka. This is Viv's chance to correct a major error and he must make his policy crystal clear.

Identify the future skipper and let him actively participate in the decision-making. Anything else would be a cop-out.

* EDITOR'S NOTE: Equal space available for dissenting opinion. Only columns with real names will be considered for publication. Submit opinion pieces to ryan@caribbeancricket.com.