A New Model for Windies Cricket

I have stated here before that there needs to be a total revamping of West Indies cricket, from the board of directors right down to the cricket operations. By cricket operations, I mean all aspects of cricket -- on and off the field.

The current West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) is antiquated, unwieldy and just plain useless. It badly needs to be restructured and run like a modern day corporation to ensure accountability and coordination at all levels. Where there is accountability, there will be positive results. Where there is coordination, there is less overlap and less waste.

First of all, the board of directors should be hands-off and get out of the business of micro-managing the organization. The primary responsibility of the WICB should be to set policy and select a chief executive officer (CEO) to man the ship. There is no need for the directors to be involved in cricket operations and other aspects of the board that require specialized skills and training. The ex-vice president, Mr Clarvis Jarvis, recently spoke of the cost of meetings by the directors over a 2-year period running to the tune of over $1.75 million dollars. Why?

The CEO should have the overall responsibility to make sure that West Indies cricket policy and direction are implemented and that the organization is a viable and successful entity. He must answer to the financial viability of West Indies cricket, the continuous development of young cricketers and the success or failure of the West Indies cricket team on the field of play. The buck stops with the CEO.

The CEO hires the immediate leaders below him to carry out the mission of the WICB. His immediate staff should include all the important top personnel for Financial Operations, Marketing and Cricket Operations and whichever other department that is necessary to have an efficient and successful organization.

The involvement of the directors in the decision-making processes within normal operations, including the selection of president and vice president of the WICB and the selection of the captain of the cricket team is ludicrous. It causes the decision process to be too long and operations to be too costly, wasteful, and redundant. And often times, poor decisions are made by the directors who are just not competent or qualified enough.

I will only deal with Cricket Operations here as the other functions of the Board are beyond the scope of this commentary.

Along with the structural changes needed in the WICB, some critical changes to what I call Cricket Operations are needed. Cricket Operations is that department responsible for cricket development and the cricket product put on the field of play from first class cricket to test and ODI cricket at home and on tours. A Chief of Cricket Operations (CCO) should head Cricket Operations and should answer directly to the CEO. His responsibility is to put together a team to produce a marketable and viable cricket product.

The CCO can use three Principals (in lieu of presidents); one in charge of development from kiddy cricket up to the Under-19 level, a second for the running of first-class cricket and the third for senior cricket (Tests, ODIs and the West Indies 'A' team).

I have written on the need for a professional cricket league in the West Indies in an earlier installment. In a professional set-up, there would be some differences in this structure. However, the basic structure of the WICB as I have outlined above would still be appropriate. The Principal in charge of Senior Cricket (PCSC) would still remain the same. The division of duties for development cricket and league cricket would be different, however, and need not be delved into here.

There is a primary area under the current system that needs to be changed entirely. But it needs a mindset change, and a paradigm shift, if you will, before that is possible. Under the current, outdated system, three selectors plus the captain and the coach select the team. That is a flawed system that only serves to cause political underhandedness, mass confusion and a process that lacks integrity.

But most of all, it does not lend itself to a total alignment of the mission of the WICB, the strategy of the coach and the execution of the captain on the field of play. In the days when West Indies were kings, one could throw just about any permutation of the best players available to form a team of 11 players and get basically the same result, a West Indies victory. But the rest of the cricket world has now put in place better systems, better organizations and better approaches to the game of cricket. The result is that the are now losing with regularity because the WICB is stuck in its outmoded way of organizing and playing cricket.

The current autonomous selection philosophy is outmoded. It has outlived its usefulness and the use of a selection panel should be disbanded. Why does the board need a recommendation from a selection panel to appoint the captain of its choice? The recent rejection of Hooper and later the acceptance of Lara is a useful example of that inefficient, time-wasting process. Also, how does an autonomous body, which is not accountable to anyone, fit into a successful system that wants to go in a particular direction? As it is the selection panel can be contradictory to the mission of the WICB. It can be subjected to special interest and political manipulation and end up defeating the purpose and mission of the organization. The parts that make up the system must be aligned in the same direction.

Having a selection panel that is autonomous and not in direct alignment with the mission of the Board is bound to cause misdeeds, mishaps and misdirection. This is due to insularity and political agendas, as we have witnessed in the past and at the present time. This is compounded by the fact that members of the selection panel are changed from time to time. Each time new members of the selection panel are elected it seems a new agenda and direction is taken on by the new panel. While change is good sometimes, at other times it defeats or disrupts the progress that has been made by the former panel since the new panel will want to set its own distinct agenda which may or may not be in alignment with the mission of the board. Any change of direction and agenda should come from the top, not by an aimless group of people that is not accountable to the hierarchy of the organization.

Put the selection of players squarely in the hands of the coach. If he fails to show measurable progress with the team, then he bears the consequence. But the buck doesn't stop with him. The CCO must show earnest effort to get the right coach who can get results, as he, the CCO, is ultimately accountable. In fact, the whole line of command must come under scrutiny and answer to the progress and direction of their charges.

Thus, the CCO must hire the right line of personnel to get the best team on the field. The end of that line of command for senior cricket must be the coach to whom the final say should be entrusted in putting a final eleven on the field. When the team fails then the line of accountability is channeled right back up the line from the coach to the CCO. All personnel in that line of responsibility must answer to their failures with applicable penal remedy, even to the extreme consequence of termination where warranted. And termination clauses must be placed in their contracts that allow the Board to terminate a culpable principal, coach, etc., for failure to meet specific objectives. That is, anyone and everyone along the chain of command can be fired without further financial liability on the part of the WICB if specified objectives are not met at specified, mutually agreed upon timelines.

So, let the CCO select the captain and let coach select the final 11 in a given match. The coach must be allowed to play any given player based on conditions, available players, strategy and other situations. He is ultimately responsible for the strategy and game plan so he must be allowed to pick the 'right' players to carry out his plan.

One other dimension that is needed is the use of scouts to identify potential players to make up the squad of players. There should be a roster of about 30 players who would be selected by the coach and the PCSC based on league or domestic performance and other inputs from the scouts. These players should be signed under contract on a yearly basis with a minimum basic wage. From this group a test squad is picked both for tours and home matches, including West Indies 'A' matches. Players who make the Test squad earn an additional level of wages as part of their contract. Of course, contracts should be based on seniority and other qualities that each player brings to the table.

I suspect that what I've outlined here is bound to be received with raised brows by the board members, if they got hold of it and managed to read it through. However, they need to get from under the old cloaks of insular interests, political wrangling and useless, destructive power controls.

Please give it up for the betterment of WI cricket and log on to the progress that modern accomplishments can offer. The West Indies structure is outmoded and unless it is revamped and reorganized, our cricket is destined to remain broke, uninspiring, and at or near the bottom of international rankings.