West Indies caught in limbo
Thu, Aug 15, '19
Caribbean fans are yet to wake up from the nightmare that was the 2019 Cricket World Cup. And with the alarm being muffled by the growing number of questions that seem to accompany each WINDIES game, we will remain in this subconscious state for a while longer. Only two games were completed in the MyTeam 11 three-match One-Day International series between the West Indies and India, both resulting in convincing 59-run and 6-wicket victories for the visiting team. Jason Holder is still on the hunt for his first ever series win as limited overs captain. And as West Indian fans, we might be tired and no doubt embarrassed, but what we should be is-scared. Scared, as many of the underlying issues surrounding West Indies Cricket seem to be cultural.
"It is more difficult to change the culture of an existing organization than to create a culture in a brand-new organization or team. When an organizational culture is already established, people must unlearn the old values, assumptions, and behaviours before they can learn the new ones."
–Susan Heathfield.
Splitting the justice
Jason Holder’s record as captain and leadership on a whole, has been on the front burner in recent times. One could argue that Holder’s captaincy has kept both front burners occupied. Before anyone, including myself, comes to the defense of Holder, let’s put this out there: sports is a results-based field and while a captain’s record is indeed an index of the players he has at his disposal (for which we cannot hold any captain accountable); the charges brought against Holder for being a laid-back and reactive leader, are both valid.
This young West Indian team needs leaders–proactive leaders. The question therefore is, can a 27-year-old captain of five years change his spots? We will just have to wait and see and let’s be honest—hope, as we would have to comb through that WINDIES team three or four times before convincing ourselves that anyone else could take over the reins. One individual, not in the squad, but many seem to think could lead this ‘rebuild’ and new era, is 32-year-old Kieron Pollard.
Is it naïve, though, to implore Cricket West Indies to adopt the strategy employed with the Test squad by the previous administration—stability? There is no rush and never in Holder’s tenure has he ever overseen such a talented group of players who wanted to be here. Yes, he’s already gotten time, but give him time with these players, keep this group together (along with one or two noticeable absentees), tweak where needs tweaking, shift what needs shifting, give him a coach that understands the nuances of the game—then we will be equipped to undertake this ‘rebuild’.
Will he, or won’t he?
A rebuild that has been put “on pause” until Chris Gayle is ready to walk away. Gayle’s presence immediately blocks the path of John Campbell. On a psychological level, however, the feeling of a new era and a fresh start will not come while the Jamaican remains part of this West Indies team. Prior to the World Cup, Gayle announced his post-World Cup retirement. During the World Cup, when it became evident just how unprepared the West Indies were, it was clear that we would have to start afresh with the young and talented players we have—players, not yet a team.
Therefore, for both fans and players alike Gayle’s retirement was subconsciously associated with this revamp. So, until he walks away; Lewis will not say to himself, ‘I will carry this to the end’. Hope will not be thinking, ‘The team is depending on me, today’. Hetmyer will not learn to take responsibility until we stop using the phrase “If Gayle can get going here”. We are stuck in limbo until Christopher Henry Gayle moves on. Still, how many stakeholders in WINDIES Cricket will accept the effect that Gayle’s ‘maybe-today, maybe-tomorrow’ shenanigans will have on the team? Not many, as the field of psychology is not highly-rated or given much pertinence in our society.
"If one’s exit from an organization was a prudent decision, based on the fact that it would have positively impacted the remaining members of the company and/or signaled progress; then, the return of that individual will only prove beneficial to the same. Unless, the situation of the organization itself has changed. If not, the return of said person will create doubt and distrust among managers, employees and the returning party."
-Toshane Young.
-teaser-
