An unfair burden on Clive Lloyd

Regardless of how well-intentioned it might have been, the recently published letter to team manager Clive Lloyd did more to harden cynicism than to raise expectations of cricket supporters.

The letter, written prior to the tour of Zimbabwe and South Africa, saluted Lloyd thus: "We cannot change the past. However, we can learn from it.

It is a classic example of the penchant for living in the moment without gathering the force of history for future service. How could the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) so title Lloyd while there is still living memory of Sir Frank Worrell? Was the need for superlative paramount to respect for a man's contribution?

Sir Frank's leadership was peerless. It is no reflection on Lloyd's qualities, no detraction of his capacity, but we must not casually surrender the integrity of our words merely to satisfy a public relations exercise.

Sir Frank did not only lead his team towards true sportsmanship, but he was the first leader who inspired many to strive to be the best they could. Roy Marhsall wrote that Sir Frank had made him put aside his views of racial superiority.

Wes Hall wrote that he made the younger members of the team feel like part of a family and encouraged mentoring from the seniors.

The WICB should remember that he refused to tour India in the 40s unless proper remuneration was offered, actively initiating a discourse on parity for all, professionals or gentlemen. He read all the time, sharing useful knowledge with players without condescension
so that they accepted it readily when he told them that card-playing the night before a game affected the morrow's vision, and they stopped.

He didn't bludgeon anyone, because all he had to do was to tell them what he thought should be and they would willingly do it. Such was his power – and true power is simply the ability to influence people's ideas and actions.

Sir Frank thought cricket demanded constant strategy, a relentless desire to win through fair play, and could not abide the doldrums of playing for a draw that had stripped the game of its lustre. With his conviction that dull cricket was the worst spectacle possible, he went off to Australia and joined hands with Richie Benaud to lift the game back to competitive excitement, and all the while there was no whiff of gamesmanship, vulgar behaviour or sharp practices.

It was brilliant, beautiful, sensitive and principled leadership that Sir Frank brought to the world, and there is great harm in distorting the value of those qualities in service of the short-term goal of telling Lloyd: "Hey, we have faith in your capacity."

The WICB has short-changed Lloyd by not taking the opportunity to remind the world of the qualities and values that he brought to his leadership and why they trust that they are the right ones for now. They still have the chance to do so.

There are discouraging implications, too, in the assertion that Lloyd is to be the pivot for a renaissance. Has the WICB not yet absorbed the reality that there is no god to save the game? Has it so missed the point that has been made ever more forcefully that there
has to be a multi-faceted approach to restoring some proper standards?

What about plans for training and development, restructuring the WICB, improving industrial relations, providing facilities and technology? Is Lloyd to be the centre of these areas?

It seems like a set-up, because the message was more ominous that the turnaround has to happen on the tour and it's all up to Lloyd – a terribly unfair burden on the man.

* This column is republished with permission from the Barbados Nation, where it first appeared.