As controversy continues to embroil West Indies cricket with the latest saga concerning the suspension of coach Phil Simmons, news coming to hand is that the three selectors who did not support the return of Dwayne Bravo and Keiron Pollard did not want to be embarrassed by supporting their return because of the reason they were dropped in the first place.

Simmons now faces a WICB-appointed human resources committee because of the comments he made concerning the continued snubbing of Bravo and Pollard. As the West Indies team arrived in Sri Lanka on Thursday, Simmons was not there as Eldine Baptiste, one of the selectors who did not support the players return, was with the team as coach.

A West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) official explained to Guardian Media that the selectors Baptiste, Courtney Walsh and Courtney Browne were concerned about selecting the two players after the reasons they were dropped in the first place.

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Some people here would say they don’t want the best brain surgeon to operate on their brain tumor because that surgeon protested against their medical organization inane policies. As if protesting against something in your profession’s leadership magically diminishes your professional skills………there are countless of ways those players could be disciplined, (if that’s being done, seem more like vindictive stupidity) without necessarily weakening the team.

In reply to birdseye
Bravo and Pollard selection is not a matter of life or death.

In reply to birdseye

Are the selectors now charged with disciplining players?

A player being disciplined is different from a player simply being victimized.

Discipline dictates following a prescribed protocol but the WICB can not be bothered with that.

It simply targets the player without specifying the charges or, if found guilty, signifying a specific period in which the player would be punished.

Note, for example, that Gayle was never officially under any disciplinary sanction but he was still banned for some 18 months.

In reply to jacksprat

Gayle was told all that was necessary for his reintroduction to the WI Team was an apology for statements he made during that KLAS interview. He refused to to issue an apology until Ralph G got involved.

In reply to Walco

Multiple times. It happened in Ken Gordons time too.

In reply to Walco

Yep!

In fact, the WICB asked Gayle: "...The intention was not to have you refer to each comment and apologise for each. ...The Board requires you to provide a general public retraction of the comments..."

Just withdraw the comments and we move on from there.

He never did until as you said until Comrade Ralph stepped in.

Some of us here suffer from selective amnesia.

Good catch Walco.

In reply to Walco

That sounds similar to a plea-bargain in the criminal justice system – defendants are threatened with a 30 years to life if found guilty at trial – but if they plea guilty - the prosecutor promises no more than 15 years in prison. So most, like 97% takes the plea, even though some are innocent…….Gayle was not even offer the “trial” choice – just plea guilty they demanded…..

In reply to birdseye

I hope coconut pullo and his dad are taking notes

I wonder if Sir Doctah ever apologised for his comments or the Clico fiasco

In reply to ponderiver

Whappen padna? Are you off today?

In reply to birdseye

Actually Gayle was given a get-out-of-jail-free card that he refused to use. Bad man nuh apologize

In reply to Walco

Wasn't that a de facto suspension?

And I again ask:

Why was Gayle never brought before the Disciplinary Committee to answer for his alleged transgression?

Why did the WICB never even deign to deny, or disassociate itself from, Board member Beckles' allegation that the Board had taken a decision to 'root [the Don] Gayle & Samuels out of West Indies cricket"?

Was Beckles ever reprimanded for "bringing the WICB into disrepute" (a contradiction in term, if there was one), for disclosing confidential Board deliberation, and also for maligning Gayle by comparing him to a notorious criminal?

In reply to Walco

I am with Gayle here... If you feel you did not do wrong dont apologise.

If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything.

In reply to jacksprat

You left out in your post above, Jamaican Dave Cameron and his tweet re: Gayle?

In reply to jacksprat

I don't know the answers to your other questions, but any de facto suspension served by Gayle was mostly self-imposed because of his refusal to apologize. Of course, I think an apology was warranted, and Gayle ultimately did apologize. In the case of Phil Simmons, he immediately issued an apology for his public statements.

In reply to Pacy

If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything.

I seem to recall Gayle stating those exact words in one of the letters he penned during that fiasco. You do realize that he eventually apologized, right?

In reply to Pacy

Finally!!! Now yuh gonna feel de wrath of allan!

In reply to Walco

It appears that the 3 selectors in question only felt embarrassed AFTER initially agreeing to include the duo in the ODI team to Sri Lanka

So you first have a meeting with 6 people present. 4 selectors including the Chairman of Selectors, the Head Coach and the team captain.

THEY ALL AGREE on the composition of the ODI squad to Sri Lanka

They then take a break, reconvene at a later time, only to find out that the 3 selectors in question have changed their minds.....and the public explanation is that they feared embarrassment?

LOL!

In reply to imusic

Is that how it happened? Walsh, Browne and Baptiste agreed with Simmons and lloyd and Holder about selecting Bravo and Pollard and then changed their minds? Did they really admit to this or is this your interpretation of what occurred based on what Simmons said?

In reply to spider

So the 3 selectors didn't support the inclusion of Bravo & Pollard because they felt "embarrassed" if they were selected.

Have they really thought through their "embarrassment" reasoning?

For example....Ravi Rampaul is in the ODI squad to Sri Lanka. He was also omitted from the World Cup squad.

How are the 3 selectors in question therefore not embarrassed about Ravi Rampaul who has also not played any 50 over cricket in the interim to "redeem" himself?

I believe this "reasoning" to be some sort of hoax or joke. The author of the article must have made it up because there's no way those 3 selectors could offer that up as a SERIOUS explanation for this issue.

Conspiracy theorists would speculate that this is precisely the kind of explanation they would give to perpetuate the lie that performance, or to be more precise, lack thereof, is the reason they weren't selected.

Right thinking people know better though.....right?

In reply to imusic

Where's the evidence of the first meeting where they agreed? And if it did take place why didn't they vote right away? What was the need for the second meeting?

COB dropping steve waugh and michael bevan cyah be more embarrassing lol

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Cause Holder eh have a vote so after getting his views dey wud have to reconvene to hav the vote.

In reply to imusic

I agree with your reasoning regarding Rampaul. But you asserted that they all agreed at first and then the three changed their minds. I'm asking if that was really how it happened. Could you point me to some sort of corroboration of that?

Again, how did you come to assert that they all agreed and then the three were somehow influenced to change their minds?

In reply to Maispwi

Couldn't they just ask him to leave the room and get on with the vote?

In reply to Courtesy

I am at work so it was not meant to be an exhaustive list of examples of lack of professionalism surrounding West Indies cricket.

To Cameron's idiotic re-tweet one might also add Hilaire's disrespectful correspondence with the Prime Minister of Jamaica & Linden Wright, the then President of the JCA; and that beach that prepared at the Viv Richard stadium fr a test match; plus a top WICB official using his corporate credit card to order porn, etc.

There is nothing new or different about Cameron; he has been in the WICB inner circle for almost 2 decades now.

And in none of the foregoing instances-and there have been others- am I aware of any Board member being sanctioned.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

I really worried bout you........

In reply to jacksprat

Just making sure that narrow nationalistic fervour was not the overriding factor at play...coming from someone who has gone on record as saying once Marlon Samuels is out there is no other interest in watching West Indies cricket.

Now back to the focus of the thread.

In reply to spider

I really have to read and spell for you breds?

Simmons asserted that outside influences caused the 3 selectors in question to change their minds.

The 3 selectors now allegedly come out with a statement saying the reason they didn't vote for Bravo and Pollard's inclusion to the ODI squad to Sri Lanka is because they feared they would be embarrassed because they didn't include them in the WC squad and they haven't played any 50 over cricket since.

But they include Rampaul who in the same boat.

If they didn't originally agree to include the duo, the simple statement would have been along the lines of this:

"We never at any time agreed to select Bravo and Pollard." A simple and clear statement denying Simmons' assertion.

Which is why I believe this article to be a hoax as a response to the allegations of outside influence. Embarrassment could not possibly be a serious reason.

All they had to say was.....we never agreed to their inclusion. So why is that not said?

And what could be the reason why they would not issue a flat out denial?

In reply to Courtesy

In case you are not aware I owe West Indies cricket nothing!

West Indies has no greater claim to my loyalty & recreational pursuits than football, basketball, track & field or a plethora of other choices & activities.

I therefore do not have to account to anyone how I spend my limited leisure time because West Indies holds no monopoly on my time nor interest.

So if, right now, my only interest In West Indies cricket right now is to watch Marlon Samuels bat then I do not have to apologise for that position to you or anyone else!!!

In reply to jacksprat

No need for all this verbiage mate. It is pellucidly clear to me you have no interest in West Indies cricket

"I have no interest in West Indies cricket" from you would have sufficed.

In reply to imusic

After reading all you wrote I'm still no closer to understanding what evidence you have for saying the three selectors had agreed to have Bravo and Pollard in the team before voting to exclude them. But that must be my shortcoming I guess.

In reply to Courtesy
Then why should my lack of consuming interest in West Indies cricket cricket be a problem to you?

And why should my opinion matter so much to you?

In reply to jacksprat

Is this what you glean from my posts?

Sorry, I am arguing with a not too bright individual...I done.

Have a great day Jacksprat.

In reply to spider

Interesting that you require evidence that the 3 selectors initially agreed to have Bravo & Pollard in the team, yet don't require evidence of Rampaul's performances that caused him to be selected for this ODI series, nor Bravo's ODI record that caused him to be dropped

Says a lot

In reply to spider

BTW bro...if what Simmons has asserted is a lie (re: outside interference...seeing you and Fuzzy require "evidence")....why have the WICB &/or the 3 selectors in question not insisted on a retraction?

You do know the difference between a retraction and an apology right?

In reply to Courtesy

Good...because one of the first signs of insanity is continuing to argue with yourself!!!

In reply to jacksprat

Hehehehehehe!!!

Have a great day Jacksprat.

In reply to imusic

Don't think the above make much sense. I said I agreed with you on Rampaul, though I don't know what evidence you could be referring to. I also think that based on cricket ability Bravo should have a place in the ODI team.

Perhaps you should just admit that you don't really know, as you seemed to suggest, that Walsh, Browne and Baptiste initially agreed to include Bravo and Pollard.

In reply to imusic

I think I do understand the difference.

Simmons believing that is what happened does not necessarily mean that is what happened. I'm sure you understand the difference.

In reply to spider

So why not call for a retraction?

Seeing that "it didn't necessarily happen" nuh

If it didn't happen....he lied. Simple.

Agreed?

In reply to imusic

Not that simple. As I said, believing something happened does not necessarily mean it actually did. That they didn't call for a retraction has no bearing on whether Simmons' statement is true or not.

Having said that, I would love to hear the other selectors' interpretation of events. I would love to hear if they agree that they voted based on outside influences.

In reply to spider

Why don't you want to hear thet they initially agreed to include Bravo and Pollard?

That will clear everything up but u head tuff as dey say

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Au contraire...its way too late for that Messrs Selectors

The Truth is they embarrassed themselves ; because the WICBC stated
on Mason & Guests that they were not going to victimize any Players .

Now that being the case ; my take is that they would have been on solid Ground if they had selected Pollard &
Bravo .

Now in this Forum , some are focusing on Bravo & Pollard's averages , no mention is made of the intangibles .
They are both Excellent Fielders , better than many that are on the Team .
They are also useful Bowlers . But
their detractors will never cite these things ; Many people in this Forum are impressed by Pollard's Captaincy .

In reply to imusic

LOL is right.

We either laugh or cry at the spineless men who select based on fear of embarrassment - big loud stewwwwwwwwwwps.

In reply to Courtesy

The Caribbean Slaves need to rebel

In reply to casiba

Who are the Caribbean slaves?

In reply to Courtesy

Courtesy that is a terrible thing to do!

With jacksprat always siding with the Jamaica his head will explode on that one.

In reply to Chrissy

Frankly this is the worst flimsy excuse
that I have ever heard in my life . It informs me that these Guys perhaps were recently devoid of their testicular Fortitude .

If this is true , these Guys need to walk around for a year in SackCloth and Ashes , in repentance for their utter Stupidity .

In reply to Courtesy

... no is just know you comprehending. Oh so Smart one. Long time we Yaadies telling you the board is fackries regardless of who id prez, but you na listen, thinking we all as 'intelligent' as you.

In reply to imusic

... why am I feeling it is the one selector, when he opens his mouth to speak in public embarrasses me, would come up with this as a reason.