I wrote this in 2011 - Don’t Worry About a Thing

down Memory Lane

In reply to Chrissy

Great article as usual but on a reels, allyuh does actually listen to hilary when he talk about cricket? the man ideas as archaic and contradictory as Margery Perham when coming to cricket

Finally got to read something you wrote ....sigh

Evaluation of the​ Commentary from someone that taught English at the university level

Presenting complex and emotionally charged issues such as the legacy of West Indies cricket and Professor Beckles’ lecture requires not just subject knowledge, but also clarity, focus, and rhetorical discipline. While ​this address had moments of insight, it ultimately fell short in several areas that are particularly crucial for public intellectual discourse.

1. Lack of Focus and Rambling Delivery
From the outset, the presentation lacked a clear through-line. The narrative wandered between historical anecdotes, personal grievances, and critiques of Beckles’ analogies without guiding the audience through a coherent argument. In a public setting, this risks losing listeners’ attention and obscuring your main point.
Recommendation: Structure your address with an introduction stating your central critique, followed by organized supporting points, and a succinct conclusion.

2. Overly Personal and Defensive Tone
Public intellectual debate thrives on the respectful exchange of ideas. Throughout your remarks, the tone often shifted from critical analysis to personal affront—describing Beckles’ analogy as “highly offensive,” referencing lectures, and invoking your personal role in cricket’s history. This approach, in front of an audience, can appear petty or self-serving rather than persuasive.
Recommendation: Focus on critiquing ideas and evidence, not personalities. Maintain a tone that invites dialogue rather than defensiveness.

3. Insufficient Engagement With the Audience
The speech was densely packed with cricket history and institutional politics, often assuming a level of audience familiarity that may not exist. There were few efforts to make the broader implications clear or to relate the critique to issues relevant to a wider public.
Recommendation: Use accessible language and analogies, define your terms, and periodically reorient the audience to your main argument. Pose questions or offer takeaways that connect cricket’s story to broader concerns about leadership, identity, or youth.

4. Too Many Tangents, Not Enough Evidence
Several digressions—such as the mention of KFC in hotel lobbies or the role of tourism in cricket financing—detracted from the main argument. Meanwhile, many claims (e.g., about young cricketers’ motivations, institutional failures) were asserted without supporting data or compelling anecdotes. In a public forum, this weakens credibility.
Recommendation: Stick to your strongest, best-supported points. Use vivid, relevant examples, and avoid straying into side issues unless they directly support your thesis.

5. Missed Opportunity for Synthesis and Constructive Critique
Rather than offering a vision for what a better analogy or a more inclusive model of West Indies cricket leadership might look like, the speech ended with unresolved grievances and rhetorical questions. This left the audience with a sense of dissatisfaction rather than constructive engagement.
Recommendation: Summarize your critique, propose alternatives, and invite your audience to reflect or act. End with clarity and a sense of purpose.

Summary Judgment:
While your passion and depth of engagement are clear, the effectiveness of this public presentation was undermined by a lack of focus, an overly personal tone, and insufficient audience engagement. For public discourse to be impactful, it must be both critical and constructive, accessible and rigorous. I urge you to channel your considerable knowledge into a more disciplined, audience-aware narrative that not only critiques but also inspires.

Suggested Grade: C+/B-

In reply to sgtdjones


Beckles deserved churlish insults the minute he referred to gayle as the don. beckles didn't criticize the appointment of ted laso as skipper because he thought sammy was a return to the nationalist era of wi cricket(he famously called sammy our samson).....where cricketers were paid pittance. could guarantee you viv and co wouldn't have stood up and accept nothing, especially after WSC. you have to go back to worrell's day to find acceptance of that attitude towards players

In reply to sgtdjones

And let's not forget that whether in written or oral form, one has to address the audience.

In reply to Jumpstart
The essential truth is that West Indies cricket cannot survive neo-liberalism.
Dat US whipping of the Bim U19 team is the metaphor.

In reply to Drapsey
You have time

In reply to Chrissy


unfortunately

In reply to Jumpstart
Indeed

In reply to sgtdjones

Have you ever done a book/article review?

In reply to WI_cricfan

If you attend university, certain courses require such.

In reply to Jumpstart

Jumpy, I understand your sentiments of very poor management. To respond, one must not go to the same level as Beckles.

A speech or commentary related to West Indies cricket leadership one must approach this constructively:

Vision for Leadership: Propose a model that emphasizes collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity. Highlight the importance of diverse voices in decision-making processes.

Constructive Criticism: Instead of dwelling on grievances, suggest specific improvements or strategies that could enhance management and performance.

Engagement with the Audience: Use relatable anecdotes or examples from successful teams to illustrate points. Encourage audience participation to foster a sense of community and shared purpose.

Addressing Unresolved Issues: Acknowledge the grievances but frame them within a larger context of growth and opportunity. This can help shift the focus from frustration to potential solutions.

Public Discourse: Emphasize the role of public intellectuals in fostering dialogue. Encourage discussions that are not only critical but also forward-looking.

By focusing on these areas, the discourse can become more constructive and empowering for all stakeholders involved.
I noted above it must be written so one's audience has a thorough grasp of your details; this ultimately fell short in several areas that are particularly crucial for public intellectual discourse.

That article was poorly written.

You will be involved in engineering and may have to write opinions or suggestions. Understood. For engineering contexts—particularly when reviewing or commenting on technical proposals—clarity, precision, and objectivity are essential. The writing should focus strictly on technical content, avoiding subjective language or emotional undertones.
All commentary will be neutral, focused on facts and technical merit.
Responses will be direct and to the point, avoiding unnecessary elaboration or digression.

You will be astonished how many listen, read, and cannot assimilate; it's apparent on this thread.

In reply to Chrissy

very good article..
many are afraid to cross Prof. Hilary Beckles but his penchant for the romantic is useless. Many of his ideas are half baked and untested .. or not well thought out, but well presented. A man of sweet words but no substance.

In reply to Blackbird
I fear no one in this region.
Sadly, it turns out that I was right. The youth are taking care of their own needs

the reality is, is that our dominance of international cricket may have been an anomaly

imagine a group of small territories from the northern caribbean to south america with a lot in common but all very wary of each other could rule a sport and rule it for so long

in what other international team sport has this ever happened?

what makes it all the more remarkable is that these WI cricket territories are former colonies, small, and relatively speaking they are poor especially when compared with the former colonial power and other countries in which the sport is played.

India, Oz, Eng, NZ, Pakistan, SA, SL and Bangladesh have way more larger populations, land space and resources than the West Indies but on the field of played we have had prevailed until around 1995

we have won almost every international trophy on offer. our batsmen, bowlers and fielders at one time or the other were regarded as the best in the sport.

and the period appox between 1978 and 1992 WI cricket dominated the test scene, international cricket 's pinnacle form of expression and along the way won 2 ODI international Championships, a shorter iteration of the sport.

we have also won 2 men's T20 international championships and 1 ladies'

in addition, an international Championship Trophy

we should celebrate these achievements; it may never happen again

and yes, Beckles was right, Gayle was a DON

In reply to sudden

Maybe, but due solely to how we have been administered or the lack thereof.

In reply to sudden

Thank you, Sudden. This has been my point from before. From 1920s to 1950s we were at best ordinary and close to the bottom of the table. In 1950s-1960s we were competitive. After a brief slowdown, from mid 1970s to mid 1990s we were the top dogs. From late 1990s to mid 2020s we have returned to the bottom of the league. Average that out for 100 years of test cricket and we probably are mid to lower mid ranking on average, carrying the weight of the last decade.

In reply to sudden
Our cricket did benefit from WW2.
While dem white people were killing themselves our club and regional first class cricket was world class.

In reply to Chrissy

That is highly probable

Is that part of the anomaly?

In reply to sudden
I never found enough evidence because many of our inter-territorial games were also disrupted, but I still wonder

In reply to Chrissy

You may be correct but it needs further investigation

At the moment I am reviewing some after ww2 material and I will lookout for any correlation

In reply to Chrissy

It's a lack of understanding of the different eras of sports. In general we were good in amateur sports. We were able to compete at the bringing of several waves of the profe$$ionalisation of the sport ... but as these waves flatten out and a truly professional system was necessary to keep pace with the changes in the sport, unfortunately, we fell out. It repeated with the Kerry Packer era and the onset of T20. T20 not only shifted the financial model of the game but it created new markets and player values exploded. With that came enormous player's power.
Notably we are a diminishing T20 producing nation. Fewer players are sustaining themselves in the big league.
Our cricket as a product is at the stage of deminishing returns.

In reply to sudden
Thanks

In reply to Blackbird
You are correct. The thing is we have to look at all the institutions and community developments. Now folks are lucky if they get two,poles with hoops. Back in the day communities had playfields nd open spaces.
We (and that was a big we) also invested in cricket as a community.

In reply to Blackbird


i agree with you but didn't Kerry Packer and specifically Packer's demand for professionalism and his employment of the cricketers send cricket into the stratosphere in terms of performance? I mean you cant take kerry packer out of the west indian success story