Dear Editor,

The West Indies Cricket Board’s management needs to seriously engage in introspection of its own decision/selection on the team that it sent to Sri Lanka that suffered humiliating defeats in the just concluded two Tests series. Is there any regret over the exclusion of the dependable Shivnarine Chanderpaul? He could have made the difference in saving the team from ignoble defeats. With the team’s disastrous performance based on the selection of one of the weakest teams in recent history, should not the management and selection team consider resigning? A new board and selection team is urgently needed to select the best team and to turn around its economic fortunes.

The West Indies management has to stop “playing politics” with the game by disciplining critics; it must select the best team that can stand up to world class players and show the world we are competitive. The team needs the best players who can win games or save matches; it must not go after those with whom it has issues. It should not have excluded ‘Chanders’ just because he was on the verge of breaking a cricket record. If performance is the selection criteria, most of those selected should not have been there. Many cricket lovers feel we are going back to the ethnic type cricket policy of the late 1970s thru early 1990s (with Lloyd and Richards) when Kanhai and Kallicharran were dropped. It is hoped this is not the direction of the management or selection panel. England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Zimbabwe all over multiethnic teams. It will be an anachronism if we return to the old ethnic team when the rest of the world is moving in a different direction.

Unless there is improved performance and competitive cricket from our side, other nations will not be interested in playing us because they will lose money (TV rights, game attendance, sponsorship, etc). West Indies is no longer a TV draw as happened between 1980s through 1990s. TV audience is not interested in watching mediocre performances. And advertisers don’t want to buy time to broadcast or sponsor plays (and players) that are not exciting. Spectators and TV views want to see Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Sunil Narine, Veerasammy Permaul, Samuel Badree, Kieron Pollard, etc.

It is noted that the team offered meek resistance in the first test and put in an even worse performance in its two batting attempts in the second test. The team could not score 240 runs to seal a victory and tie the series – pathetic performance. It is about time the team’s management reconsiders its decision to leave out Chanderpaul whose recent performance was not any worse than others selected for (played on) the Lankan tour or played against England and Australia. Chanderpaul has had a history of rescuing the team. His presence was sorely missed to save the team from its defeats. If the team is selected on performance, which one of the players deserves his place on the team?

Chanderpaul is more deserving than virtually all of them. There is no Chanders to anchor the team. He has a stabilising effect on the team helping the less experienced players. When the top order collapses as often as they do, there is no one to rally around to prop up the team. Chanders would have done it. He often held together. He normally complimented Denesh Ramdin who lost his sense of balance when he acquiesced (supported) the exclusion of Chanders from the team. Ramdin, himself, lost the captaincy and soon he will also lose his place under the lame excuse of poor performance when all the others are also failing. Chanders would have offered advice and guidance to the captain given his seniority and vast experience playing against top class cricketers – suggesting fielding placement; who to bowl.

Chanderpaul has a never give up team spirit even when he is with the last batsman at the crease. He has a dogged approach to hang in no matter the toughest opponent even when the front line caves in meekly. He stood up time and again. Imagine the team could not make 244 runs to win a match. Chanders would have made the difference guiding the batsman to take their time and score slowly to reach the target. Some 45 overs remained to bowl; two runs an over would have sealed a victory.

Chanders physical presence provides a psychology of stability and strength. Opponents also fear him and are intimidated by his presence on the crease. There would have been an apprehension on the part of the Lankans with Chanders on the team causing them to make errors and allowing the team to score freely.

Many people did not watch the cricket because of a lack of quality players on the West Indies side. Had Chanders been there, viewership would have been higher as would the revenues collected by the board over broadcasting rights or sponsorships. The Sri Lankan cricket board has complained about the lack of interest among media broadcasters for the West Indies tour of Sri Lanka resulting in undervalued revenues. An Internet news report stated that the board was offered only 45 million Lankan rupees (140 rupees = US$1) for broadcast rights for the present series of 20/20s, one days, and tests. In contrast, the Lankan board received 100 million rupees for a similar Pakistan tour and three hundred million for a shorter Indian tour all this year.

Sri Lanka prefers to play India or the other big teams from which broadcasters offer big bucks for TV rights; the board also received significant revenues from sporting the log of sponsors. Also, India prefers to play against Australia or England or South Africa than against West Indies because of lucrative TV broadcast money in the tens of millions in dollars. The BCCI, which manages Indian’s professional cricket, in recent years received tens of millions of dollar annually from TV rights and millions more in sporting sponsors’ logos.

Neither India nor Australia nor England has shown much interest in engaging West Indies because of the fear of losing money because of a lack of competitive cricket by our boys. India is going to Australia in January with both teams earning a hundred times more than what each will obtain from playing West Indies.

West Indies cricket management complains about limited funds and being near bankrupt. Chris Gayle or Sunil Narine collects more in money in a year than what the board collects for broadcast rights for a series. The board’s financial books will worsen unless there is a turnaround in performance which can only be a reality if the best players are chosen based on merit not on personal grouse or revengeful acts. Clearly, there is a vacuum for a Chaderpaul type player (or someone in the mold of Larry Gomes). Shiv is yet to get a respectable “goodbye”. He should be recalled and allow to play his last away and home series.

Yours faithfully,

Vishnu Bisram