The more, the West Indies lose, the more over and over, I am forced to become serious about the state of cricket and ask the following questions again.

Should the blame for the demise of West Indies Cricket be firmly placed on the shoulders of not only the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) but specifically the Presidents of the Board, who allowed the International Cricket Council (ICC) to perform their dirty work to upset the growth of West Indies Cricket?

Why is it that the WICB did not stand up and correct the following, as men who cared?

1) The bouncer rule, designed to upset the fear factor in the bowling department, and reduce the threat presented by the West Indies bowlers by placing a limit on the number of bouncers and over in test cricket.

2) The advent of the mandatory over-rate of 90 per day, made it difficult to employ four-fast bowlers, because of the time between overs and the reduction in over rate. This was meant to disrupt the West Indian momentum of pace and more pace. By imposing fines and punishment, this led to changing tactics.

3) The international enforcement of a limit on players outside of Great Britain, that could represent County teams in England. This was meant to restrict the number of West Indian players primarily involved in plying their trade in the popular English League. This led to an erosion of the level of overseas training and experience afforded to the West Indians, thereby resulting in players less equipped for the rigours of international cricket being pushed on the international scene after inadequate experience at the regional level.

4) The loss of valuable sums from television rights, while India, England and Australia fought internally to sell the money train ­ Television rights ­, those that ran West Indies cricket were busy worrying about the insular and insidious needs of their respective cricket boards. On March 24th, 2000, the West Indies Cricket Board sold the exclusive broadcasting rights outside of the Caribbean to the various West Indies home tours from 2004 ­ 2008, except for the Cricket World Cup in 2007 for a minimum guarantee fee of $24.6 million US only. What sort of management team would enter in a contract for a four year period before it happened without some built in adjustment for inflation and other external factors?

5) The allowance of egos and petty jealousy to purvey West Indies cricket, while former players are left to twiddle their thumbs and toes , because those in power in West Indies cricket feel threatened by the thought, they may one day soon, lose all their power play if former players are utilize in any public forum.

6) The inability to recognize the great marketing portal, that is West Indies cricket , which would have guarantee a regular stream of income for the WICB. Whether it is in merchandising or general proper marketing.

7) The existence of an inept West Indies Cricket Board structure for over 20 years, where every region wants to be represented, rather than the best people for the job. This is due to the inadequate leadership at the territorial boards in the region.

While all of this was going on, our West Indies Cricket Board Presidents stood idly by, with their arms folded and legs wide apart.

When the ICC said, they were going to change the way that Revenue was distributed between test playing nations to make it fixed for overseas tours, the West Indies were the hardest hit because of poor attendances at test matches in the Caribbean.

Wes Hall was the President of the WICB at the time and for all his great talk and his poise and grace, he was not able to convince the ICC to change, and he was outvoted 9-1.

This was the decision that has terminally confined the West Indies to the back benches and to the state of ³beggar² in world cricket. Our greatest income was from overseas tours of England, India and Australia. The drawing card of the West Indies with their superior athletes, both fast bowlers and batsmen was still a factor, even though the team was losing. But in the last four years, since this system was implemented, West Indies cricket has loss income, in excess of $24,000,000.00TT ($4 million US) from overseas tours.

The current fixed figures from the new ICC ruling are as follows, payment of US$62 500 per Test and US$25 000 per One-Day International for the team touring which is totally inadequate to cover any visiting team's commitments of players' fees and return air fares.

There are some examples For a series of four Tests (nobody wanting five against the West Indies any more) and five One-Day Internationals (seven now considered to much), the WICB¹s bill to their touring board would now be US$407 500 (excluding local accommodation, expenses and internal travel), compared to just under US.9 million for major tours in the past.

According to information from the West Indies Cricket Board Gate receipts from the five West Indies Tests in England in 2001, even with one Test ending in two days and two in three, grossed US$101, 712, 665. (read it again). Under the present arrangement, the West Indies' share of that would have been US$162, 000.

Compare that with what the WICB has taken in from both Tests and One-Day Internationals at home over the last six years, which amount to between $5 million US to $7 Million depending on whether or not one or two teams tour the Caribbean each year.



All of this further emphasizes the names of men, who should all be held accountable for the failure of West Indies cricket to progress with the age, we live in.

Dinosaur thought logy, aided by errant knowledge of the game and scant respect for former players spell individually and collectively ­ disaster -.

These are the men and their places of birth; in no particular order, or by any specific damage to West Indies cricket:

1) Sir Clyde Walcott ( Barbados) 2) Captain Peter Short ( Barbados), 3) Patrick Rousseau ( Jamaica) , 4) Wes Hall ( Barbados), 5) Teddy Griffith ( Barbados) 6)Kenneth Gordon ( Trinidad and Tobago) and now Dr Julien Hunte( St Lucia).

A strong West Indies Cricket Board President would not have allowed this, we have watched and listened as the Indian Cricket Teams President of past and current, have stood strong against the ICC, and we needed that sort of leadership, although not all of it.

That is where the fault lies, because the dictates of a leader is what sets the tone for the organization, and that is why we should not have given Dr Julien Hunte any more time., much less renewing his leadership unopposed.

This is his second year and maybe his last ( with WICB elections due later this year) to understand what will be his legacy, particularly as it relates to dealing with the other Presidents at the ICC.

The West Indies President though has it tough, because no longer can he command centre stage because of the poor performances of his team, but he still has some sway because of the rich West Indies name. Unfortunately in this the World Cup year, Gordon seems to be too occupied with his dual role as Chairman of the Cricket World Cup and President of the WICB. One is hard enough on its own and he is in his seventies.

Gordon should have utilized these advantages in his strong negotiations with the ICC.Instead , we now have Julien Hunte swimming in unchartered waters , his years as a politican have not assisted him enough for this job.

Everyone was distracted by the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 , it came and West Indies cricket will remain. It is time for GORDON to show that he is a West Indian President in line with fellow Trinidadian Jeffrey Stollmeyer , who led West Indies cricket from the front , both off and on the field. Now we are being distracted by the twenty/20 World Cup later this month and we are still in the same predictament.

Is it not true that people always ask, who was the best West Indies Captain, and while there is some debate based on which generation you were born in, there is no discussion on the Presidency of the West Indies Cricket Board and who was the best President?

Maybe it is time to do that?

Perhaps, the next President should be younger and more vibrant and have no problems in discussing his or her role with the media.



:: AB