Shipping | Cricket report missing key point | Comment

It could be because Cricket West Indies (CWI) has only released a summary so far, or because the committee has followed its mandate, the details of which were not widely shared. Unfortunately, the three-member panel appointed by the CWI to look into West Indies’ humiliating early exit from last October’s T20 Cricket World Cup missed an opportunity to cement West Indies’ comeback as a cricket powerhouse.

It’s not that the group – chaired by lawyer Patrick Thompson Jr and including former South African cricketer Mickey Arthur and great West Indies batsman Brian Lara – failed to recognize the real problems or make valuable suggestions. Rather, their failure is that they intend to build superstructures on fragile foundations.

In other words, their ideas, if implemented, may generate short-term gains, but are unlikely to be sustainable in the current set-up.

West Indies did not automatically qualify for the T20 World Cup. They were placed in a group of minnows that had to fight each other for a place among the big guns.

They lost to Scotland’s part-time cricketers, got past Zimbabwe, then were easily dispatched by Ireland. Before returning home, the test team was also thoroughly routed by Australia.

In the aftermath of the T20 crisis, Cricket West Indies president Ricky Skerritt promised a “thorough post-mortem” of the show. The Thompson Committee was formed.

It primarily attributed the team’s under-preparedness; the fact that the matches were played in Tasmania’s cold and overcast conditions to which the West Indians were unaccustomed; the absence of at least one batsman from the team; and the long-term poor performance of West Indies cricket, exacerbated by the regular loss of key players to global leagues where they improve their earning potential.

GOOD SUGGESTIONS

“WI cricket is not short of talent but our small size compared to other cricketing nations means we cannot afford to lose talented players,” the committee said.

“Cricket West Indies (CWI) needs to develop and create clear pathways to identify, develop and manage talent. Otherwise, WI cricket risks being mined by other professional leagues who can afford to collect and develop our players for their own benefit.”

Its proposed response to the crisis and to prevent the complete collapse of West Indies cricket includes: open discussions between the CWI and the players to find a middle ground in each other’s interests; and that in the run-up to the 2024 World Cup, the CWI’s “Director of Cricket and Selectors … will urgently identify a core squad of 30-35 players who are likely to form the core of the 15 players who will eventually form the … World Cup squad”.

There are also suggestions for open discussions about player contracts; extending players’ contracts beyond one year; individual training and support systems for players; improved training and facilities in the regions; more competitive cricket in the short and longer formats; and increasing cooperation between regional cricket organisations.

These are all suggestions that West Indian supporters are unlikely to oppose.

However, judging from the summary of the report, the Thompson Committee’s findings and conclusions are not subject to quantitative analysis. For example, the claim that the small size of the region limits the scope and depth of the competence pool requires clarification.

New Zealand has a population similar to that of West Indies cricket nations, but has been able to sustain competitive teams, while the Caribbean has declined. Furthermore, there was a period at its peak, from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, when the West Indies could credibly field two or more Test standard teams at the same time.

It would be useful to provide a data-driven analysis of the number of people at different levels playing cricket in the region now compared to previous seasons and the reasons for any changes. This would provide better information about the plans for rejuvenating the sport.

In addition, the committee seemed to have heard only company insiders and not a wide range of stakeholders, which would have limited the perspectives they heard.

DISASSEMBLE THE FRAME

Throughout the years of decline in West Indies cricket, there has been one constant – Cricket West Indies, by whatever name it was called. And the regional governments that own the CWI.

As the Thompson Committee pointed out, the West Indies team is the only major international cricket unit. This requires inclusion, transparency and skillful management of its fissures and tensions to close the cracks and promote broad ownership of the game in the region.

Despite his occasional inclusions, Cricket West Indies’ current era manager has proven incapable of transformative action to make it a truly stakeholder-driven marquee organisation. It is largely driven by and devoted to narrow group interests.

In the absence of a philosophical background appreciating the history and historiography of West Indies cricket, it is unlikely that the governance structures will support a sustained recovery for the region’s team. Which is the point that the Thompson Committee ignored and therefore left unaddressed.

Therefore, our addition to their findings is that, according to Professor Eudine Barriteau’s report, the body of shareholders of Cricket West Indies, the six regional boards, should be disbanded, paving the way for the creation of a larger, stakeholder-focused organization. institution.