Tony BeccaWEST INDIES captain Jimmy Adams is under pressure. The calls are getting louder and louder for him to give up the job and, if he does not, for him to be relieved of it.
According to those calling for a new captain, there are three strikes against Adams. One is that his performance as a batsman has been disappointing to the extent that were he not the captain he would probably not be in the team; two is that he is tactically not a good captain; and three is that he does not motivate the players.
Are the criticisms justified? In many respects they are. As a batsman, Adams would certainly be under pressure to keep his place in the team and as a captain he is technically weak and really does not appear to be able to motivate the players.
In some respects, however, they are not justified.
As a batsman, Adams has been failing - no question about it. As a captain, however, every one knew of his tactical weaknesses when he was appointed captain and yet everyone, or almost everyone, welcomed the appointment.
On top of that, and even though he did not look as good as Nasser Hussain in England, and did not look as confident as Steve Waugh during the Test series in Australia, he is the same man who was lauded right around the region for what many saw as a new team spirit during the home series against Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
In a nutshell, Adams was not the reason why the West Indies lost in England, and although he scored only 151 runs in Australia for an average of 18.80, he was not the reason why they lost in Australia.
As disappointing as was Adams' captaincy, as far as the series in Australia was concerned, the defeat had nothing to do with captaincy. The West Indies were beaten by a better team - a team whose batsmen batted well, whose fielders took most of their catches, including some brilliant ones, and most importantly, a team whose bowlers bowled a consistent line and length and who thus made it easy for their captain to set the field.
Should Adams really go? Maybe he should - even though, with a manager present and two coaches, he should not be blamed entirely for the lack of motivation which was apparent, and even though his top batsmen failed to deliver.
What is important, however, is this: who would replace him?
It certainly should not be former captain Brian Lara and it certainly should not be Carl Hooper.
Apart from all his other transgressions, Lara, it should be remembered, was the captain in South Africa and he contributed to the debacle - to the embarrassing performances of a team whose spirit was the lowest it had ever been in the history of West Indies cricket.
As far as Hooper is concerned, his history is not one of commitment to West Indies cricket and even if he scores enough runs to force the selectors to call on him, he should not be so honoured - at least not now, not yet.
Adams has a decision, and based on what he decides, the West Indies selectors and the board may also have one.
Adams should stand his ground, he has nothing to be ashamed of, he has no reason to run, and he should let the selectors and the board decide.
If he does that, in the face of no obvious choice, the selectors and the board, who must have weighed up everything, including the possibility that Adams would struggle to score runs, before deciding to go ahead when they made him captain a year ago should stick with him and pray that a leader will emerge before too long.
There is only one other solution. With Adams' falling short as a captain, with no one around who stands out as a leader, the West Indies could simply pick the best team and then, with Lara and Hooper out of contention, select a captain.
That would mean that Ridley Jacobs could be the next West Indies captain and nothing is wrong with that. What is important is that Adams is not made the scapegoat because the West Indies lost to a team that was superior in every department of the game.
