Hartley Neita, ContributorDuring the early years of the 1950s, Jamaica and the West Indies boasted a bowler, Roy Gilchrist, who many felt was the fastest and most hostile pace bowler in Test cricket at the time. He played in 13 Tests and captured 57 wickets at an average of 26.68 runs. That is, he removed an average of four batsmen in every match he played.
In one Test, against India, he took nine wickets.
According to Wisden, the Bible of cricket, he was "menacing by virtue of his genuine pace and his ability to produce a bouncer as venomous as any sent down by the opposition" during the 1957 tour of England. And oh, how he could glare!
Sadly, his Test career was cut short during the 1958-59 tour of India when, because of his fiery temperament and a clash of wills between himself and authority, he was sent home because of indiscipline. He never played Test cricket again.
The fact, however, is that as brilliant a bowler as Mr. Gilchrist was, immediately he stepped out of line in the eyes of his captain and senior players he was removed from the team. Rightly or wrongly.
Dilemma
Today, West Indies cricket face a slightly similar dilemma. We now have a man who "dissed" the team a few years ago, leaving it high and dry. Yet, the men of authority of our cricket see nothing wrong with welcoming him as if he is a prodigal son, and have killed a special calf and offered it to him in the form of the captaincy of our regional team.
What a travesty!
In Mr. Gilchrist's case, he was never considered again as a member of the West Indies team, even though he was regarded as almost indispensable. Looking back in time, that might have been an extreme punishment and had it not occurred he might well have become a legend in West Indies and world cricket.
In this current situation, a man has returned and made a ton of runs in the recent regional series. Bravo. Clap, clap. Well played. So, bring him into the West Indies team again as a player. He is still a batsman of class, and a bowler of some substance. Let him prove that he has the humility to work with a team of his peers for a while.
But for the selectors and the board to appoint him as captain is to give the impression that some cricketers in the region can spit in their faces, and ours, and still be treated as dons of the turf.
Barring indiscipline
Indiscipline in whatever shape it takes cannot be rewarded. Leaders are expected to set standards of behaviour and enforce them. An example I can remember is that when Clem Tavares was elected by delegates as second deputy leader of the Jamaica Labour Party in 1960, Alexander Bustamante refused to have him hold this post and aborted the election. It might well have been extreme and possibly even undemocratic. Definitely extremist and probably unacceptable.
But the result was that Mr. Tavares accepted the leader's decision and went back to the grassroots of the party, and over the next six years worked his way back to the level he had reached before. And, he was rewarded in due course with being appointed acting Prime Minister for four weeks when Donald Sangster became critically ill. Temporary, though it was.
As was the case when Brian Lara scrambled for and was appointed captain some years ago, when I refused to watch any of the Tests on television, this time I will not be listening the coverage of the matches on radio.
Meanwhile, bravo Michael Holding. As for me, I will not be at Sabina Park as long as this impostor who has been imposed on us by selectors and by a board who have lost all moral authority to lead, is the man in charge on the field.
To think of it, too, he did not have to sing a Sankey. The board did.
So who is the don?
