Here is our future - but arguments rage

As the twilight gathered over Woodley Field in Los Angeles, Dr. Tony Verity, at 78 perhaps the oldest living cricketer to have represented the USA, looked at the 20-odd youngsters who had assembled for a group picture of the All-Stars of the first US Under-19 National Tournament. "There", he said to me. "Look at them. Here is our future".

That such a statement could have been made at all speaks to how much was accomplished over the Columbus Day weekend in Los Angeles.

As recently as the disastrous Champions Trophy in England, comments were being made about the geriatric composition of Team USA over the past few years. No one seemed to know where the younger players were, or how many were available; and, of course, if they could meet ICC's eligibility requirements. Even the idea of a national U-19 tournament was considered an exercise in fantasy. The talent was supposedly not even there.

The organizers of the tournament set themselves a careful target. ICC eligibility rules were carefully observed, with one caveat: youngsters who were "nearly eligible", i.e. who stood a good chance of meeting the criteria by 2007, were allowed to be selected for their Regional sides. This caused quite a bit of acrimony in USACA circles, and was admittedly something of a gamble, but most felt this was a risk worth taking if there was to be a future Team USA on the international cricket scene.

The gamble paid off handsomely, to a degree that few had anticipated.

It was decided that this first U-19 Championships would feature four teams. The eight USACA Regions paired up to enter combined teams from their respective regions. These four teams were: (1) New York & North East Regions: (2) Central (East & West) Regions; (3) Atlantic & South East Regions; (4) The West (South & North) Regions.

Until late August, there were questions about whether the event would ever take place, and if so, where. Some regions seemed intimated by the idea of finding good U-19 players in their regions, and procrastinated until the last minute on holding regional trials. Then, miraculously, everything fell into place -- the venue was decided, and 60 youngsters ranging in age from 16 to 19 were headed for their first encounter with national cricket -- and each other.

The U-19 Championship was played over three days in the familiar 50-over round-robin format. The team with the most points would be crowned champion. As it turned out, there was serendipity in the match results - the two teams which were unbeaten in the first two days played each other on the last day, making it a real final.

New York and Atlantic/ South East established themselves as the leaders in the first two days, with William Perkins, a figure of some controversy in the wrangling that was going on between their elders regarding eligibility, scoring a best-of-the-tournament century. He was followed the next day by Duane Nathaniel of Atlantic and SE, with an equally fluent hundred. The Central Zones succumbed to New York's barrage, but performed rather better the next day in bowling and fielding, foiled only by Nathaniel, Atlantic and SE's opening batsman, who was unbeaten on 111. The West had a miserable opening game on what supposed to be their home ground, but recovered on the second day and finished with a decisive victory against the Central Zones for a respectable third place in the tournament. ( for the detailed scores, see http://www.scalcricket.org, the Southern California Cricket Association web site.)

What the scoresheets do not show is the intensity of the performances on the field, the precision with which every play was executed, and the sheer finesse that was displayed by the youngsters. Of course there were a few juvenile miscues -- like for instance, two batsmen ending up at the same wicket after a frenetic attempt to score three runs. But in general, the standard of bowling and batting was so good that a manager of one of the senior teams in the US Nationals said he would be hard-pressed to match the best U-19s team player for player. According to him, the youngster's grasp of the fundamentals were amazing, and their skills were more than up to any occasion.

So, where had all this skill and experience had come from? There was no single answer, but a few clues that might provide ideas for future development of US junior cricket. Some of the players were recent US citizens or residents who had continued to play top-class cricket in their countries of origin, and whose skills were up to international youth standards. Others had played for senior teams in their regions for several years as "apprentices", and had acquired their skills the hard way in unequal conditions. However haphazard these situations were for the youngsters, they had clearly succeeded in providing a decent pool of youthful talent, and one which could only be augmented if proper designs for junior program development were implemented.

The final between NY/NE and the Atlantic/SE zones was a classic one, with the result in doubt until the last over. Atlantic/SE batted first, and were well into three figures for their opening wickets before a middle-order collapse set in, and they were dismissed for 226. NY/NE's innings started with a stutter, but they recovered and looked well on the way to victory with 40 runs to go and six wickets left. But brilliant bowling and fielding by Atlantic/SE snatched victory as NY/NE ended four runs short in the middle of the final over.

An all-star team was chosen at the conclusion: William Perkins, Nichol Haye, Akeem Dodson, K. H. Ramsabad, Ethon Wilson, Hemant Ponoo, and Dominic Audin, (NY/NE Region Team);Usman Mohammed, Ravi Timbawala, Siddhanth Dhume, Shiva Vashishat, Nadir Malik, David Pieters, Abhimanyu Rajp (SW/NW Region Team); Taha Syed (CW/CE), Romeno Deane ,Renardo H. Francis , Megh H. Bhatt, Faizan Sayeed, Duane Nathaniel, and Anil Deopersad (Atlantic/SE Region Team).

This being the USA, the selection of the all-star team gave rise to a cacophony of name calling between administrators, coaches, and other non-players. The eligibility of some players, even under the relaxed guidelines used for selection, were repeatedly questioned. Issues of favouritism were aired. Some of these charges could have some merit -- for example, it would be interesting to compare actual performance statistics with the list of all-Stars to determine if any outstanding players were passed over in the selection process. For the most part, however, it was more proof of how the arguments and vitriolics endemic to US cricket can sully the best efforts of its cricketers - as one youngster interupted in the middle of the arguments, he wished all the oldsters would let him play cricket and leave him alone to do so.