No, no, no, Mr Cozier (8 January 1999)

8 January 1999

No, no, no, Mr Cozier

The Trinidad Express

Under the headline "Why did West Indies not only fold, but crumble?", the following piece appeared in the Antigua Outlet under the by-line of its editor, Tim Hector. It was written in response to Tony Cozier's report in the Express at the end of the Second Test in Port Elizabeth. In the light of subsequent developments in the five-Test series as well as in Cozier's commentary on it, we reproduce it here today in the hope that it will add another dimension to the continuing debate on West Indies cricket.

The West Indies to me folded, even crumbled, against South Africa, not once but twice. In a way it is wholly inexplicable. Yet it happened. There must be some explanation though. There are those highly placed and well regarded, indeed, the doyen of West Indies cricket writers, Tony Cozier, who had this to say:

"The West Indies,, utterly lacking the discipline, the commitment, the unity and the all-round depth their opponents [South Africa] possessed in abundance capitulated to a humiliating defeat to South Africa in the Second Test."

Now that is quite something from Cozier, whose moderate, if not conservative, stance does not normally lead him to make such stern comments, and so uncompromisingly.

Incidentally, Cozier forgot to note that the South Africans dropped some three catches in the match, while the West Indians dropped none. Is this not proof of a high level of "commitment" and "discipline"? It was the batting that failed twice. And that is not uncommon in Test cricket.

That we "capitulated" to 141 all out is not in doubt. That it was humiliating is not in question. But just when did we lose "the discipline", "the commitment", "the unity" and, to use Sir Garfield Sobers's word, the sense of "responsibility" which he said our batsmen lacked? When? Just when!

In our last Test series-against England-all of these ingredients were there. The grit, the commitment that Hooper and Williams showed in Trinidad at the Queen's Park Oval, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, was certainly there. As it was there in Ramnarine and Walsh, indeed the whole team, which brought off a stunning victory right here at the ARG.

However, the batting collapse-twice in South Africa-was not so inexplicable in light of the fact that the West Indies have now been dismissed for under 160 seven times in the past two years. Though the 121 in the first innings is the lowest total made by the West Indies since being bowled out for 100 at Christ Church in the halcyon days, back in 1987. Lest we forget, I remind.

So what accounts for these batting collapses? In any ten top ranking batsmen in the world, Lara, Hooper and Chanderpaul would rate. It is doubtful that even Australia with the Waugh twins, Mark and Steve, plus Ricky Ponting, have a better 3, 4, and 5 than have the West Indies. We still match the best.

What is not debatable is that we have no opening pair of note, and no reliable No 6. That is to say, no start and no finish, plus a tail, that it would be charitable to characterise as fragile.

So there it is, partly a question of composition. We need openers and we need a reliable No 6. There is the rub and the hub of the problem, in so far as batting is concerned. I am taking this route, because I am extremely wary of commentators who, whenever a black person or team fails, brings it down to a question of character, as if inherently we lace the required virtues of "commitment", "discipline", "unity", "responsibility", "grit", etc, etc. Of course, when we are beating others of other races, no one says that the other race is inherently lacking in these virtues.

Now let us examine more closely. Lambert, despite his failures is a pretty gritty fellow. That none will dispute. He batted for his 33 in the second innings of the First Test but he was hopeless in the Second Test. An awful shot in the first innings was matched by an even more woeful waft-caught in three minds-to Allan Donald in the second innings. New boy Reifer was a disaster-both times. Somebody must be ruing the day they did not send for Keith Arthurton instead.

The run-out of Hooper was an unmitigated disaster in the second innings, and perhaps, a decisive turning point. Chanderpaul all but watched Hooper commit hara-kari, without uttering the single word, No! It was embarrassing in the extreme.

But is it fair to say that Chanderpaul did show that adjustment of technique in the second innings, which has brought about his downfall by batting out of crease, and pushing forward, rather than being trapped back on his stumps, as he was in his three previous innings? No lack of commitment there.

Stuart Williams though, still insists to shuffle across the wicket, inside his crease, and when beaten for pace, is plumb lbw, as he was in the second innings. Going good in the first innings, in fact top-scoring with 37, he played back but not across, bat away from body to Terbrugge and perished, by way of another all too frequent lapse in concentration. He needs to build stamina, not commitment, by the loneliness of long distance running.

Lara was undone playing at a lifter outside his off-stump from Donald in the first, and cavalierly hooking at Donald's fast bouncer, shoulder high, after he had hit him for three fours the over before, and a six the ball before getting out. It was the most irresponsible batting, even though we had reached the stage beyond hope. Lara before long will make Donald and Pollock pay dearly for his failure so far. He will get a double hundred.

Jacobs, excusable in the first innings, a good delivery going across him and then jagging back, was guilty in the second innings of simply not learning from Jonty Rhodes, who played forward to all length and just short-of-a-length balls, only playing back and forcefully to short-pitched deliveries.

However, by comparison, the South African top and middle order fared no better than the West Indians. They were 53 for 5 in the first and 89 for 5 in the second. It cannot be that the South Africans have a formula for recovery.

The West Indies were 58 for 2 in the first after 22 overs only to collapse to 121, losing 8 wickets in the space of 14 overs for 54 runs, 31 of which were scored by the swashbuckling McClean, in a very fine exhibition of hitting. And then in the second innings we were 53 for 5.

The difference was the South Africans lower order rallied. The West Indies kept going down and down: 40 for 2, 54 for 3, 54 for 4, 57 for 5, 65 for 6, 77 for 7 and 132 for 8, and all out for 141. There were no terrors in the bowling. It was good and tight but by no means unplayable to yield this paltry score. We lacked the batsmen to consolidate in the middle. Chanderpaul and Ridley Jacobs are, to my mind, ideally suited for the task. Let them do it at No. 6 and No. 7 when necessary. The problem, I repeat, is composition, not "commitment", "unity" and similar abstractions.

Is there a remedy? Not sure. But I would put Ganga in at the deep end and make him open. I would use Chanderpaul as the middle-order consolidator to lead Jacobs and the lower order. Therefore, my team in batting order would be Campbell, Ganga, Williams, Lara, Hooper, Chanderpaul, Jacobs and the four fast bowlers.

As to the bowling, Ambrose and Walsh were superlative. Dillon and McClean were below par. But they can come good, and probably will.

What then do I think? Our performance so far is a temporary aberration. For sure the tour began without a sense of mission. Careless of being in South Africa, and dismissing Mandela's plea with indifference certainly was a foreboding of things to come. The only probability now is that after two debacles, the team will like water raise itself to its own level-and that's pretty high.

Am I too optimistic? Maybe. But I am never a prophet of gloom and doom. In truth I can be expected to be the last person rallying round the West Indies. In fact, persons dear to me heard me say that I expected the West Indies to win after the second day once we had 320 to make. The wicket eased. It was doable. But we failed miserably.

Few noted that we were the touring team to do best in the first innings on that same ground, St Georges. Australia made 101 in their first innings there, only to come back to win the Test by getting 271 to win. Pakistan made 120 in their first innings. It was our capitulation twice that bothers. But the team will lift itself. Who will have the last laugh?

By the way, if this St Georges Ground were in the West Indies with 17 wickets falling in one day, 16 for the opposing team in just over two hours, imagine the howls there would be. Even the West Indians would be calling on the ICC to do something about these substandard Test wickets.

The St Georges wicket was unfit for Test cricket. Period. For the first time I must disagree publicly with my dear friend Andy Roberts, one of the best cricket minds living.

He keeps going on and on about rebuilding. The openers have been "rebuilt" in Wallace and Lambert and it worked against England. The new fast bowlers have been added in Dillon and McClean, plus the long deserving wicketkeeper Ridley Jacobs. What more rebuilding than this is needed? What new players would Andy Roberts add to the side, pray tell? We lost, that's all. We are not now invincible, but struck down. We will rise again.

Come on. Let's stop this whining and whining and rally round the West Indies.

Source :: The Trinidad Express (https://www.trinidad.net/express/)