West Indies stumbling over poor footwork

West Indians who have turned out in their thousands for the One-Day Internationals against South Africa these past couple of weeks have seen first-hand what they had previously had to endure from far-off lands through the television screen and the radio.

The West Indies' overseas record in the abbreviated game has been every bit as calamitous as it has been in Tests, but at least they have been able to hold their own in both at home. Now the South Africans have come into our backyard and exposed the yawning gap that has developed between the top teams in limited-overs cricket and the West Indies. In every single department, the West Indies have fallen so far behind the rest that we must wonder whether they will ever be able to catch up again.

The accompanying table that lists the depressing West Indies record in One-Day Internationals since last July and Keith Miller's observations in his book almost half-century ago, quoted by Dr. Rudi Webster, provide food for thought for those presently in charge of West Indies cricket. The point is that there has been no improvement, generally or specifically. Not one department, not one player, has got better. Some have actually got worse.

Compared to the South Africans and, indeed, most other teams the fielding is an embarrassment. The batting lacks planning and common sense and the bowling is unable to contain for even a short spell.

The situation is compounded, perhaps even caused, by a confused selection policy that was clearly exposed in Grenada and in Barbados.

In the second match at the Queen's Park Stadium, Carl Hooper arrived quarter-of-an-hour late for the toss.

It prompted obvious speculation that the selectors were still arguing about the composition of the final 11, especially when Hooper was unsure of the team changes at the mandatory TV interview.

At Kensington, Hooper was on time but his reaction to the 11 he was given was obvious by his refusal to offer Kerry Jeremy a single over, even when it was clear from as early as the 20th over the match was good as lost.

At 21 and in a weak team, Jeremy's straight-forward medium-pace bowling may not measure up, but he is an enthusiastic young cricketer who didn't pick himself.

His treatment was demeaning and unnecessary, but it was instructive. Nor will it fill those coming into the team with confidence.

The most worrying aspect of the whole business is the lack of progress, the failure to come even close to the standards set by South Africa, Australia and the others who so consistently thrash the West Indies.

Every bowler worth his considerable fee has long since perfected the changes of pace that are so essential in limited-overs cricket. Not one West Indian has so much as tried it. In the Busta Series, Ian Bradshaw, the Barbadian left-armer, was the only one I saw using variations. The young batsmen continue to get out in the same way, their weaknesses quickly identified and worked on by the opposition without the necessary response.

The fielding? The less said, the better.

The finger of blame can be pointed at the coaches, not only, or even primarily, Roger Harper, but those who are responsible for the players in the formative stages.

How many bowlers in the Under-19 tournament have been shown how to deliver the slower ball? How many weak fielders, and there are plenty around, have been made to work to improve? How many batsmen have spent practice specifically eliminating their weaknesses rather than indulging their strengths?

It may be, of course, that no one listens and no one is prepared to work hard enough. That is another problem. In the magazine for the Cable & Wireless One-Day series, Chris Gayle responds to a comment from interviewer Haydn Gill that his heavy-footed style has been identified as his main weakness: Footwork doesn't have anything to do with it for me. I am scoring my runs with my technique and I'm satisfied with that.

It was an almost identical reply given to an identical question about his footwork by Stuart Williams four years ago. I never really felt I had a problem with it, you know, he said. I feel comfortable with my style, I'm going to use my style and I'm going to die with it.

Williams, like Gayle, was an opening batsman with abundant talent who never fulfilled his promise. It would be heartbreaking to find Gayle and the other young batsmen who have come through of late going the same way.

Nor are these two isolated cases. Coaches at every level report how difficult it is to get their charges to understand that they can only get better with practice and hard work. Unless that message gets through, the West Indies will continue to falter, while the others who appreciate the secret to cricket success widen the gap even further.

The West Indies team of the last two years has not only been criticised for its attitude and application but also for its tactics and techniques, particularly its footwork. It has received worldwide condemnation for its un-West Indian tactics in the dying moments of the Test in Barbados against South Africa.

This is what Keith Miller, the great Australian all-rounder, had to say about West Indian cricket 36 years ago in his book Keith Miller On Cricket. It would be interesting to compare his comments with those being made today about current West Indies players.

Miller said: The act of good batting is to convert each delivery to a length which enables you to execute the shot of your choice. This is achieved by footwork. In batsmen of the highest class, the feet seem unhurried as they move into position so automatically even good bowling can be made to look innocuous.

This is why West Indians are the most attractive cricketers in the world today. They use their feet better than batsmen from all other nations. Go back over the impressive recent West Indies successes and a kaleidoscope of dancing feet come to mind.

The West Indians come from a country where feet are always moving, where even the labourers in the street are given to dancing. The West Indians also possess a natural ability to relax which is one of the foundations of good batting. They do not get knotted or twisted mentally and they are never beaten by high reputations of opposing players.

As they are always prepared to use their feet and play aggressively (but sensibly) the West Indians are always likely to put together a match-winning partnership and you can never be sure you have them beaten.

Regarding our current adversaries, the South Africans, Miller wrote: In the Australian summer of 1952-53, a team of South African cricketers, few of them distinguished with the bat or ball, drew an exciting series with a strong Australian team. They drilled themselves into the skills of fielding for hours on the practice field. They were the finest fielding team I have ever seen for not only did they take some marvellous catches, but they saved runs galore through the brilliance of their ground fielding and throwing.

The South Africans have retained and strengthened their cricket culture whereas the West Indies have not. So where do we go from here?