The future of West Indies cricket

There will be a lot of speculation over the coming day over the future of the West Indies. Some of this will be legitimate, pointing out long-standing difficulties that the joint cricket team has had over the past two decades. Others will be more short-sighted, and will probably disappear should the West Indies vaguely improve over the next two Tests.

It is clear that the Windies will not win this series. It is also clear that they will struggle to win. The biggest alarm bell about their performance in Hobart is that wasn't unexpected. Given the past five years of movement from the team, which has only consisted of going from bad to worse, for this once great group of nations to go from losing to a Cricket Australia XI, full of rookie players, by an innings, to losing to the Australian Test team by an innings feels almost like an improvement in and of itself – not because of their own performance, but because of the leap in quality of opposition.

This very much appears to be the worst team to tour Australia since Zimbabwe came in 2003, and we all know how far they've gone since then.

The biggest problem facing the West Indies is not talent. There is just as much potential within the peoples of the Caribbean now as it was during their heyday thirty years ago. The problem is disunity. Remember, the Windies are a group of nations. These are all independent, proud countries with their own different histories. They first came together for cricket in order to give the touring Commonwealth nations some competition, and no-one ever really thought to disband them.

By the time World Series Cricket came around, they were becoming unified not by their relationship to each other, but to that of the other nations they were up against. The West Indies cricket team was a way of getting back at the old colonial powers. It was a way for these nations to prove themselves. This was stated numerous times as being one the key factors in their unification and subsequent dominance of world cricket.

So, what happened? Well, they did it. They proved themselves on the world stage, bashed around the colonial powers and dominated cricket for years. Like all successful kingdoms and powers, they got lazy. They didn't prepare themselves for the years ahead, and seemed to presume that their dominance would just carry on.

Part of the problem, to be fair, was that much of their dominance was built on top of things outside of their control. The county championship was undoubtedly the biggest factor in getting their players to move beyond 'potential' and into greatness. As the strength of county cricket fell away during the 1990s, and the amount of West Indians entering county cricket dropped, the Caribbean domestic league was unable to take its place. Domestic cricket is not cheap to organise for the WICB, as it involves flying players to whole other countries. This, along with the region's lack of wealth, did not leave much room creating a strong domestic competition, creating a vicious cycle as the their intentional performances began to fall away, and as old greats retired. By the 2000s, the beginning of the end had come. Only in the last five years, though, has this become abundantly clear.

Today, the WICB is totally disunited, with poor domestic structures (in every way imaginable), players who aren't interested in playing for a team that isn't their own nation, players who aren't willing to give up T20 wealth for the sake of a collective group of nations, and international structures that give them no assistance other than keeping them treading water above the Associates (many of whom could beat them on a good day).

Soon, the West Indies will be no more. This seems inevitable. The question is simply whether it will happen by action, or by default. The former involves their performances collapsing to such a point that the ICC will have no choice but to prevent them from playing Test cricket, as they did with Zimbabwe, which will almost inevitably spill over into the breaking apart of the WICB. The latter will happen if cricket becomes an Olympic sport. There can be no West Indies team in the Olympics. Each nation within the WICB will be forced to compete on their own – if they can qualify at all. Should the international results continue to head south, it would not be that surprising if the collective boards decide to make this a permanent state of affairs.

The question then is what happens to these teams within the ICC. How strong would they be? Would they only be on Associate level?

It is difficult to imagine any of the individual nations within the Windward or Leeward Islands being able to put together a team that would satisfy the current ICC requirements for a full member nation, so the question is essentially being asked of four nations: Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana. Here's how these teams may look at full strength if they were going to play tomorrow.

Barbados

Kraigg Braithwaite

Dwayne Smith

Jonathon Carter

Shane Dowrich

Carlos Braithwaite

Shai Hope+

Jason Holder

Ashley Nurse

Kemar Roach

Sulieman Benn

Fidel Edwards

Guyana

Rajendra Chandrika

Assad Fudadin

Leon Johnson

Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Vishaul Singh

Narsingh Deonarine

Chris Barnwell

Anthony Bramble+

Steven Jacobs

Veersammy Permaul

Devendra Bishoo

Jamaica

Chris Gayle

Kirk Edwards

Jermaine Blackwood

Marlon Samuels

Andre Russell

Carlton Baugh

Chadwick Walton+

David Bernard

Jerome Taylor

Nikita Miller

Sheldon Cottrell

Trinidad and Tobago

Kyle Hope

Lendl Simmons

Darren Bravo

Jason Mohammed

Dwayne Bravo

Yannick Ottley

Denesh Ramdin+

Rayad Emrit

Imran Khan

Ravi Rampaul

Shannon Gabriel

Each of these teams has its own strengths and weaknesses. Jamaica is essentially a Test team, with a relatively strong batting line-up, though the bowling is unimpressive. Barbados is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with good bowlers along with more all-rounders, though the weakness of their batting leaves them looking more like a top Associate nation. Trinidad and Tobago is full of experience, both at international and domestic level, but lacks top order batting and significant fast bowling, making them seem like a truly pieced together Associate team. But that is nothing compared to Guyana, whose pace bowling options are essentially non-existent, with their three frontline bowlers being spinners (albeit with the variety of off, leg and left arm orthodox spin).

These teams are at least capable. The question is whether playing for their own nation will spur them on to greater things, playing with more pride and showing more on the field than they have in their careers so far. Furthermore, will this properly spur on the next generation, knowing that they will play for their own countries? If so, then this is something worth doing. Let us hope the cricket boards of these nations are prepared for the inevitable.

Cricket Australia XI - almost a good idea

Cricket Australia's decision to relegate the domestic one day tournament to little more than a pre-season competition has had some upsides. Getting domestic cricket back on free-to-air is one, but the idea with the most potential is that it creates space for more teams to enter the competition. Because all the teams are in the same city for a few weeks, the travel costs are lessened, and every team can play games every few days. Because CA wants to have each team play six games, rather than five, in previous seasons each team would have to play another twice instead of once. In light of this, 2015 saw a seventh team introduced: the Cricket Australia XI.

You would expect such a team to be a best-of-the-rest squad, a group of players which didn't quite make it into their respective state teams for the tournament but are still good enough to get a spot. Along with these players you could also throw in a few young tyros, so they can gain some experience from players who have been around the traps, and so they can put their talents in front of selectors and the watching public. 

Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Just as the reserves competition was wrecked by turning it into the 'Futures League' and promoting young players before they were ready, so it was with the CA XI, which consisted only of players aged 23 and under who did not make their state squads. To be fair, some players that didn't end up playing were only pushed out of their state squads because of the cancelled tour of Bangladesh, but there is hardly a shortage of potential veterans and fringe players who could have been called up, in a similar vein to the old Unicorns team that once played in the English domestic competition. This change also strengthened the CA XI squad, as some good young players (such as Marcus Harris and Jimmy Peirson) were dropped from their state squads and could still qualify for the youth team. But really, this is how the teams should've been in the first place, as cramming in a tour of Bangladesh just before the home summer felt like it was done out of obligation than desire.

The changes also weren't enough. As it was, the CA XI were absolutely demolished, winning only one match (by a mere three runs) against Tasmania on a low, slow surface. This was following the biggest ever defeats in terms of runs, and then in terms of balls remaining, which happened against New South Wales and Victoria respectively. Their remaining opponents also remained mostly untroubled, leaving the CA XI with a rather lopsided results card, and few encouraging signs for their players, while leaving us spectators wondering what the point of it all was.

This was, like with the Futures League, the brainchild of Greg Chappell, whose obsession with youth is putting actual development and stability of the game at risk. It would actually do a world of good if state players were put up against players of experience and quality who were pushing for their spots and just missed out - so they can be reminded of the standards required - and for those select few young players to gain as much experience as they can in the abbreviated tournament. Imagine throwing Ben Rohrer, David Hussey, Jon Wells, Josh Lalor, Fawad Ahmed and Nathan Hauritz into the squad. Would it make them world-beaters? By no means. But would they be more competitive? Absolutely.

This is not the only potential solution, either, if CA was willing to look beyond our shores. There are two Associate nations, one of which is particularly nearby, who have One Day International status. They don't get to play many games, and could do with some experience. Why not have them join in the tournament? Papua New Guinea already plays in the SACA Premier League, which finished before the Matador Cup begins, so transport is hardly a massive issue, while their First Class competition only begun after the final. Hong Kong is even more cricket starved and, although further away, would be a worthwhile addition. It may also be worth considering an ACT/Country NSW team, at least for the Cup, to account for the disparity of talent coming out of that state. Having said that, doing such a thing could give other states the belief they can relax their standards, knowing they will remain unpunished off the field because the best performing state has been split in two.

In any case, all of these are better alternatives than what we were given. The one day competition is already somewhat of an afterthought for Cricket Australia, but that does not mean it deserves to be treated with such a poorly thought out idea.

The David to the Ashes' Goliath

There are currently two international cricket series going on that stand at opposite ends of the cricketing spectrum. On the one hand, the old rivals of England and Australia are playing each other for the Ashes. On the other hand, the Twenty20 World Cup Qualifiers are being played between eligible Associate nations. I am an Australian with a love of Test cricket. Surely it is clear which of the two I am more interested in?

Yes, it's the Qualifiers. Why is this?

It certainly isn't out of love for T20, a format designed to be consumed and forgotten. It's more a matter of principle. The Ashes are a behemoth, towering over all else in the two competing nations. As a result, the two respective boards have sought, of late, to milk them to the utmost extent. This also extends to non-Ashes format, like ODIs. England has been on FTA television in Australia quite possibly every year since at least 2010. The regularity of the contest has robbed it of feeling special, while the amount of matches these two nations play every year also means that there doesn't seem to be any context to them.

There is a saving grace, in that it is still Test cricket on free-to-air television, and thus I will put it on, but normally I would also be following the news closely before, during and after the series. Not so in this case. I couldn't even bring myself to read the Cricinfo preview for the first Test.

On the other hand, we have the qualifiers. I repeat, I have no love for T20. The idea of a T20 World Cup does not fill me with excitement, or, really, any interest for the cricket that will be on show. But the teams competing in these games aren't Australia or England. They are Nepal and Jersey, Oman and Papua New Guinea. These are teams that are being deliberately ignored by the all powerful cricket administrators from the big countries. I want to see these teams playing cricket however I can, and the those in charge keep taking those opportunities away.

If you're not a big full member, you don't get wall to wall media coverage. In fact, you barely get any coverage at all, only occasionally crossing orbit with the mainstream media when a World Cup comes around, and even then generally only when one of your matches is against a full member and something interesting happens (generally against you, instead of by you). Furthermore, even if there was wall to wall coverage, there wouldn't be much to cover. The amount of matches these teams play is paltry, matching the funding they receive. As a result, the matches they play in the far flung reaches of the world are often covered only by volunteers who fly out to these places, relying on a small income or donations to do so. They do this not for a great mass of people, but for the most dedicated of cricket fans, those of us who want more teams playing more cricket across the world because we love the sport and think that these nations have something to offer.

But now, even this is being taken away. The ICC, in their wisdom, has sold off the ball-by-ball commentary rights to a group that does the commentary by automaton. This commentary is only available on the ICC's website. Here's a piece of commentary that I took from today's match between Canada and Scotland:

R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single

R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single

R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single

R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single

R Taylor to N Dhaliwal, no run. He goes hard at the ball, but straight to the fielder

R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single

How enthralling!

If the ICC genuinely believes that this is adequate for ball-by-ball text coverage, then they do not know what they are doing. Previously, ball-by-ball was provided almost always by CricketEurope, and also from time to time by Cricinfo. These sites know how to do ball by ball, because they use people to do them, and they describe what is happening with each ball so that those reading can get imagine how it looked. The five singles in the above over could've all gone to the same fielder for all I know. There may have been an edge, a beautiful shot that went straight to a fielder, and dubious shot that they scrounged a single out of. We'll never know, because they don't tell us.

More likely is that they don't care. Opta, the group that does this commentary, has bought the rights. The ICC gets views on its website from those who are dedicated enough to follow, and also money from Opta buying the rights. What do they need CricketEurope for?

Well, CE is still providing updates, and posts full commentary at the end of the match for those that want to read it. But it isn't the same as having it live, and it's hard to believe the ICC is receiving much income from Opta for this. That they should still choose to pick this ordinary service over the work of volunteers for a set of matches they clearly aren't interested in anyway speaks volumes about those in charge. It is good that those beneath them still care enough about cricket to let CE do what they can, as otherwise Associate cricket may as well not exist.

Book review - Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts

There's something about a World Cup that makes people look outside of their own time. Some may look back, reminiscing about past glories (especially for Australians) or past failures (especially for Englishmen). Some may look forward, wondering how the next World Cup might look, what should be changed, will it be any good?

It seems that this World Cup has tried to combine the two. There has been much written about the decision to turn the 2019 World Cup into an exclusive, ten team affair. The major justification used for it is that the best World Cup was supposedly held in 1992, and had a similar format to the one proposed.

It is with this background that Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts has been written. It is, as far as I'm aware, the first book ever to focus on a variety of national teams that don't play Test cricket, although there are a smattering of books on specific nations. It's primarily the work of Tim Wigmore, a prolific freelance writer whose work on Associate cricket over recent years has been outstanding, and Peter Miller, another freelancer, best known for his cricket podcast. There also contributions from Tim Brooks, Sahil Dutta, and the ubiquitous Gideon Haigh (which is by no means a bad thing).

The book contains, despite the name, ten chapters (like any second XI it's missing one, ho ho ho). There are four parts to the book: four chapters on the World Cup associates (Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland, United Arab Emirates), two chapters on Associates that have since lost ODI status (Kenya, Netherlands), two chapters on rising Associates with strong homegrown talent (Nepal, Papua New Guinea), and two chapters on the potential gold mines (China, United States).

It's difficult to argue with the selections. While there are other teams that undoubtedly have stories worth telling - Canada and Bermuda have both fallen from grace in their own ways, while Hong Kong is the only current ODI nation without a chapter - these countries offer great variety. Each have their own unique stories to tell. 

Cricket in Ireland took far too long to get to the point it is now. Afghanistan is the great romantic story. Kenya is a sorry tale of corruption. The Netherlands is a sorry tale of a couple of bad days ruining the near future. The United States has managed to mangle its future countless times.

Very quickly, though, a common theme becomes apparent: development of the game in these outposts is clearly being hindered by the way the ICC and the full member nations are treating them. Why has Ireland played so few full members? Why has the Netherlands lost 'ODI status' and, with it, had years of hard work undone? Why was Kenya abandoned as soon as the 2003 World Cup was over? Why is Nepal not receiving any assistance from its neighbours? Why is the ICC so insistent on not joining the IOC?

The answer to all these questions seem to come down to the short-sightedness of the current administrators, who are insistent on maximising revenues gathered amongst themselves (something they are failing at too).

Each chapter does well to tell the tale of cricket in that country, charting the history of the game from its beginning to the modern day. Particular highlights are Wigmore's chapters on Ireland and Kenya, and Dutta's on China. Dutta paints a wonderful picture of the state of the game in a country where even the most basic concepts are completely foreign. The reproduction of Haigh's essay on cricket in PNG could be seen as disappointing, but it's a thoroughly readable piece. The UAE chapter is slightly short, but at the same time doesn't leave the sense that much is being left unsaid.

The overall tone is factual, without being dull; serious, without being morose; teaching, without being preachy; and with elements of levity, without being condescending. It's a tough balancing act, but it's done well.

Miller deserves kudos for his efforts to get some words out of Sultan Zarawani, immortalised in cricket history as the man who faced Allan Donald in a hat. Wigmore likewise for the less glorious find of Maurice Odumbe, accused and banned on account of corruption, who to this day protests his innocence. Haigh's tale contains a number of characters, the best of whom is the scene-stealing Luke, and none of whom you'd expect to meet in an essay on, say, the ECB.

Above all, Second XI is a great introduction into the world of Associate and Affiliate cricket. Anyone who enjoys cricket should read this book, as it will open up a world of vivid colours that contrast remarkably with the increasingly monochrome world of full member nations.

One quote summed up the latter best, whether in or out of context: "It makes no financial sense." - Giles Clarke, ECB.

Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts is out now. You can buy it here.