Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Feb 17, 2014 Letters
Dear Editor,
I wish to join the other irate supporters in bemoaning the non-selection of a Guyanese in the West Indies squad which was recently named to play Ireland. Not that I am saying that there should be a feeling of entitlement by any Caribbean territory or that there should be an equitable distribution of players from across the Caribbean in the West Indies team.
However, if selection is contingent upon the performance in the regional tournament, then we should have had at least one player selected in that squad.
In the just concluded Nagico series, it seemed as though Sarwan was rekindling his love affair for batting so reminiscent of the batsman that he once was; in the process accumulated 151 runs at a respectable average. His performance even caused Ian Bishops to fuel cautious optimism of donning the West Indies colors again with time.
After all, considering the manner of West Indies’ fragile batting coupled with inexperience and that fact that the Chanderpaul will have to bring the curtains down on an illustrious career, West Indies can certainly utilize the services of Sarwan for a few more years.
A scrutinizing glance at other teams around the world will reveal that older and experienced players are retained to facilitate the transition process for younger and inexperienced players who are still cutting teeth at the international level. One looks at Pakistan and they will see that Misbah has not been disposed of.
Although, Kallis has retired from test cricket, South Africa is optimistic that he will be available in color clothing. Also Australia have named both Brad Hogg and Brad Hodge in their 2015 world cup T20 team. The former is over forty years of age and the latter is hovering over forty.
Even Kenya, an associate nation brought out veteran Steve Tikolo from retirement to enhance their chances of a world cup berth. Yet on the obverse side of the coin with West Indies slipping into the abyss of the second tier at break neck speed, the prideful and egotistical West Indies selectors have Chanderpaul languishing despite the fact that he continues to churn out runs for Guyana.
Nonetheless, the greatest disappointment was the failure of the selectors to afford Ransford Beaton an opportunity to get a feel of international cricket against a weaker nation, after all his credentials are well documented. In a cricinfo article the venerable Tony Coizer described Beaton as ‘’distinctly rapid’’; there is no newsflash there.
And this sentiment was also echoed by Ian Bishops and Jeffery Dujon both of whom also felt that a start against Ireland would have been a perfect spring board. Prior to the semi-final game he was the joint leading wicket taker in the tournament. He even turned out a man of the match performance which propelled his team to the semi-final by ensuring that there were no heroics from the Windward Islands, which could have eventually caused the Jamaica game to be more than just academic interest.
However, as mind boggling as it is, the selectors have defied analysis and inexplicably selected Cummins ahead of Beaton. Although Cummins is undeniably rapid as well, he did not play the Nagico tournament and on that pretext should not have found favors with the selectors this time around. And so the rhetorical question is, what is the purpose of the regional tournament is if it would not be used as a yardstick to select your best team.
Raul Khan
Where is the BETTER MANAGEMENT/RENEGOTIATION OF THE OIL CONTRACTS you promised Jagdeo?
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]