Now that the heady euphoria of our World T20 victories is waning, West Indians might be inclined to be more realistic about the state of WI cricket.
I've always liked Daren Sammy–he is, well, likeable, was a steady limited-overs bowler and, like Chris Gayle, he would play an explosive innings for the West Indies once in every ten games.
When I first read Mark Nicholas' statement that the West Indies were "short on brains but have IPL history in their ranks," I thought it was fair commentary. How many times have we not lamented the brainless cricket played by the West Indies, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Over the years, I have written many articles on the theme, among them "Brilliant batting, brainless cricket", "Gutted by gutless Windies" and "Poor cricket, not rain, cost West Indies".
Many others have expressed similar sentiments. It does not mean that we lack physical brains or that, once in a while, we don't play smart cricket. But, as a loyal West Indian fan, more often than not, I wish we could bat, bowl, run and field more intelligently.
Of course, "brainless cricket" and "short of brains" are metaphors, not meant to imply lack of physical brains. But Sammy's response to Nicholas made you wonder. "How could you describe people with no brains? Even animals have brains... God don't love the ugly, and we are very wonderful and beautifully made."
Huh? It was almost as if Sammy was trying to prove Nicholas right. Sammy would have been so much classier and effective had he made a passing reference like "Imagine what we could do if we weren't short of brains" or even "Yea, talk nah, Mark."
Anyone who has seen West Indies play Test and 50-over cricket over the last many years cannot fail to appreciate that Nicholas' comment was justifiable. I mean, we get beaten in Tests by huge margins inside three days and could not even qualify for the ICC Champions Trophy 2017.
As one person commented on ESPNCricinfo, "People are easily offended these days. Saying 'short of brains' is not a literal description, but a criticism of some of the recent play of the team, especially in longer formats, which seemed bereft of intelligent ideas or enthusiasm." And another: "No application, no grit–nothing."
Now, had Carlos Brathwaite not produced his last-over pyrotechnics to win the World Cup, much would have been made of the brainless batting of our "power-hitters" in the final, not to mention in the loss to Afghanistan. Nicholas would have been shown to be right rather than feeling compelled to apologise.
Just imagine, in the final, extras (9) made more runs that our top five "power-hitters" combined: Johnson Charles (1), Gayle (4), Lendl Simmons (0), Andre Russell (1) and Sammy (2). All got out with poor shot selection when playing with "a bit of brain" would have been more appropriate. But, hey, we won, so that major weakness goes almost unnoticed.
In summary, while I would agree that Nicholas could have been more diplomatic in his choice of words (the West Indies are "not the most tactically astute," perhaps?), one could hardly find fault with the sentiments implied. There is ample evidence to support him.
Noel Kalicharan
