In the aftermath of Dave Cameron
AFTER SIX years of leadership, Dave Cameron appeared shocked by his emphatic 8-4 defeat by Ricky Skerritt for the presidency of Cricket West Indies. In his conception, he was betrayed by at least one of the territorial cricket boards that had promised him its two votes, assuring of at least six votes.
Conventional wisdom now is that Mr Cameron was just too controversial to be retained. He had fights on too many fronts and a management style that was imperious and authoritarian, allegedly exemplified by the hiring earlier this year of Richard Pybus as interim coach of the West Indies men’s team. Regional governments felt he was obdurate and that he misapprehended their role in sustaining the game in the Caribbean, in his assertion of the independence of Cricket West Indies. And senior players, earlier in his tenure, accused him of unilateralism in his approach to wage negotiations and income-sharing.
The observations may be true. But these were not mere character flaws. They were symptoms of a philosophy/ideology to which Mr Cameron, though not necessarily in conscious awareness, adhered – the end of history. That is, the past mattered as something to know, but not necessarily to be embraced as a signal light to the future. In that sense, the cosmology of West Indian cricket didn’t matter.
In other words, Dave Cameron brought a
laissez-faire conception to West Indies cricket, or to paraphrase Rex Nettleford, the minstrelisation of the game, epitomised by his support of the restructuring of the global oversight of the game in a system that placed its big economic powers at the centre and the West Indies at the periphery of decision-making. More important to cricket, the West Indies was guaranteed money. Concept of self mattered less. In that respect, Mr Cameron was not so different from the senior players with whom he quarrelled over salaries and the sharing of income with players at the lower tier of the game, which contributed to a stand-off with the Test team and their abandonment of the 2014 tour of India.
Mr Skerritt, hopefully, has, and we believe he does, a better conception of his history and an appreciation of cosmological context of West Indies cricket. But he must also appreciate the limits of history.
TERRITORIAL FRANCHISE ARRANGEMENT
While pursuing new glories for West Indies cricket, it can’t be attempted merely through the past, unmindful of the environment of the present. Mr Skerritt, therefore, should not be about undoing everything done by Mr Cameron. Some were positive. Like, for instance, the territorial franchise arrangement that used money, previously shared between a handful of elite Test players, to provide contracts to scores of players at the lower rung of the game. This should lead to a professionalism of the sport, with outcomes and a wider pool of quality players. That investment must now be monitored for its returns, and adjustment made, if required.
The reopening of the High Performance Centre as an academy that shares with young players the history, historiography and sociology of West Indies cricket should be pursued. It is unfortunate that it faltered.
We are not clear where Mr Skerritt stands on governance arrangements for West Indies cricket, including whether it is indeed new structures, as some insist. Mr Skerritt has been fulsome only on his opposition to an executive presidency, which he believed to have been Mr Cameron’s aim, and his support for term limits for presidents.
Dave Cameron was indeed clumsy and crass in his resistance, but he was right to be wary of government encroachment, likely leading to their takeover of cricket. He was right, too, to be against unwieldy, bureaucratic structures such as was proposed in the Patterson Report authored by the former Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson. Of course, Cricket West Indies must have a healthy relationship and mechanisms for partnering with Caribbean governments, which Mr Skerritt is capable of achieving. But there must be red lines.