Congratulations are in order for Sagicor UWI on retaining the Sagicor General Twenty20 crown and winning another local cricket title.
Without wanting to discredit UWI or even bemoan the standard of cricket, sometimes I wonder after witnessing how some of these matches unfold, whether it is not a case of the other teams losing, rather than UWI winning.
As much as I have admired his efforts to push the University of the West Indies’ (UWI) cricket brand and blend brawn with brain, I have occasionally had to admonish Sir Hilary Beckles for some of his cross-batted stroke-play.
The UWI Pro Vice-Chancellor and Cave Hill Campus principal’s obsession with cricket is evident but many times he has overstepped the crease with his hypothetical utterances, which should be no-balled.
Let’s examine the irony of Sir Hilary’s latest remarks when he expressed concern “about the process followed” by the Barbados Cricket Association’s (BCA) Complaints and Disputes Committee in awarding CGI Maple maximum points for a match against home team Carlton because of an unsuitable pitch. Those extra points resulted in Maple replacing Sagicor UWI as 2013 LIME Elite champions.
“We will be seeking legal opinion on the judicial process that led to this change and if in our assessment it has been fair and reasonable and in the best interest of cricket, we do nothing about it.”
“But if we find that there are issues that should be of concern to cricket in Barbados then we will take all the options available to us, because at the end of the day I believe that titles ought to be won on the field of play,” he further declared.
Now, Sir Hilary, let me stop you in your approach to the wicket before you bowl your next delivery – on the field of play – and not beyond the boundary.
Please respect and accept the BCA’s decision and allow Carlton, who were penalized to appeal against the judgment, as is their right.
It is not my intention to shatter your stumps, which you have exposed, with any yorker but have you forgotten how the same UWI got to be playing in the top league in the first place?
Was it due to winning “on the field of the play” or a clever piece of bowling which bowled over the then BCA president Tony Marshall and Board members inside the pavilion?
Was it “fair and reasonable and in the best interest of cricket” that while UWI were promoted without winning a single cup at the time, the much more successful Oran Bristol wasn’t afforded the same free ride and had to engage the law courts to earn their rightful promotion?
Were you fielding too far from the crease that you forgot that titles should be “won on the field” when UWI protested over umpiring decisions made by Martin Parris after Empire won the knockout title a few years ago?
Were you batting on the same pitch in 2010 as you are in this innings that you have now realized that titles should not be “allocated by meetings in boardrooms and by conversations between select groups of individuals?”
Certainly the ball was swinging differently when UWI protested over the ball used by their opponents when they were badly beaten on the field of play by St Catherine in a knockout semi-final.
Even after having that protest thrown out by the Complaints and Disputes Committee, did Sir Hilary feel the “best interest of cricket” was being served by appealing that decision and consequently stalling the final, which was never played?
Why didn’t Sir Hilary, in the “best interest of cricket” like Empire did recently by withdrawing their request for arbitration, allow the title to be won “on the field of play”?
Because of the length of time it took to hear UWI’s appeal and arrive at a resolution, why, Sir Hilary, didn’t you declare your team’s innings and tell all and sundry that it would’ve been “reasonable and fair” and “in the best interest of cricket” for the Guardian General Barbados Youth team, who had won their semi-final against LIME, to enjoy a once-in-a-lifetime privilege of playing in a prestigious Sagicor 50-over final and probably win a title “on the field of play.”
Did Sir Hilary “understand the importance of cricket to Barbados” and what it would’ve meant for “the culture of cricket in Barbados” to have Kraigg Brathwaite, Jason Holder, Shane Dowrich, Kyle Mayers, Roston Chase, Jomel Warrican and company, to be afforded a golden opportunity to create local cricketing history by winning the first ever title as teammates for the Barbados Youth?
Ever since their promotion to Division One cricket in 2006, UWI has had probably more matters which required legal intervention than any other team, spending thousands of dollars in legal fees.
And Sir Hilary is bowling on the right line and length when he states “the reason why the university has thrown its resources and its energy behind cricket . . . .”
But he should’ve bowled another over and reveal the quantum of those resources, and whether they exceed more than all the other clubs combined.
Maybe, Sir Hilary should also seek an opinion as to why opposing teams have repeatedly questioned the composition of UWI teams over the years and why some clubs have made protests regarding the legitimacy of certain players?
Even when the BCA, as the governing body for cricket in the country, has sought to address certain matters in relation to Member of Clubs and Composition of Teams, the UWI and its Student Guild have irritatingly voiced their dissatisfaction, unlike the Barbados Defence Force Sports Programme and the Barbados Youth, who are subjected to almost similar guidelines.
Whereas players graduate from the Barbados Youth and the BDFSP and go into the clubs, seven years after their controversial 2006 entry, some of the same “students” are still playing for the UWI.
Would Sir Hilary appeal to the umpires for obstruction if every decision he makes for the betterment of the Cave Hill Campus was questioned by the student body?
Maybe, the umpire would say Not Out!