NOW THAT Phil Simmons has revealed what he considered to be outside interference in the selection of recent West Indies teams, it makes me wonder if this alleged behaviour has been the norm through the years.
If so, he will have to be considered a hero for daring to be so forthright when he could have been fired for the stance he took. It could be a game-changer going forward in how the selection process is managed. A lot could change if the type of manipulation is true.
The selectors must be left to do their job to the best of their ability. If they were confirmed in their posts just to be puppets of those who approved them, it would be counterproductive to what the duties of a selector really are.
First and foremost, he has to be independent in making his choices, which should be based on performance and meritocracy. A selector cannot be seen to be surrendering his manhood by allowing his superiors to run roughshod over him by being forced to accept a squad he isn’t happy with.
If he buckles to intimidation in any form, it means that he has allowed himself to become a cohort or accomplice of a system that could compromise the future of deserving players and, equally important, put himself at odds with his conscience and his professionalism, by extension.
That Simmons spoke out and put his job on the line is a strong indication that he doesn’t want to be part of a questionable culture in which others want to micromanage the work he is qualified to do.
In any event, how can a professional feel performing in the role of a lame duck?
The good thing about Simmons’ revelations is that he was mindful to document the instances when and where he thought there were attempts by outside elements to force the hands of the selectors when they had already reached their conclusions about the players they wanted in the squad and those they felt didn’t make the cut.
He also called names of those who allegedly tried to overturn certain decisions after teams were selected. I am sure there’s likely to be an internal investigation by the West Indies Cricket Board into how Simmons’ submissions were leaked to the media.
Red herring
While that may be expected, I think it is secondary to the charges that he highlighted. It may also be used as a red herring not to accept any responsibility for alleged interference in team selection, when the critical point is to prove to the public that the selectors are given a free hand in choosing the team they want and that there are no dark shadows calling the tune from behind the scenes.
As I see it, the board’s duty is simply to ratify the selectors’ decisions because they were appointed based on their knowledge of the game and their credibility. Any semblance of unfair horse-trading after teams have been selected is wrong and out of place.
I hope that the board goes through with its promise to investigate Simmons’ claims of outside interference. This was one of the terms agreed by both sides when his suspension for what was seen as bringing tales out of school was lifted. The probability of failing to follow through in this regard is very real, because it is very much part of our cultural make-up to leave wounds open until they fester and become a serious and terminal threat to governance.
In the circumstances, though, it is imperative that an independent panel be recruited to do the investigation. It won’t be fair or seen as transparent by right-thinking people if any member of the board or any high-ranking employee participates in a process to decipher if there’s any truth in the allegations.
In retrospect, Simmons has had his trial, in which his legal team put up a strong argument for his reinstatement and succeeded. The next step is to extinguish the magnitude of cricket politics which appears to be self-serving and mercenary and is still working against the revival of West Indies cricket at all levels.
• Andi Thornhill is an experienced, award-winning sports journalist and media consultant. Email andithornhill1@gmail.com.