When someone approached me berating a young Saint Lucian lawyer who is alleged to have run afoul of the law, I promptly shut him up with the words: “We ought not to be quick to judge, because it demeans us all. Besides, gloating over the weaknesses of others is uncharitable.” I might have kept the particular recollection to myself but for the way we judge our West Indian cricketers, especially in relation the change of name from St. Lucia Stars to St. Lucia Zouks.
The timing of the disclosure of the return to the St. Lucia Zouks after a mild flirtation with the other name is neither here nor there. In naming things of national import, such as sports teams, we ought to bear in mind the island’s history, its icons, its heroes. I believe our national sports teams ought to be named after the fighting Brigands who shed their blood defending freedom. The name returned to me after the inclusion of the central monument in the new Soufriere town square.
Those who criticized the poor performances of the West Indies cricket teams over the last few years must come to terms with at least one crucial issue: international cricket teams were motivated to defeat one team and one team only: the West Indies team. This determination did not stem from hatred, or racism as a younger generation may be tempted to surmise. No! The reason the West Indies team was targeted was because its cricketers at the time were the best in every department of the game. In the era of Holding, Roberts, Croft, Garner, Marshall, accompanied by Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd, Murray and company, the game was taken to a level of fun and professionalism that few spectators had ever experienced. And that came after the three W’s plus Sobers and Kanhai had set a new standard of batsmanship.
Aspiring young cricketers, whether in England, Australia, India or Pakistan, wanted to play like the above-named West Indians. Following Hall and Griffith, the West Indies pace foursome were so intimidating that the ICC changed the rules of the game to make more than two bouncers per over illegal. Today, the past success of West Indies cricket may be measured by the continued determination of the teams that emulate them.
In this tough competitive world of international sports, the best West Indies cricketers never earned as much as run-of-the-mill players earn today. I still consider Sir Garfield Sobers the greatest cricketer who ever walked the face of the earth. In all his playing days he probably was paid a mere fraction of what certain cricketers, who would not stand in Sir Garfield’s shoes, earn in one year. I count as one of my many blessings that I saw Sir Garfield play in both inter-colonial cricket matches representing his native Barbados against Trinidad, Jamaica and Guyana, and in test matches in Barbados and Trinidad against England, Pakistan and Australia.
There can be little doubt that a certain amount of insularity has inserted itself into West Indies cricket since the departure from the game of greats such as Sir Frank Worrell, Sir Garfield Sobers, Clive Lloyd and Sir Vivian Richards. That may be one reason for the decline of West Indies cricket. The fact remains that the West Indies comprises a smaller population than other cricketing nations. Besides, young West Indies sportsmen are increasingly drawn into other international sports such as basketball, tennis and athletics, thereby decreasing the pool of talent available to West Indies cricket selectors.
Time marches on, and change is the only constant in life. The one thing that never changes is the fact that success is still measured by the practice hours put in by those who wish to excel. There is no substitute for training and hard work. Indeed, it has been observed that it takes at least ten thousand hours of practice before a person can achieve competence in the playing of a musical instrument. I would not be surprised if it takes the same time, or more, to play the type of cricket shots associated with Sobers and Richards in their time, now being emulated by Virat Kohli of India.
A caring and compassionate people (I have deliberately not said Christian), aware of the great thinkers in history, would hesitate before criticizing anyone, including lawyers and others whom we expect to set an example for the next generation. The manner in which we observe and criticize is also important. If we cannot offer alternative behaviours, are we any better than the hypocrites who so often threaten to cast the first stone at fellow sinners? To say that each is equally wrong is a cop-out. The person doing the criticism has a moral duty to improve the status quo. We ought, therefore, to be certain that we handle criticisms (and disclosures) with care and appropriate deference.
I wish I could say this in stronger language, but my own sinful ways would not allow me to cast that first stone at the West Indies cricket team or against the name change from St. Lucia Stars to St. Lucia Zouks, especially as I’ve made my preferred name—The Saint Lucia Brigands—clear to one and all. And that name should apply to more than just cricket.
