Readers Response

Dear Editor:
The West Indies selectors came up with a squad for the current series against Pakistan and their three most senior batsmen couldn't find a place in the team. Ernest Hilaire, responded to the public outcry by stating, "We are rebuilding a new team for the future". And the Chairman of the selectors, Guyanese Clyde Butts indicated that the goal is to gather "a mixture of players who will take us through the next five to ten years.
Are these two gentlemen speaking the same language? Mr. Hilaire if we are rebuilding a team for the future, are you saying that the discarded senior players have no place in the rebuilding process, because of a poor World Cup?
Mr. Chairman of Selectors, what mixture are you actually talking about? A "new look team" without the most successful batsmen? We are rebuilding without Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan. These gentlemen can make any other international team in the world except the West Indies's "new look team", yet the coach, Mr. Otis Gibson is throwing his support behind a captain, Darren Sammy who cannot make any other international team in the world purely on merit.
If Sarwan is too old at age 30, what are we doing with Marlon Samuels? The ICC forced the hands of WICB to ban this individual for two years after his alleged involvement with the Indian bookie, now he is a part of the new youthful team for the future.
This is the same Samuels who turned down the WICB offer to replace Dwayne Bravo at the recently concluded Cricket World Cup. We are also replacing, arguably, the best wicket keeper in the West Indies, Denesh Ramdin with the "youthful" Carlton Baugh who was tried many times over in the past. Is this what Mr. Butts and company calls rebuilding for the future with youths? Or is it the one size can't fit all ideology?
Gayle, the saga boy, is so out of favour that he had not even been invited to do a fitness test. Is it because there were no "fruitful discussions" about retainer contracts between him and the WICB, as there were with Pollard and Bravo?
Why were Pollard and Bravo relieved of their duties to represent West Indies in the current Pakistan tour for the more lucrative IPL and it was a problem to relieve Gayle, even though the selectors didn't find favour with him? Is this double standard? Different strokes for different folks; this is called discrimination.
Was Sarwan's omission based on his World Cup performance or the recent rumors of ICC's investigation, or because he is now the Secretary of WIPA? I know it was not very wise for him to be involved with WIPA administration, while still an active player of the West Indies, but this should not be a factor for the selectors.
What has happened to the "rock" called Chanderpaul? Has he been now tossed into the ocean like a pebble? This is a man who was carrying the West Indies batting on his shoulders for a decade or so, in both forms of the game, but because of a dismal World Cup performance he is now dropped.
We cannot blame the "Tiger" for his World Cup performance, since Otis Gibson and the captain chose to put him to bat up and down the order, eventually dropping him for two matches leading up to the semifinals.
How do you want him to regain form? By carrying out drinks for the boys? If West Indies is looking to rebuild after the mediocre showing at the recent World Cup, they can start by appointing a captain who can make the team on purely merit.
This brings back memories of the way Guyanese great cricketers were treated by the WICB in the past.
One can recall Alvin Kallicharran who captained the West Indies in the absence of some senior players who had turned their backs on the West Indies when they chose to go for the lucrative Kerry Packer series.
When the senior players returned Kallicharran was dropped by the WICB selectors when he was in the prime of his career, he would never wear the West Indies colours again.
I would like to appeal to all Guyanese to rally behind our cricketing heroes and let the Chairman of WICB selectors, Guyanese Clyde Butts, come up with some answers that makes sense to the public. He keeps hiding behind the CEO Ernest Hilaire for response to questions that were directed to him by the Honorable Minister of Sports of Guyana.
Mr. Butts do you really select the team or just sign off on the final team? I really thought that the panel of selectors operates independently and then get the board to sign off on the final team.
It seems as though I am wrong. It is my opinion that Mr. Butts is just toeing the line and trying to solidify his position as Chairman of selectors by just being a "yes" man.
The players are best advised to take their training seriously, to perform exceptionally well at the regional level and then they can demand their worth at the very top of the spectrum. In other words let your performance speak for you. In this case there is very little room for excuses.
In closing, I would not be surprised if the game in Guyana is watched by an empty stadium. It's time Guyanese and their cricketers are respected for their contributions and performance in West Indies cricket.
Dr. Harry Singh via email

May 4, 2011 issue
Readers' Response
ACDA's logic on race-based voting is inherently flawed
Dear Editor: Elections are important because it is the people that speak at election. The need for shared governance, in the context of Guyana, is often looked at from a race point of view. The general election is the only mechanisms through which the people select their representation. If the general elections are abandoned, and all the parties agree to form a new government, this country will face a political gridlock, and the decision making will be thwarted in all directions. There will be no smooth management of this country. Power sharing will never work, simply because all the presidential candidates want to be the president, and this cannot happen. From the futile attempts at forming a coalition party, the most recent being the Joint Opposition Political Parties (JOPP), it is clear that this is no solution. The ACDA people are of the belief that Guyanese vote for their parties on the basis of race. Based on their own assumption, I will logically deduce that they will never win an election. The arithmetic of Guyana's demographics supports ACDA's position. ACDA's insistence on power sharing testifies to this. They are aware that if as they claim, people only vote on the basis on race, then the PPP will win the next election, since the last census report confirmed that there is a greater number of Indians to Africans in Guyana. Can ACDA show that its assumption that people only vote based on race is true? And what is the basis for determining whether an individual's vote is made on the grounds of race? We cannot logically or correctly deduce that persons are inherently racially biased in their vote to a political party that reflects their ethnic grouping. This was the basis for Tacuma Ogunseye's 'riot act'. What constituency does Ogunseye's have? Is ACDA supported by a large portion of this nation's citizenry? Will securing political office through back-door entry help to foster political or social progress in Guyana? As ridiculous as this accusation of race voting is, they insist upon it. Therefore, I must ask that they prove it. They are making this assumption; so surely, they can provide the evidence which proves that this is indeed the case. I am not aware that ACDA has an official political party, but I can assume that since the PNC is Guyana's alleged 'black' party, it is this party that ACDA is hoping to incorporate into the political office through power sharing. I think that it is a serious error to conclude that ethnicity is the sole determinant for voting choice. There are variables other than ethnicity that determine a person's voting choice. So, I will add that ACDA's logic is seriously misleading. Lancelot Hughes via email
Questions for Windies selectors and administration
Dear Editor: The West Indies selectors came up with a squad for the current series against Pakistan and their three most senior batsmen couldn't find a place in the team. Ernest Hilaire, responded to the public outcry by stating, "We are rebuilding a new team for the future". And the Chairman of the selectors, Guyanese Clyde Butts indicated that the goal is to gather "a mixture of players who will take us through the next five to ten years. Are these two gentlemen speaking the same language? Mr. Hilaire if we are rebuilding a team for the future, are you saying that the discarded senior players have no place in the rebuilding process, because of a poor World Cup? Mr. Chairman of Selectors, what mixture are you actually talking about? A "new look team" without the most successful batsmen? We are rebuilding without Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan. These gentlemen can make any other international team in the world except the West Indies's "new look team", yet the coach, Mr. Otis Gibson is throwing his support behind a captain, Darren Sammy who cannot make any other international team in the world purely on merit. If Sarwan is too old at age 30, what are we doing with Marlon Samuels? The ICC forced the hands of WICB to ban this individual for two years after his alleged involvement with the Indian bookie, now he is a part of the new youthful team for the future. This is the same Samuels who turned down the WICB offer to replace Dwayne Bravo at the recently concluded Cricket World Cup. We are also replacing, arguably, the best wicket keeper in the West Indies, Denesh Ramdin with the "youthful" Carlton Baugh who was tried many times over in the past. Is this what Mr. Butts and company calls rebuilding for the future with youths? Or is it the one size can't fit all ideology? Gayle, the saga boy, is so out of favour that he had not even been invited to do a fitness test. Is it because there were no "fruitful discussions" about retainer contracts between him and the WICB, as there were with Pollard and Bravo? Why were Pollard and Bravo relieved of their duties to represent West Indies in the current Pakistan tour for the more lucrative IPL and it was a problem to relieve Gayle, even though the selectors didn't find favour with him? Is this double standard? Different strokes for different folks; this is called discrimination. Was Sarwan's omission based on his World Cup performance or the recent rumors of ICC's investigation, or because he is now the Secretary of WIPA? I know it was not very wise for him to be involved with WIPA administration, while still an active player of the West Indies, but this should not be a factor for the selectors. What has happened to the "rock" called Chanderpaul? Has he been now tossed into the ocean like a pebble? This is a man who was carrying the West Indies batting on his shoulders for a decade or so, in both forms of the game, but because of a dismal World Cup performance he is now dropped. We cannot blame the "Tiger" for his World Cup performance, since Otis Gibson and the captain chose to put him to bat up and down the order, eventually dropping him for two matches leading up to the semifinals. How do you want him to regain form? By carrying out drinks for the boys? If West Indies is looking to rebuild after the mediocre showing at the recent World Cup, they can start by appointing a captain who can make the team on purely merit. This brings back memories of the way Guyanese great cricketers were treated by the WICB in the past. One can recall Alvin Kallicharran who captained the West Indies in the absence of some senior players who had turned their backs on the West Indies when they chose to go for the lucrative Kerry Packer series. When the senior players returned Kallicharran was dropped by the WICB selectors when he was in the prime of his career, he would never wear the West Indies colours again. I would like to appeal to all Guyanese to rally behind our cricketing heroes and let the Chairman of WICB selectors, Guyanese Clyde Butts, come up with some answers that makes sense to the public. He keeps hiding behind the CEO Ernest Hilaire for response to questions that were directed to him by the Honorable Minister of Sports of Guyana. Mr. Butts do you really select the team or just sign off on the final team? I really thought that the panel of selectors operates independently and then get the board to sign off on the final team. It seems as though I am wrong. It is my opinion that Mr. Butts is just toeing the line and trying to solidify his position as Chairman of selectors by just being a "yes" man. The players are best advised to take their training seriously, to perform exceptionally well at the regional level and then they can demand their worth at the very top of the spectrum. In other words let your performance speak for you. In this case there is very little room for excuses. In closing, I would not be surprised if the game in Guyana is watched by an empty stadium. It's time Guyanese and their cricketers are respected for their contributions and performance in West Indies cricket. Dr. Harry Singh via email
< Greater Toronto	Editorial & Views >