The enigma that is Chris Gayle

[ChrisQ]

I'm sorry but I can't comprehend a player deliberately performing badly on purpose.

So what about spot fixers deliberating bowling no-balls? Or match fixers who by definition must perform badly if they want to ensure that particular team wins?

[SaintPowelly]

I think its been a mix up of communication, Im sure Gayle meant that the failings at the World Cup were a direct result of the WICB and not that he deliberately played badly.

[chandersgirl]

I would like to see the contract and the mins. of the meeting. There needs to be some transparency. Its not fair to judge from what either party say. I want proof. We can judge Gayle by his performances but the public dont know what goes on behind closed door.

[ChrisQ]

I think its been a mix up of communication, Im sure Gayle meant that the failings at the World Cup were a direct result of the WICB and not that he deliberately played badly.

Yeah....... I don't think so. Saying "The World Cup was a statement" but meaning that it was a statement of the board doesn't really making any sense unless Gayle is literally barely able to speak English and you have to agree. Really when someone says "That was a statement" do you know it to mean an indication of someone else's failings or an indication of someone's intent? I've never heard of a statement that was accidental or unintended and I don't believe Chris Gayle is so poor in English that he doesn't know what it means to string those words together. Otherwise we have to believe that what he meant was the failings at the World Cup were the intent of the WICB and that somehow 11 people on the field faraway from WICB headquarters were powerless against those administrators (or "necromancers" might be a more appropriate term given the power to force their intent across the seas). If he meant the World Cup failings were a direct result of the WICB's bad policy why didn't he say so? I know he knows the words "bad" and "policy" and that he could have chosen any number of ways to say it which would have been far clearer. He could have said it was the fault of the board, a failure by the board etc. But he didn't. To read into his statement that he was trying to indirectly refer to the board requires way too much supposition.

Tried finding the audio recording of the interview in full, but I can't find the first part of the programme recorded (including the section where he incredibly claimed that the West Indian team was just as fit as (if not fitter than) the Australian or Indian teams) by they have most of the latter part has been recorded on the web at soundcloud (http://soundcloud.com/caribupdatenews/tracks)..sounds like the recorder started recording part way through, probably after hearing the initial part. Would be nice if someone had the full interview, but anyone can compare the interview with the running transcript that was made at caribbeancricket.com and decide for themselves how much a miscommunication it was. I'm fairly confident though that it was not a miscommunication.

[amitb]

I think its been a mix up of communication, Im sure Gayle meant that the failings at the World Cup were a direct result of the WICB and not that he deliberately played badly.

Yeah....... I don't think so. Saying "The World Cup was a statement" but meaning that it was a statement of the board doesn't really making any sense unless Gayle is literally barely able to speak English and you have to agree. Really when someone says "That was a statement" do you know it to mean an indication of someone else's failings or an indication of someone's intent? I've never heard of a statement that was accidental or unintended and I don't believe Chris Gayle is so poor in English that he doesn't know what it means to string those words together. Otherwise we have to believe that what he meant was the failings at the World Cup were the intent of the WICB and that somehow 11 people on the field faraway from WICB headquarters were powerless against those administrators (or "necromancers" might be a more appropriate term given the power to force their intent across the seas). If he meant the World Cup failings were a direct result of the WICB's bad policy why didn't he say so? I know he knows the words "bad" and "policy" and that he could have chosen any number of ways to say it which would have been far clearer. He could have said it was the fault of the board, a failure by the board etc. But he didn't. To read into his statement that he was trying to indirectly refer to the board requires way too much supposition.

Tried finding the audio recording of the interview in full, but I can't find the first part of the programme recorded (including the section where he incredibly claimed that the West Indian team was just as fit as (if not fitter than) the Australian or Indian teams) by they have most of the latter part has been recorded on the web at soundcloud (http://soundcloud.com/caribupdatenews/tracks)..sounds like the recorder started recording part way through, probably after hearing the initial part. Would be nice if someone had the full interview, but anyone can compare the interview with the running transcript that was made at caribbeancricket.com and decide for themselves how much a miscommunication it was. I'm fairly confident though that it was not a miscommunication.

From what I understood he was saying that World Cup was a statement as to what kind of atmosphere has been created by WICB and it is effecting all players who cannot play their natural game.

Its obvious no one is going to claim in public that he deliberately underperformed

[ChrisQ]

I think its been a mix up of communication, Im sure Gayle meant that the failings at the World Cup were a direct result of the WICB and not that he deliberately played badly.

Yeah....... I don't think so. Saying "The World Cup was a statement" but meaning that it was a statement of the board doesn't really making any sense unless Gayle is literally barely able to speak English and you have to agree. Really when someone says "That was a statement" do you know it to mean an indication of someone else's failings or an indication of someone's intent? I've never heard of a statement that was accidental or unintended and I don't believe Chris Gayle is so poor in English that he doesn't know what it means to string those words together. Otherwise we have to believe that what he meant was the failings at the World Cup were the intent of the WICB and that somehow 11 people on the field faraway from WICB headquarters were powerless against those administrators (or "necromancers" might be a more appropriate term given the power to force their intent across the seas). If he meant the World Cup failings were a direct result of the WICB's bad policy why didn't he say so? I know he knows the words "bad" and "policy" and that he could have chosen any number of ways to say it which would have been far clearer. He could have said it was the fault of the board, a failure by the board etc. But he didn't. To read into his statement that he was trying to indirectly refer to the board requires way too much supposition.

Tried finding the audio recording of the interview in full, but I can't find the first part of the programme recorded (including the section where he incredibly claimed that the West Indian team was just as fit as (if not fitter than) the Australian or Indian teams) by they have most of the latter part has been recorded on the web at soundcloud (http://soundcloud.com/caribupdatenews/tracks)..sounds like the recorder started recording part way through, probably after hearing the initial part. Would be nice if someone had the full interview, but anyone can compare the interview with the running transcript that was made at caribbeancricket.com and decide for themselves how much a miscommunication it was. I'm fairly confident though that it was not a miscommunication.

From what I understood he was saying that World Cup was a statement as to what kind of atmosphere has been created by WICB and it is effecting all players who cannot play their natural game.

Its obvious no one is going to claim in public that he deliberately underperformed

I wouldn't buy that for a minute. Nobody says that something is "a statement as to what kind of atmosphere had been...." in the way that you are talking about. A statement is a declaration. Is he saying that the World Cup was a declaration (by whom?) as to what kind of atmosphere has been created by the WICB? If he meant "statement" then surely it must have been a declaration or show of intent by somebody since a declaration has to be made by someone and intent can only be shown by someone. That leaves the possible candidates to mean "a statement (by the board) as to what kind of atmosphere has been created by the board" or "a statement (by one or more players) as to what kind of atmosphere has been created by the board". What you are talking about is an "indication", not a "statement".

Gayle has too much of a history of speaking frankly and his language skills aren't that poor that such a round-about and inaccurate statement (not indication) could be made in that manner. He was apparently misquoted about the "not so sad" comment in reference to the possible death of test cricket (though one has really wonder), but he certainly wasn't misquoted after the Stanford 2008 final when he made it abundantly clear that the team got their money and that was the end of that.

[ChrisQ]

Interestingly in Gayle's interviews he mention's the "reason" why Sarwan batted slowly in the World Cup. The claim there was that Sarwan supposedly told him (Sarwan to my knowledge has neither confirmed nor denied this) that he was afraid of being dropped again from the squad and hence was afraid to take risks and bat more swiftly. To me it is puzzling that a man who has been dropped from a cricket squad recently because of publicly proclaimed fitness issues would then conclude that he must now bat slowly in order not to be dropped again. If you were dropped for fitness, shouldn't you work on the fitness? Why mess with your own batting? It was also claimed that the coach messed Sarwan up mentally, but I have to wonder when this occurred given Sarwan's batting history and if Sarwan really expects that he must play in each and every match for WI once he can walk on two legs. If he is afraid of getting dropped as Gayle claimed why play cricket at all? Why not become a civil servant where it would be practically impossible to get "dropped" from your daily job?

The reason why I find Gayle's claims fishy is because of Sarwan's batting history:

In 2010-2011 these were Sarwan's scores in the form of runs-balls faced-strike rate (team faced):

47*-26-180.76 (Canada)

100*-119-84.03 (Ireland)

38-59-64.40 (South Africa)

6-6-100.00 (South Africa)

Sarwan then picked up a left ham-string injury (http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies ... 60998.html) and missed out on the remaining 3 ODIs against South Africa. He then recovers in time for the series in Sri Lanka:

75-100-75.00 (Sri Lanka)

21-48-43.75 (Sri Lanka)

51-66-77.27 (Sri Lanka)

123-125-98.40 (warm-up against Kenya for World Cup)

39-46-84.78 (warm up against Sri Lanka for World Cup)

2-10-20.00 (South Africa; World Cup)

49-42-116.66 (Netherlands; World Cup)

Did not bat against Bangladesh since the target of 59 was too low to require him to come out to the crease

10-19-52.63 (Ireland; World Cup)

31-68-45.58 (England; World Cup)

39-68-57.35 (India; World Cup)

24-68-35.29 (Pakistan; World Cup)


What is odd about this is that after being dropped for a relatively long period (for Sarwan; for others like Wavell Hinds, Darren Ganga, Devon Smith and Dale Richards that time would have been a mere flash), Sarwan comes back and does really well just as before. By this time (April 2010 in the match against Canada), Otis Gibson is already coach and Sarwan doesn't seem to be so messed up that he can't make half-centuries and centuries in just about every other innings that he bats. He does fine with only 2 scores where his strike rate drops below 60: one match against Sri Lanka where he scored 21 off 48 and the World Cup match against South Africa where he didn't really get started and only made 2 off 10. He does splendidly against the Dutch but then come the Ireland match and it is like somebody switched Sarwan for a body-double. He can't seem to even reach a 60 strike rate and doesn't come close to making a half-century again (he was only 1 run short in the match against the Dutch). The way he got out in the match against England was particularly baffling and when WI lost that match others who were watching with me said that WI must have thrown the match. As with the opinions expressed when Gayle made his triple century recently (where people were saying that he won't make any more scores of note for the test series), I refused to believe that possibility. Of course now I'm not so sure anymore given Gayle's interview and his claims and the performances in the World Cup and Gayle's performance in the IPL. Gayle's claims would have made more sense if Sarwan had been dropped from the XI during the World Cup, but (unlike Shiv) he never was. In fact Sarwan hadn't been dropped without being injured since before April 2010 (almost a whole year by that point). So why would Sarwan suddenly bat like he had never played international cricket before for 3 straight matches (I would give him the benefit of the doubt for the Irish match as he had just got into double figures so who knows what score he would have made had he not got out)? Even now in the first 2 ODIs against Pakistan only 2 players have managed to string together two matches where they haven't passed a 60+ strike rate once and thus mirrored Sarwan's 3 to 4-match streak in the World Cup: Marlon Samuels (2-19-10.52 and 29-74-39.18) and Kirk Edwards (28-49-57.14 and 4-12-33.33).

I would give Marlon Samuels and Kirk Edwards just one more chance to improve on that, failing which I would bring in two out of Brendan Nash, Danza Hyatt, Jonathan Carter, Royston Crandon and Dale Richards. Wouldn't discard Samuels or Kirk Edwards yet though if they fail to improve on their batting performance in the ODIs, since they seem like they might be suited to test cricket and so could do okay in the test series.

[mikesiva]

Here's the latest interview by Gayle....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-prem ... 12577.html

"It was to be international cricket for me. Had I been picked, that would have been what I would have done," Gayle said. "I didn't have any thoughts about IPL4. I had written off IPL4, rather I was looking forward to its next year. I should have been there (in the West Indies) playing with the national team, but I am here. It is unfortunate but that is how it is."

And this....

"You have a window for the IPL just like you have a World Cup window. I'm sure there wouldn't be any fuss. That's something they need to take seriously. I'm sure cricket can actually move ahead and everyone will be happy."


Well, there are arguments as to whether Gayle is being honest or not, but I don't want to get into that....

There's a much bigger issue at stake here - how do the WIndies prevent clashes like this from occurring in the future, because Chris Gayle is not the only problem we will have, if we don't stop staging series that clash with the IPL.

Sure, we can have an overlap of a week or two at the start of the IPL. But to stage an entire series that clashes with the IPL is nothing short of ludicrous!

[ChrisQ]

Well I guess the good thing is that thanks to the greediness of Gayle and co. WI cricket might eventually be slowly and silently euthanized as eventually the WI board is asked to solve the false conundrum of paying their players at rates competitive with the IPL (unrealistic since at $400,000 for 6 weeks of work is $66,000 per week and for a year that would be a salary of $3.4 million - now since the WI board's net revenue fluctuates roughly between losses or profits of $10 million it would mean that on a good year the board could probably pay 4 players at IPL rates and end up with no profits to put back into the game and on a bad year would be in a hole so deep that it wouldn't make sense to continue). Either that or the board gives this ridiculous "window" to an Indian domestic competition and are then asked to reschedule their domestic and international cricket around other "important" cricketing tournaments such as the Big Bash and English P20. Then with only time enough for foreign cricket, the WICB and territorial boards won't be able to make enough money to survive and we will enter a glorious age when WI cricket could be honoured and these disgusting pretenders will get just what they wanted - no more board; but they will also get their just desserts - no more money as their status declines. Then they will have to get real jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us instead of clowning around and keeping all their money like the sick thieves they are.

[mikesiva]

I know it's early days, but this would be my team for the first Test in May:

1) Devon Smith
2) Adrian Barath
3) Darren Bravo
4) Shiv Chanderpaul
5) Ramnaresh Sarwan/Marlon Samuels
6) Brendan Nash
7) Carlton Baugh/Denesh Ramdin
8) Darren Sammy (do we have a choice?)
9) Andre Russell/Fidel Edwards
10) Kemar Roach
11) Dev Bishoo

Yeah that sounds like the likely team more or less although I think Simmons would be in the squad as well and probably Benn and Rampaul too.

Say what you want about Gayle, about the money generated by the IPL, and about the clashes the IPL has with smaller, weaker boards (Michael Holding rightly said on commentary that the BCCI would never schedule a series to clash with the IPL, and vice versa), the question remains, where does the WICB go from here? The Windies can't fight the IPL, because they'll lose, and it's obvious that Gayle is not a sole "mercenary" and that a lot of other cricketers from WI, SL and NZ share his view of the need for an IPL window. Until that IPL window comes into place, the Windies are stuck with the difficulty of deciding who opens the batting in the first Test....

Devon Smith has lost form and confidence against all forms of spin? Do we risk him agianst Pakistan? Is Barath still injured? At the moment, it's looking like Simmons opening the batting, with one of Smith or Barath....

[keshto]

Mike what I don't understand is why you think a window will be created?
Clearly BCCI don't want one, so I really don't see how that is going to happen.

Another point is IPL is a BCCI tournament, so why would they schedule an Indian tour during the IPL?

Other boards have scheduled tours during the IPL and players have prefered country over IPL in all cases, except maybe one or two exceptions and not more.

[mikesiva]

Mike what I don't understand is why you think a window will be created?
Clearly BCCI don't want one, so I really don't see how that is going to happen.

Another point is IPL is a BCCI tournament, so why would they schedule an Indian tour during the IPL?

Other boards have scheduled tours during the IPL and players have prefered country over IPL in all cases, except maybe one or two exceptions and not more.

The point about the IPL being a BCCI monster is exactly the point Holding is making....

If the BCCI don't want a window, then it's up to the likes of WI, SL and NZ to make sure they don't take part in international series that clash with the IPL, and create a de facto window.

And it's not one or two exceptions. Taking part in international tours is about more than just turning up the day before a Test and playing. It's about getting properly prepared for the tour, and in SL's case, it would mean playing at least two warmup matches before the first Test takes place in England. One practice game is never enough to get used to English conditions. And yet, half of the SL team is happy to stay in the IPL and play 20/20 cricket rather than play against Middlesex to get used to English conditions. That shows me that these SL players would rather play in the IPL than tour England....

I'm not alone on this. If you go to the same link that CQ posted on caribbeancricket.com, you will find a lot of WI fans have come to the conclusion that it's time for weaker boards such as the WICB to stop fighting the IPL, and to work with them. They feel that the idea of not creating a window is a battle the bigger, more powerful boards, such as the BCCI, ECB and Cricket Australia are keen on doing, but that the smaller teams such as WI, SL and NZ are the ones that suffer.

What we're proposing is really quite simple, and non-confrontational - the Windies stop taking part in any series that clashes with the IPL. That way, players like Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo, Jerome Taylor, Kieron Pollard can play for both the WIndies and the IPL, and everyone will be happy. Really and truly, what is wrong with that proposal?

[keshto]

I don't find that controversial.

What I don't understand is the examples used to prove that point.

Are we basing this on this year only, or the previous 3 IPL years?

Is it really the IPL which has resulted in a breakdown between WICB Pollard, Taylor, Gayle and Bravo? I really don't think so, countless articles on the clashes between the WICB and the players. So saying that it is because of the IPL for me is an fast and easy conclusion.

Surely IPL has an influence on this but in my opinion it is not that big an influence, the WICB has to reinstore it's respect towards players, and if they so chose, they can ban any players to participate in the IPL.

I think missing series just to please two or three players and forget about the rest of the Windies squad is outrageous. And don't see any justification in it.

[ChrisQ]

Say what you want about Gayle, about the money generated by the IPL, and about the clashes the IPL has with smaller, weaker boards (Michael Holding rightly said on commentary that the BCCI would never schedule a series to clash with the IPL, and vice versa)

Mike, are you really following Holding and his Orwellian logic? "The BCCI would never schedule a series to clash with the IPL"? Holding has it backwards - rather like in 1984 ("We are war with Eurasia....We've always been at war with Eurasia"). The IPL came about after the future tours programme had already planned out all of India's required tours up until 2012. The IPL was specifically scheduled for March-June because:

1. during that time India usually wasn't touring (or hosting) anyway

2. it was the only time left outside of the Monsoon season (June to September) when they could play cricket instead of water polo on the cricket grounds. Remember prior to the IPL India had a LOT of domestic competitions already. There is the Corporate Trophy, Deodhar Trophy, Vijay Hazare Trophy, Duleep Trophy, Ranji Trophy (Super League and Plate League), Irani Cup and Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy (the T20 competition for Ranji teams). Most of these competitions occur during the normal Indian cricket season (September to very early March). If the BCCI were going to make money they would have been insane to schedule the competition during the same time as the rest of these competitions since they would unnecessarily divide spectator attention and make it difficult to actually schedule the tournament (unless they were going to institute the concept of 24/7 cricket where the cricketers don't actually sleep....).

I can well recall at the start of the first IPL that there were concerns (which might have been voiced/written on this very message board or rather it's previous incarnation) that the time scheduled for the IPL would be intensely hot and that it wasn't a usual season for cricket due to this.

[ddb]

(Michael Holding rightly said on commentary that the BCCI would never schedule a series to clash with the IPL, and vice versa)

Did he really say that? What a pointless statement, clutching at straws comes to mind.