Dear Editor,
The rhetoric now assumes serious debate on Chanderpaul’s exclusion from the present West Indian cricket team. Some see it as clinical treatment meted out to Shiv. There are those who on moral high ground, see this rejection as an affront to his dignity as a player who has served the West Indian Cricket Board and the spectating public with great loyalty and dedication. Those who rally for him are a ‘lot’ whose minds and hearts are truly impassioned by the quality of his career, one which has impacted more in deeds than in words.
How do we reconcile the opposing view of the passionate seekers of justice and those who feel justified in excluding him in preference to the fledgling talent aspiring to revitalize West Indian cricket?
The arguments are passionate as well as rational. There is passion in those who rally for his inclusion but this passion is fused with strong rational thought. There is also a rationale explaining his non-inclusion based on his recent failures, the presumption that his skills are now flawed and on the enthusiasm and anxiety to rebuild a competitive West Indian team.
Are the arguments flawed? There are no clinical or exact answers but reasons for public debate are now justified.
Do you discard a player of Shiv’s stature and achievements – one who has done yeoman service to a cricket in its darkest years by denying him at least two matches as his swan song? This is all that he truly wished.
Is the lack of form (let’s forget age) in two series strong justification for rejection? Tendulkar comes to mind. Sachin’s failure in nine Test innings, a paltry 153 runs produced in nine innings and a 14 month drought which produced no centuries, were followed by a dramatic resurgence against the powerful titan, Australia. The allusion here may cause debate among sceptics but it is good fodder for all to contemplate, whether it be Shiv, Sachin or Lara.
Further pertinent questions arise: Is there some moral obligation to allow Shiv opportunity for some measure of success at the ‘presumed’ end of his career after his failures in the last two series?
Should he be given the chance to aspire to Lara’s milestone record, however trivial this may seem? After all, aspiring to milestones or great achievements in life is within the purview of each man’s ambition. Such achievements demonstrate not only personal fulfilment but tell of man’s capabilities.
Wouldn’t it have been exciting or fascinating for the spectating public to view Shiv’s attempt to carve a new record during this Australian tour, particularly in a time when sceptics have retired him?
To crown it all, how do you reconcile the thought processes of those who dictate the exclusion of a stalwart who can lend and who has lent moral support and stability coupled with his personal contribution to a fledgling team and those who at the same time attempt to renew ties with cricketers who have disgraced West Indian cricket in the aborted Indian tour.
The debate will continue, but it is hoped, in spite of the passion of displeasure among many quarters, West Indian cricket will blossom and burgeon with the new talent now being infused into the team.
Yours faithfully,
Clifford Narinesingh
Author of books on Gavaskar,
Tendulkar and Lara
