 |
By Andi Thornhill |
Bridgetown, Barbados, April 20, 2005: Shivnarine Chanderpaul is already finding out that it's not easy leading the West Indies team.
Why, after only two Tests at the helm are some, who should know better, have joined the chorus calling for his head? Surely by any yardstick two matches have to be too early to assess anyone as a failure in any discipline. The new West Indies captain has to be given a chance.
Nobody is in any position at this stage to say that Chanderpaul has done worst than any other skipper who has presided over a losing culture for the past decade.
To come to this conclusion now would be an admission that we were expecting miracles from the Guyanese captain and that he could do what many others before him had failed to do over a longer period of time.
We must accept, and the evidence is there to support it, that until and unless the team begins to show any kind of consistency in their performances, they will continue to languish at the bottom half of the Test rankings no matter who is skipper.
This is not to suggest that Chanderpaul's captaincy so far has been flawless, but to have assessed him as harsh as Michael Holding did in the middle of the second Test at the Queen's Park Oval seemed a bit unfair.
It doesn't matter how long you have been playing a particular sport, it's a different ball game when you have to rise from a subordinate position to the leadership of that team. In practice and in principle you come under immediate pressure, especially when you are taking up the reins of a losing squad.
In Chanderpaul's case, he was appointed leader amidst much confusion over players' contracts and so on. He did a commendable job in his first Test in Guyana where the South Africans were put on the backfoot and made to fight to earn a draw.
From a personal viewpoint, he distinguished himself with a double century even if his critics claimed he took too much time to make it.
Still, not many others wearing his same shoes could make a similar boast. In the second Test, his troops were reinforced with Brian Lara, Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan, who all at some point played very influential roles, but the team still lost.
How much blame can you apportion to the captain when, in most cases, the team's first innings score of 347 would prove to be competitive at the Oval.
Indeed, it should have, but again the bowling was not nearly as penetrative as it should be compared to what Makhaya Ntini was able to do for the South Africans.
In the end, his 13 wickets in the match seemed to be the main difference between the winning and losing columns. There were still too many no balls and of course the fielding, especially some of the catching, has to improve.
If there's one major difference between cricket of yesteryear and now is that teams pay greater attention to fielding and the benefits are multiplied for the team that does it best.
Even so, I agree that Chanderpaul can plead guilty that some of his bowling changes and field placings weren't the best but is this different from anyone he has succeeded?
Again, I am not suggesting that he shouldn't strived to be better than those who went before but it seemed strange that after so short time he appeared to be targeted. I think whatever motives some people may have, there still has to be a grace period for Chanderpaul.
Besides, it always strengthens the opposition when we seem to be divided whether on or off the field. Critical analysis is vital and must be treated as a guide to improve but when it has the potential to be destructive you have to wonder what people of this ilk are trying to achieve.
As we prepare for the crucial third Test at Kensington, I think it's time "to cease and settle" and give the new West Indies captain a chance. He needs all the support he can get. After all, it still takes two hands to clap.