Tony BeccaONE OF the players in the West Indies team now taking on Pakistan in Sharjah is Mervyn Dillon, the manager is Ricky Skerritt, one should not be there, and it would be interesting to hear from the West Indies Board why both are there.
Dillon was sent home during the tour of Sri Lanka, the manager during the tour was Skerritt, on the surface it appears that only one of them, Skerritt, should be there, and since both are there, in the interest of West Indies cricket, the board should explain the reasons why to those groups of people it so often refers to as the share-holders of West Indies cricket - the regional boards, the sponsors and the spectators.
It should be explained for two basic reasons.
The first is that the two other players sent home during a tour - Roy Gilchrist from India in 1958 and Winston Benjamin from England in 1995 - were never selected to represent the West Indies after that. They were made to pay the ultimate price for embarrassing West Indies cricket and the people of the West Indies.
The second reason is that Dillon has got away without paying for his sin and, even in this age of compassion, unless there is good reason to forgive, the board could be setting a dangerous precedence.
According to the reports coming out of Sri Lanka, Dillon was sent home because he refused to attend a day's practice. Dillon's explanation is that it was election time in Sri Lanka, such an event is usually accompanied by violence, and he was not prepared to take any chances.
Apart from the fact that based on the norm, missing a day's practice is not a sin for a West Indies player, missing a day's practice because of a fear that nearly caused the cancellation of the tour does not seem grounds enough to send home a player, and especially remembering what others have got away with in the recent past, if Dillon was sent home for that, something is wrong.
It is possible, however, that there was more to it than missing a day's practice. Some times it is not what is done but how it is done. Some times it is even what follows after it has been done.
It is also possible, however, that Skerritt, and his management team, acted hastily and also too harshly.
Whatever it was, the people, the share-holders of West Indies cricket, need to know what happened in Sri Lanka.
They need to know if Dillon's behaviour justified being sent home or if he was unfairly punished.
If Dillon's behaviour justified being sent home, then regardless of his skill, he is the one who should not be in Pakistan.
If, however, Dillon's behaviour did not justify such action, then Skerritt, as the manager, as the one who, for whatever reason or reasons, embarrassed the fast bowler, should be the one not in Pakistan.
