Tony BeccaTony Becca
RICKY SKERRITT sprung a surprise last Monday when he announced, on the last day of the second Test match, his resignation as manager of the West Indies team, and not surprisingly, it was received with mixed reactions.
To those who believe that one of the reasons for the West Indies poor performances in recent times is indiscipline, to those who believe that the indiscipline is the result of weak management, it is happy riddance.
To those who believe that Skerritt tried his best but was powerless to deal with the obvious indiscipline because of a captain who is a law unto himself and because of a lack of desire to really deal with it by a board whose members talk a good talk but seldom act, it is a pity.
Although he has nothing to do with cricket matters such as training and practice and therefore, in all fairness, he cannot and should not be blamed for performance on the field, the manager is responsible for the general discipline of the players and the blame for the kind of off-the-field indiscipline that many of the players were allowed to get away with must rest with him.
Indiscipline off the field must affect discipline on the field and, regardless of the reasons, including a board that has refused to act and therefore hardly ever supported its management team, because the players were allowed to get away with so much off the field, it is and should really be happy riddance.
In many respects, however, it is a pity. Skerritt, a Rhodes scholar, loves West Indies cricket, he wanted the best for West Indies cricket, he turned a blind eye on so many things not only because he knew he had no support but also because he genuinely wanted to protect the players, particularly the young ones, and was hoping that in time, that somewhere along the line, he would have been able to get them to recognise their responsibilities as West Indies players - as ambassadors of the West Indies people.
HE DID NOT SUCCEED
Obviously he did not succeed, and although there are other reasons for the decision to go, including the possibility that the team is 2-0 down after two Test matches and he has taken so much beating during his tenure that he may have decided that enough is enough, the disappointment in having not succeeded in getting the players to appreciate the honour bestowed on them and to behave like ambassadors of the people is really what brought about the decision.
Whatever the reason or reasons, Skerritt has resigned, and whether he should or should not have done it, he should pack his bags and walk away right now - either that or he should be told to go.
According to Skerritt, he is staying on until the end of his contract in June in order to accommodate a smooth transmission and that means he will be around for the remaining two Test matches against England, the seven one-day internationals, and the two Test matches and the three one-day internationals against Bangladesh.
That should not be so. In the interest of West Indies cricket, of the West Indies team, Skerritt should have resigned before the start of the series or at the end. To do so in the middle of the Test series must cause a problem, not only with the players but also with the captain who has said that the timing is bad - that he should have resigned at the start of the series or at the end, certainly not in mid-stream.
It is difficult to see how Skerritt, even with the best intentions, can now fulfil his responsibilities as the manager, how he can have any influence on the captain, the coach and the players, and in the interest of the team which now needs all the help it can get he should go or be told to go.
