A wicketkeeper or no one else

Tony Becca, Senior Sport Editor

THE West Indies selectors are pleading for a 17th player for the tour of England and based on the tight schedule, they deserve one.

The first question, however, is: Should it be a batsman, a bowler, or a wicketkeeper?

Based on the fact that there are already eight batsmen in the 16-man squad, it should not be a batsman, and based on the fact that there are already seven bowlers - including six fast bowlers, it should not be another bowler.

It should not be a batsman because with only six expected to be in the 11 at any one time, there will always be two in reserve; and it should not be a bowler because with only four likely to be in the squad at any one time, there will always be three in reserve - including at least two fast bowlers.

The 17th place, therefore, should go to a wicketkeeper - for the simple reason that with only one in the squad, there is no reserve, and that, as the selectors in their plea for the extra player have said time and time again, it is a tough tour with a tight schedule.

The second question is: If it is a wicketkeeper, who should it be?

According to the popular opinion it should be Courtney Browne or Junior Murray. That, however, would be a backward step - for at least two reasons.

One reason is that Browne, at 29, and Murray, at 32, have played in 13 and 32 Test matches respectively and neither one has ever distinguished himself behind the stumps. Another reason is that Ridley Jacobs is 32, and with the emphasis on young players in what is generally described as the rebuilding process, there can be no sense in selecting a reserve wicketkeeper who is as old or nearby as old.

Who should it be? It should be Vishal Nagamootoo.

The 23-year-old Guyanese looks good, and although looks is sometimes deceiving, although Browne has always looked good but dropped some easy and vital catches, Nagamootoo, certainly in the circumstances, deserves a chance.

According to the word going the rounds, had the selectors asked the Board for a 17th player in order to accommodate a second wicketkeeper, their request would have been granted, and if they now ask for a second wicketkeeper, the Board will agree.

The selectors, however, appear set on another batsman, and although they would obviously like to make amends to Daren Ganga, who it is said was the player omitted to accommodate the late selection of Brian Lara, although they probably, as they should, have had second thoughts and would select the mercurial Ricardo Powell, the Board should not agree to that. If the Board says no to a ninth batsman, it would be tough luck on either Ganga or Powell. Two reserve batsmen, however, are enough.

What the team needs is another wicketkeeper. It would be unfair to Jacobs to have him bending his back every day for three months while three batsmen are relaxing in the pavilion.

Back to Sport