There are seven good reasons to select Shivnarine Chanderpaul for the Dominica and Jamaica test matches against Australia from June 3rd to June 15th 2015. Selector Clive Lloyd has said that he has seen a waning in Chanderpaul’s performance in recent tests. Yes, all the West Indies has seen this. Chanderpaul has performed poorly in the recent two test series against South Africa and England. But has he seen this cricketer’s current ICC ranking? Chanderpaul is ranked at number 12. There are two Australian batsmen ranked above him, Steve Smith at number 4 and David Warner at number 9. There is no other West Indian batsman ranked in the first 25. This means that of all the batsmen in both Australia and the West Indies currently playing, Chanderpaul is the third highest ranked. In tests, he is third likely to equal or beat his current test average of 51.37; an average, of all the batsmen in both teams, only Steve Smith of Australia exceeds.
Rank, however, is not form. Yet form is temporary, class always comes to the fore. The selectors have painted a picture of Chanderpaul as dead, down and out. And old. This is grossly unfair, if not cruel. The best, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar have had poor runs of form towards the end of their careers. But they always came back. This is because these batsmen possessed method, and craft. Has Chanderpaul’s method and craft deserted him? No. Is he running, fielding, catching like an old, worn man? No. Are his best shots and feet movement gone? No. And between now and June 15th, the end of the test series, is it likely that Chanderpaul will crumble like the proverbial Dorian Gray?
Why has Chanderpaul been painted as begging for a spot? A spot to play in two final tests? A last chance? This is grossly dehumanizing. This cricketer does not have to beg for anything. He is his own man. As technology and medicine entered and transformed the game in the late eighties, West Indies cricket declined. The scientific revolution produced a superior player; it found out the weaknesses of the opposition. In the absence of competitive Caribbean science and medicine, Chanderpaul adjusted. He innovated and found a style to counter what the Caribbean could not help him with. He devised his own defences to counter deep and antagonistic cybernetic analysis. He did what many others, and indeed our own governments and administrators, fail to do. He innovated. He has also utilized his own technology, privately, to improve his game.
The selectors are behaving as if the issue is a contest between their good judgement and Chanderpaul’s stubbornness. O, how we loved Chanderpaul when he “stubbornly” resisted all test playing sides, the most savage pace bowling attacks, and build up scores of 50 and 100. He has scored 66 test fifties and 30 test centuries. How many times has Chanderpaul’s “stubbornness” saved the day for us? Didn’t Chanderpaul “stubbornly” stay with West Indies test cricket, when others flew off to foreign lands to earn lucrative fortunes elsewhere? I thought for his “stubbornness” we called him Mr Reliable. The most dazzling trio of current West Indian cricketers are certainly Dwayne Bravo, Andre Russel and Kieron Pollard. Nobody could match the god-like majesty of Chris Gayle or Brian Lara. But Chanderpaul also inspires: his patience, diligence, discipline, craft. These are qualities, rare, inspirational, like gold dust in the current history of Caribbean existence.
The tone of the tweets sent to Chanderpaul by selector Phil Simmons suggests that he wants to browbeat Chanderpaul out of cricketing existence. He is clearly pressuring Chanderpaul to retire when the batsman does not want to. This ungraciousness is being done to make the selectors, and perhaps the board, look good. But there is no need for this selector to worry. Aggregate record or not, Brian Lara will still remain uniquely great. Chanderpaul’s possible accession against Australia is not a secession; it does not diminish Lara’s genius one bit. No one will dis-remember Lara’s golf-like back-lift and follow-through, the command of it. And no one will dis-remember Chanderpaul’s deft hand and wrist position at the point of contact with the ball.
Simmons argues that in time Chanderpaul will be honoured elsewhere. That is, off the field. Chanderpaul is a cricketer. He is not a man for champagne and ceremony. He lets his cricket talk on the ground. This is where he is most respected. Not waiting in cue to receive a gold medal or ribbon or cup.
Finally, Simmons reasons that the team will be strongest without Chanderpaul. Is this likely? The Australians, like all good strategists, have a golden rule. Do what the opposition does not want. Do what gives them most pressure, discomfort, psychological or otherwise. Chanderpaul’s game has been honed to test, to play test cricket. No test team likes to play against Chanderpaul batting in the middle order.
Clive Lloyd comments that he has a tremendous respect for Chanderpaul. Does he? Chanderpaul does not belong to the selectors. He belongs to the Caribbean people. He inspires beyond the boundary. Selectors must not play fast and out of place with Caribbean genius, wrought in the soil of Caribbean legacies. They must understand who Chanderpaul is, and what he represents. And treat him with the dignity and justice deserving of the Caribbean person.
WAYNE KUBLALSINGH