EDITORIAL - How must we assess Dave Cameron?

When Dave Cameron heave-hoed his former mentor Julian Hunte out of the presidency of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), we had hoped that he would not only inspire a turnaround in the quality of the regional team, but restore the dignity of, and respect for, West Indian leadership in the global game.

Our standing has been much diminished over the last generation - the result of a laissez-faire attitude towards cricket in the region, poor performance on the field, infighting among the stakeholders of the game, and the absence of perspicacious leadership on the part of the board.

But based on the evidence of recent events, we are inclined to reassess our expectations of Mr Cameron and his colleagues in the WICB and to question their appreciation of the history of the Caribbean, the role of cricket in shaping that history, and their perspectives on the place of the region in the global environment.

THE BIG 3 WANT POWER

Last week in Dubai, at a meeting of the executive committee of the International Cricket Council (ICC), Cameron's WICB sided with cricket authorities of England, India, and Australia for a new structure for the management of the global game that, to us, has echoes of the days when Test cricket was under the control of the MCC.

In essence, if the plan stands, power over cricket will be ceded to the so-called Big 3, who will have permanent places in the ICC executive committee, to be joined by two other Test-playing countries, on some basis of rotation. It might have been worse. The original idea was for only one other country, apart from them, being co-opted to the executive, but a concession was made after an outcry by some countries.

The Big 3 had proposed a tiered system for Test-playing countries, with bottom-ranked teams being periodically relegated - as happens in domestic soccer tournaments - but with India, England, and Australia being immune from the process because of their lucrative markets.

BAD IDEA FOr SMALL COUNTRIES

That idea has been shelved, at least for now, but the alternative is for international games to be scheduled on a bilateral basis, rather than, as is now the case, a structured programme managed by the ICC. The upshot: Small Test-playing countries will likely have to scramble for tours and face being shouldered out by the major powers.

These are matters of substantial principle, not totally unlike when the Caribbean lobbied for a sporting ban on apartheid South Africa, supported Cuba's turning back of the South African army in Angola, and regularly tells our friend, the United States, that its embargo on Cuba is wrong. Such stands, sometimes, come at a cost.

But Dave Cameron apparently doesn't see it that way. The WICB defended throwing in its lot with the new big boys by pointing to the fact that they will favour the West Indies with more tours and more money. For that price, India, England, and Australia bought permanent seats at the executive table.

Cricket has proved to be cyclical. For 15 years, the West Indies were unbeaten. For eight years, Australia struggled, and so on. The West Indies' revival would raise new issues of economics.

What would C.L.R. James, were he alive, say about this in the context of his lobbying for Frank Worrell's captaincy of the West Indies team and the profound issues that hinged on this?

Dave Cameron may have a compelling explanation!

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.