CRICKET AND CARIBBEAN UNITYAuthor(s): WILLIAM H. WALCOTTSource: Caribbean Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, THE WEST INDIAN COMMISSION (MARCH 1993),pp. 60-80Published by: University of the West Indies and Caribbean QuarterlyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40653836 .Accessed: 19/09/2011 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of the West Indies and Caribbean Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Caribbean Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

60

CRICKET AND CARIBBEAN UNITY

by

WILLIAM H. WALCOTT

Introduction

Within a period of less than two years (January, 1990 - August 1991) the powerful West Indian cricket team had lost three Test Matches to England.

In this paper I would like to deal with the significance of the aforementioned losses to the future of West Indian Cricket and shall do so by showing that they have occurred against a crucial foreground which poses a threat to the progress of Test Match Cricket in the Caribbean. Once I have made my case, I shall offer some proposals which could be used as a basis to removing this threatening foreground. For the purpose of this paper the losses to which I shall refer are those suffered in England at Headingly, Leeds, and the Oval in Surrey in the summer of 1991, when the West Indies did not win the series but, instead, shared it with England. The foreground consists of components: (1) the absence of much needed, but inadequate financial resources in the coffers of the West Indies Cricket Board of Control, the governing body of West Indian Cricket, (2) the reduced participation of young Caribbean men in the game of cricket at basic and unofficial levels necessary to success in the Test Match arena. The proposals I provide are concerned with the manner in which national governments could use Cricket, itself, as a vehicle for removing the threat. In every instance, I shall deal with the English speaking Caribbean.

The Meaning of Failure

Let me state from the outset that the West Indian failure to defeat England in the summer of 1991 is a very serious blow to West Indian cricket lovers, both at home and overseas, not merely because they had outplayed the Australians in a 1991 winter series, but it was also these very Australians at whose hands England had suffered in 1989 and 1990. The failure is serious, also, because of the profound meaning Cricket has in the Caribbean. I shall now deal with this meaning then look at the foreground. It is to the ideas of two cricketing, journalists, Patrick Collins and Tony Cozier, that I turn, in order to

61

highlight meaning.

In an article . titled "Oceans Apart!" British sports correspondent, Patrick Collins, begins by providing a description of a batsman who is young, black and uncannily familiar, because of the chomping of his jaws and strutting of his stride, hi his account of this cricketer's execution of an ondrive when bowled a half- volley a foot outside off stump Collins says "You knew he would roll his wrists and whip it through mid-on."

Second slip whooped with delight as the ball skimmed the sand on its way to the ocean. The batsman turned with a gracious grin. 'Thanks Mon/ he said.

Collins notes that twenty four hours earlier a West Indian team of "blazing talent" had beaten an English team of "admirable endeavour." He claims that in so doing the West Indian players had won a Test series and reminded young Caribbean cricketers of cricket-

ing standards which must be achieved. And Young West Indians who revel in the simple joy of a complex game accept the challenge with "shameless mimicry and precocious instinct."

All over Antigua, stumps sprout from fields of flattened mud, from silver beaches and

shanty town squares. Large laughing mothers like the lady at second slip chatter out eternal

principles, the virtues of üne and length, the proximity of bat and pad, the importance of a

classically cocked elbow.

He claims that should young West Indians need material incentive they may find it in the "riches of Viv Richards" in the mansion which stares out over Carlisle Bay built by Andy Roberts from fifteen years of fast bowling, In speaking with pride about Richards, Clive Lloyd notes:

He is an integrated West Indian, an excellent ex-

ample of the role that cricket plays in promoting regional participation at the expense of regional isola- tion. As West Indians, we must always remember that the things we hold in common are far more important than our superficial differences.

hi referring to a controversy that arose in Barbados over the dismissal of an English batsman during the England - West Indies Test series (1990) Caribbean journalist and

broadcaster, Tony Cozier, a man "steeped in Caribbean Cricket," states that those who view the 1990 series or any test series as simply a sporting contest would not understand the emotional furore caused throughout the Caribbean as a result of an assessment of that

controversy by B.B.C, cricket correspondent, Christopher Martin- Jenkins* The furore arose as a consequence of Martin- Jenkins' report to the B.B.C. In it he stated that Lloyd Barker, a very good West Indian umpire, cracked under pressure and ruled English

62

batsman, Robert Bailey, out against his better judgement, because Viv Richards, led an orchestrated appeal and demonstrations of jubilation.

And in a suggestion that Barker made a mistake, Martin-Jenkins noted that what was so sad was that he was pressured into changing his initial decision. Martin- Jenkins added that he was not quite sure what "cheating" was if the circumstances surrounding Bailey's dismissal could be characterised as "gamesmanship" or "professionalism."

For his part, Richards stated that what was characterised as his having run to umpire Barker just before Bailey's dismissal was just a performance of his customary ceremonial dance at the fall of a wicket. He had heard a noise and did his dance in celebration that batsman, Bailey, was going to be ruled out. He also noted that while he accorded great respect to commentator, Martin- Jenkins, as a professional the B.B.C, correspondent did let his feelings play a part in his judgement.

Reaction, at least in Barbados, to Martin- Jenkins report was swift and sharp. Telephone callers to Barbadian radio stations demanded that he be made to apologise to the West Indian players and public, removed from the Barbadian airwaves and expelled from Barbados.

Cozier notes that the furore must be set against an historical past "dominated by British colonialism" and a cricketing presence "equally dominated by West Indian brilliance and individuality." Cricket, he adds, has long been the pride and joy of West Indians of all races and classes, it has the badge of honour "we" can proudly wear as a sign of "our" collective excellence and is followed with a religious fervour - the great players almost given deified status.

When therefore the representative of an organisation [the B.B.C.] so closely identified with the former colonial power castigates the West Indies captain and uses such a pejora- tive word as "cheating" to describe his tactics, it is considered a serious affront by West Indians.

He continues by saying it may seem to those who regard cricket as still an antiquated past time of merely small significance that there was a huge over reaction to the controver- sy. While he concludes that there might have been just such a reaction, he points out that those who cannot understand it are the same people who find it impossible to understand why the Ayotallah got so worked up over Salman Rushdie - though, thankfully, no one in Barbados had put a price on Martin- Jenkins' head.

It was also from Barbados that Mr. Frank Walcott, a former Barbadian Trade Unionist and representative of the Caribbean working class, made this comment about a trip Gary Sobers had made in the late Nineteen Sixties to a Rhodesia run by the racist, Ian Smith.

63

Mr. Sobers is an international personality and represents the heart and soul of millions of people in the West Indies who see their national identity manifested in cricket and their symbol of pride and equality with nations in Gary Sobers. He cannot lapse into any area which is an offence to the dignity and character of West Indians.

The Foreground

Now that I have attended to the seriousness of the West Indian failure, I must deal with the threatening nature of what I have described as the foreground: the absence of much needed but inadequate financial resources for the administration of Caribbean Cricket, the reduced participation of young Caribbean men in the playing of Cricket at basic and unofficial levels necessary to success in the Test Match arena.

The absence of financial resources can be attributed to a lack of economic progress in Caribbean countries, of which Guyana and Jamaica are prime examples. The Guyana dollar is - for instance - worth about one penny of United States currency. Reduced participa- tion on the part of young Caribbean men could also be accounted for in terms of economic decline, as well as emergent Caribbean youth interest in North American sports such as basketball. Here, it

may be useful to note that during the course of the last winter Olympics in Canada (1988) Jamaica's entry took the form of a bob-sled team. Stumps no longer sprout from fields of flattened mud, silver beaches or shanty town in the Caribbean with the frequency they did fifteen or twenty years ago.

C.L. Walcott, at present an elder Caribbean cricketing statesman and senior ad- ministrator of West Indies Cricket, has, himself, observed the new development. Further, as someone who was instrumental in shaping the Test Match careers of some of the best West Indian cricketers and who might well have to play a crucial role in the development of Caribbean Cricket throughout the nineties, Mr. Walcott's observation cannot be a personal- ly satisfying one.

What compounds the threatening nature of the foreground is the fact that the West Indians must rebuild their test Cricket team. In so doing, not only would they have to replace older players, they would also have to entertain the possibility that they may not enjoy the dominance to which they had become accustomed over the last decade and a half.

It is therefore ironic and also analytically interesting, that the socioeconomic integration of Caribbean nations which could be used as a very strong basis to their economic advancement and, ultimately, the economic climate for the progress of Test Match Cricket has always been touted by West Indian Heads of government. Such integration has, however, not been a reality. Those Caribbean persons who are old enough and can remember realise fully - if not painfully - that in the late fifties the idea of a West Indian Federation made up of Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad was never realised. While there is

64

no Federation of West Indian territories today, a Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM) has been in existence since 1973. At its inauguration it was regarded by those heads of Caribbean nations that constituted its first members as a strong basis to unity and socioeconomic advancement. If CARICOM leaders are reasonable and sincere, they would say it is, by no means, the mother of West Indian unity.

I would say most CARICOM territories today are facilitators of the dumping of commodities produced by multinational subsidiaries that are concerned primarily with

supernormal profit maximisation, rather than Caribbean socio-economic development. And as a major trading organisation CARICOM has also not been able to secure any trading arrangement with other economic institutions or nations outside the Caribbean that could allow the region to benefit substantially from the export of commodities such as rice, sugar, timber, crude oil, bauxite, or - for that matter - commodities derived from them.

I am fully aware that explanations for the absence of unity and economic advancement have been, and will continue to be, offered. The one which I find extremely useful and

appropriate lies in the comments about people involvement made by a Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, A.N.R. Robinson:

I think one of the weaknesses so far, in the whole progress toward integration - preparation for the future of the Caribbean - has been that the discussions have largely been of a technical nature - largely limited to caucuses and the relatively small gatherings of a few technicians and representatives, and politicians. How- ever important these forums might have been, and certainly are, . . . there has not been the degree of people involvement that is necessary to sustain the movement forward, and in order to promote among the population that we represent a sense of identity, a sense of sharing and the sense of a common future.6

It seems to me that A.N.R. Robinson, wants integration to be based on substantial

participation of ordinary Caribbean citizens, those who are not, or have not been members or representatives of Caribbean governments. This is a preference I support fully. I would thus like to propose that if ordinary Caribbean persons are to become significant players in a move to integration careful examination of the arena of Cricket be made to help West Indian governments determine: how such persons' contribution might be employed as a foundation to unity. Why Cricket, though?

The Arena of Cricket

I shall answer by pointing to creativity and the important unifying role of Cricket in the

65

Caribbean. I shall then state which aspect of the arena should be analysed. Once these tasks have been performed, I shall conclude by pointing to the benefits of inquiry and stating which Caribbean organisations should be responsible for it.

In the first place, outstanding performance by most West Indian Test cricketers since the nineteen thirties is a clear indication of alternate and powerful forms of self expression by creative people who have been disallowed from participating in normal, conventional, or taken- for-granted avenues to socio-economic development, as a result of official and unofficial exclusion. While performance has been the subject of scrutiny, the creative basis to its expression has not been examined systematically. My reference to exclusion is meant to indicate: during the colonial and immediate post-independence periods the vast majority of persons who played Test Cricket for the West Indies had been victims of institutional racism or inter-group prejudice, factors directly responsible for their socio-economic sub- ordination. Neither would have Charlie Griffith, the Barbadian born fearsome fast bowler, nor C.L.R. James, the Caribbean intellectual, disagreed with me.

In a reference to the Empire Cricket Club as a vehicle for the masses Griffith pointed to the fact that he and other black players in Barbados could not gain entry to Cricket clubs whose administrators barred non-whites. And in Guyana discrimination was also a very

important feature at the Georgetown Cricket Club, who^se ground was used for the playing of Test Cricket. In the forties and fifties, as well as the very early sixties, membership at this club was open only to Portuguese, whites of British descent and light skinned non- whites who were described locally as 'red' people.

C.L.R.James, in talking about his observation of a Trinidadian cricketer from his

grandmother's house as a small boy James (1963, pp. 13-14) says that watching shaped one of his strongest early impressions of personality in society. That personality was Matthew Bondman , a young Trinidadian with fierce eyes, loud voice and violent language. Bondman, who was generally dirty and unemployed, was detested by James's grandmother and teacher-aunts who never failed to describe his repeated barefooted presence on main street. James points out, however, that although Matthew was so crude and vulgar, he was all grace and style with a bat in his hand. When he practised with the local club, people stayed to watch and walked away only after he was finished. James notes one particular stroke Matthew played by going down low on one knee: when he sank and made it a long low 'Ah' emerged from many spectators "and my own little soul thrilled with recognition and delight."

To me, the contrast in James, description is vivid and powerful. In using it as a

prominent indicator of one of his very strong impressions, he is exemplifying the creative

struggle waged in one sector of West Indian life. I believe such exemplifying is clearly evident in his comment about Garfield Sobers, the third non-white West Indian Test

Cricket Captain' and someone regarded as the greatest all round cricketer.

66

Garfield Sobers I see not as a fortuitous combina- tion of atoms which by chance have coalesced into a

superb public performer. He being what he is (and I

being what I am), for me his command of the rising ball in the drive, his close fielding and his hurling himself into his fast bowling are a living embodiment of centuries of a tortured history. (James. 1986:d. 232Ì.

When I speak of creativity, I am simply saying that a major aspect of a persons' humanity is the communicative ability to use language as a central feature of their social interaction to perform tasks that are important or essential to their everyday existence. I would also say that this ability is not merely communicative, it is exemplified, also, as a universal form of creativity: in producing language as a central feature of their social interaction persons explore culturally possible ways of doing things or performing action. In other words, actual language production (written and spoken) by members of particular cultures is based on choice from a set of possible uses; to choose from a set of possible uses is to express preference. Further, when language use occurs the expression of preference is based on consideration, comparison and inference from comparison.

Secondly, the participation of West Indian cricketers in the sphere of Test Match Cricket is, frequently, not just an occasion for non-playing Caribbean people to identify with, and support, their Caribbean compatriots. What is significantly associated with identification and support is unity among these people who are diligent analysts of the

game in much the same way as dedicated post-graduate students and their co-researchers

inquire and add knowledge to their subject areas. I wish to say, as well, that - with few

exceptions - heads of Caribbean nations were persons who had been disallowed from

participation in normal, conventional, or taken- for-granted avenues to socio-economic

development; as leaders, they would like people to identify with, and support, their efforts at unity and socio-economic development.

Perhaps the strongest justification for requesting analysis of the cricketing arena could be located in the comments of Clive Lloyd, cricketer, and Michael Manley, former Head of

State, two notable West Indians - the first of working class origins and the latter from an

upper class background. Manley (1988, p. 399) spoke of the profound symbolic value of the West Indian team to the Caribbean and stated that the team influences the mood of the

region "which exults it in its victories and is cast into gloom when it loses."

Where other institutions fight to survive the centripetal forces of insularity the team becomes even more West Indian. This is so because it is successful attracting to itself an

evergrowing regional pride.

He adds that perhaps one day Caribbean people will do more than admire their cricket

67

team and might seek to emulate its success by discovering for themselves the unity which is its secret. He also notes that the West Indies team had to complete the process of

professionalism before it could realise its full potential and claims that the Caribbean will have to undergo "an equivalent transformation of its economy" through an integration process. At that time it will create the political institutions to ensure that its collective

advantages are protected and brought to their fullest potential in serving Caribbean

peoples' needs.

Lloyd stated that Cricket is the ethos around which Caribbean society revolves. He

pointed out that "all our experiments in Caribbean integration either failed or maintained a dubious survivability." Cricket, however, remains the instrument of Caribbean cohesion, the remover of arid insularity and nationalistic prejudice. He adds that it is to Cricket and its many spin offs that Caribbean people of their consideration and dignity abroad. Cricket is the musical instrument on which "we orchestrate our emotions from the extremes of wild enthusiasm to the depths of despair." (Lloyd, 1988: p. V).

I am now in a position to state which aspect of the cricketing arena should be examined. I propose that wherever Cricket is played by Caribbean people in the Caribbean and other

parts of the world where West Indian people reside, it would be necessary to analyse the

various collaborative and competitive efforts of West Indian cricketers. It would be neces-

sary, also, to examine the way or ways in which spectators of Cricket express support and

appreciation of their player-compatriots when they are playing. The major concern could be:

Players ' demonstration of knowledge in the display of their playing skill.

Watchers' demonstration of knowledge in their ability to use language when

talking about cricket.

• Actions players and watchers perform in contexts of situation.

How the culturally possible ways in which actions are performed can be figured out.

• Indicating why the study of language is important to an examination of Cricket.

I shall deal with each, in turn.

Playing a game such as Cricket is clearly evidence of the demonstration of skill. This

demonstration can be indicated by direct sensory experience, language, display of cricket

ability.

Here, players' knowledge of the resources of language is used as a basis to their display of skill. On the other hand, since watchers are not players when they watch, but do use

language, the relationship between language use and cricket should be expressed:

68

Direct Sensory Experience or Language = Knowledge of Cricket

In this case, use of the resources of language is the indicator of what watchers know about the playing of Cricket, as well as the support they provide to players. Knowing how the resources of language are used is important to understanding what watchers and players do and how they do what they do.

Knowing how players and watchers use the resources of language, though, is also knowing how they employ their three groups of socio-linguistic skills, the motor-percep- tive, organisational and semantic, all of which have productive and receptive aspects. I shall concentrate on the organisational, as well as the semantic which Pit-Corder (1966, pp 8-12) says aie of higher level than the other two. Organisational skills are concerned with organising units of language into acceptable patterns and the ability to discern and analyse those patterns when they are read or heard. The productive and receptive aspects of these skills are the generative and analytic. Semantic skills are concerned with the expression of meaning, use of utterances in the "right circumstances" to communicate or produce the desired results in hearers. According to him, semantic skills must be developed "before a completely meaningful use of language is achieved."

Receptive Skills/Productive Skills = Semantic

Analytic/Generative = Organisational

Visual/Auditory =SPEAKER Articulatory/Manual = HEARER/ (Motor-Perceptive)

It seems clear that Pit-Coider's principal concern is a concern with meaning. To the extent that it is concern with productive and receptive aspeas of language use, it is consistent with my claim earlier that when language use takes place persons express preference, and the expression of preference is based on consideration, comparison and inference from comparison. Of greater importance to me is that while what Caribbean leaders may do is meaningful to them what they do may not necessarily be meaningful to the people they govern. On the other hand, what West Indian cricketers have been doing is meaningful, not merely to themselves, it has been meaningful, also, to their watchers.

The intensity of vocal support given by watchers across separate West Indian Nations States to players is - to my mind - very clear evidence that what is meaningful to players is meaningful to watchers. I would, therefore, say that since support and the unity, as well as the socio-economic development that could result from this unity have been eluding Caribbean leaders it would be of great use to these leaders to apprise themselves of how language use indicates: (1) what watchers know about the playing of Cricket, (2) players' demonstration of skill.

If language is to be the subject of study, I would say it should be studied in contexts of

69

situation which can be described: (l)The verbal action of participants in contexts (cricketers and watchers). (2)The non-verbal action of participants. a.The relevant objects. b.The effects of verbal action.

My use of the term, 'contexts of situation', is derived from British linguist, J.R. Firth, who argued that language had to be studied as part of a social process as "a form of human

living rather than merely a set of arbitrary signs and signals." What do people do in contexts?

They use language as a central feature of their social interaction in order to do things that are important or essential to their everyday existence. And in their performance, they must consider what are relevant to them, if they are to attain their goals. I would add that the important feature of goal attainment is that persons attempt to, and do, affect others by conveying messages on the basis of the functions and purposes of the language they construct.10 And it is the conveying of messages via the functions and purposes which is indicative of meaning.

Meaning in language is therefore not a single rela- tion or a single sort of relation, but involves a set of

multiple and various relations holding between the utterance and its parts and the relevant features and

components of the environment, both cultural and

physical, and forming part of the more extensive sys- tem of interpersonal dations involved in the existence of human societies. (Robins, 1967: p. 28).

Let me solidify my concern with, and interest in, language. According to linguist, Hudson (1980, p. 202) persons use the speech of others to form clues to non-linguistic information about them - for instance, their social background. He notes, as well, that observable features of personality can be used as clues to speech.

Quite apart from a revelation of personality in the field of Cricket that could emerge from the language use of cricketers and their watchers, cricket - like all games - is played according to what philosopher of language, John Searle (1971, pp.40-41) regards as

regulative and constitutive rules. Regulative rules regulate previously existing aspects of

persons' behaviour - e.g., rules of etiquette interpersonal relationships, but such relations exist independently of the rules of etiquette. On the other hand, constitutive rules do not just regulate, they also create or define new forms of behaviour.

The rules of football for example, do not merely regulate the game of football but as it were create the possibility of or define that activity. The activity of playing football is

70

constituted by acting in accordance with these rules; football has no existence apart from these rules.

Searle provides an example of the constitutive rules of a game by saying that in (American) football a touchdown is scored when a player crosses the opponents' goal Une in possession of the ball while play is in progress. And in what I see as his attempt to point to similarities between the playing of games and language use, he says that performances such as asking questions or making statements are rule governed in ways quite similar to those in which getting a base hit in baseball or moving a knight in chess are rule governed acts. What interests me about cricketers' demonstration of skill is that in their adherence to, and observance of rules they must employ the resources of language to do these two things.

Participation in games takes place either collaboratively, competitively, or on both a collaborative and competitive basis. The act of scoring a touchdown is not, for all practical purposes, a consequence of, or is consistent with the mere existence of constitutive rules. This is an act which is also produced in accordance with acts of collaboration and

competitiveness. Collaboration and competitiveness are also very important features of the performance of acts such as the scoring of boundaries by batsman and the dismissal of these very batsmen by bowlers in the course of playing a game such as cricket. Expressing myself alternatively, I ask: (1) whether base hits, boundaries and touchdown are possible without collaboration and competitiveness? (2) if players and spectators can grasp the meaning of base hits and boundaries without knowing the significance of collaboration and competi- tiveness?

My response to both questions are negative. I would thus say that any attempt to offer an understanding of the performance of West Indian Test cricketers and their watchers would be inadequate, if it is not concerned with explicating collaboration and competitive- ness. If such explicating is to be done, it would have to take the form of a sociolinguistic interpretation of the meaningful nature of collaboration and competitiveness. My reference to interpretation is not meant to be confined to an analyst's interpretation of cricketers' collaborative and competitive efforts. I am pointing, also, to the analyst's recognition and examination of watchers' sociolinguistic accounts of these efforts (Cricket commentators included).

These two events - definitely competitive in nature - I view as fertile sources of analysis. The first took place during the second Test Match (1988) Pakistan vs. West Indies and is about Pakistani player, Abdul Kadir's unsuccessful appeal to umpire Barker for West Lidian captain, Viv Richards, to be ruled out. The second, which occurred in Barbados

during the fourth Test Match (England vs. West Ladies 1990) is about Barker's decision to rule English batsman, Bailey, out, a decision preceding the furore to which I referred earlier. Let me provide some additional background in order to put the events in proper perspective, hi the '88 Test Richards needed to play a long and substantial innings to

71

prevent the West Indies from losing two Tests in a three test series. When he had reached a hundred in the West Indies second innings radio commentator, Tong Cozier, was prompted to say:

... this has been a tremendous performance by Richards. Here he is coming back into the West Indies team. He missed the first Test. He was out following the operation he had. The team had lost the first Test Match. There was the attitude on the field which was down; and here's Richards, now lifting them back up with this tremendous innings. And now he's beginning to dominate. And for Richards, personally, a very im-

portant Test Match here, in that he really has asserted himself with his batting, his leadership. He has lifted the side.

However, this is what took place when Kadir bowled the second delivery of a new over - his-seventy-se venth - to Richards.

"c. Here comes Abdul Kadir - on the way now to Richards - ((extremely loud appeal from Kadir)) rapped on the pad it pitched outside the leg stump - a long way ( ) not out says umpire Barker - Richards come back - THERE'S no QUESTION that that ball was pitched well outside the leg stump ( ) umpire Barker says not out ( ) in addition Abdul Kadir went

right across - in front of umpire Barker ( ) Kadir THROWS the ball down on the pitch ( ) I would estimate here Gerry that the ball was pitched outside the leg stump ( ) Richards was

back-trying to turn it on the leg side ( ) I don't know what you've made of it

G: Yes - it wasn't the flipper - bit in addition - Kadir - added to Barker's difficulties by running across im

C: And Kadir - ah - ump - Kadir pointed to ump - to the square leg umpire and - uhm -

suggested to Barker that he ask him ((laugh from Cozier)) but - ah Salim Yusuf has now

gone into the one side ( ) I - Richards was RIGHT back on his stumps - ah - but from our

vantage point here - it looked SO much as if the ball pitched outside leg stump and came in and hit him ( ) and - eh - uh course they're nearest to the action down there ( ) uh but umpire Barker said Kadir had run in front of him ( ) but there was a lot of - going on - uhGAIN with the umpire not having made the decision ( ) and Abdul Kadir THROWED the ball into the

ground - Salim Yusuf WALKED away into the on side ( ), there was CHAllenging of the

umpire's decision once more ( ) and - uhGAIN - we've seen it so often in test cricket -

72

we've seen in red stripe cup cricket this year where the authority of the umpire being questioned on - undoubtedly out in the middle - by players - who - really - should know better ( ) the umpire could do NOthing about it - in other sports the umpire CAN do something about it ( ) but here - in cricket - the players are expected to take the umpire's decision as it is given

G: Yes Tony - an I think - in fact during the lunch hour - Intikaab and I were having a discussion about - what is needed - for the control of the game - and I think we've got to move with the times and introduce - some punitive measures - for the introduction of say - the green card, the yellow card and the red card - and penalise offending players - by - nuh - by not having them - ahm - on the field - for vaiying lengths of time according to the - to the kind of offence - uhm - for instance - if you get a - a yellow card - you probably go off for a period between lunch and tea or - for some such time - or a couple of hours - un until some REAlly - all the attempts by authority to - appeal to the - you might say thè decency of the players - or not only that - 1 - don believe a lot of the players realise that they harm - that they do to cricket - when they behave in this way - because they have come up through the system themselves - they've been to school - they've been to college - they've been to university - they've played in their national teams - and - they played in their club teams - and All through that system - the umpire is required to uhm - to - yo - to make sure that the conduct of the game is maintained ( ) and once you have this sort of NONsense going on - and this is what you might call virtual hooliganism - ah (mhm) afraid - ahm - it is not gonna do cricket any good good ( ) and I think that the - the International Cricket Conference which - really - is almost a toothless tiger - ahm - had to - do something about ahm - the behaviour of players

C: Well - 1 jaz Ahmed is up there now - an he's come up - and he's talking to umpire Barker about the leg - before decision ( ) umpire Barker - 1 know im from Barbados - he's a very cool individual - and what he said to Abdul Kadir when the appeal went out was-was that Kadir was right in from of him ( ) he could not give the decision because he couln't see ( ) and he's saying the same thing now to-to Imran who's come up to have a word with him ( ) ah - he said the same thing to Abdul Kadir ( ) I jaz said Richards was right back and in front of the stumps ( ) that - of course - does NOT mean the batsman is out because if the ball pitched outside the leg stump - there's no way he can be out ( ) my immediate impression was that the ball DID pitch outside the leg stump and come in to Richards - and take him on the back foot as he went back trying to turn on the on side.

G: Well - yu know Tony - also - ah - there are two things to some of these - (MMM) - appeals - one is - ah - ignorance of the law - and two - the - the point is that you 'r virtually trying to

73

cheat - an a lot of that goes on in Test cricket today

During the course of the fourth Test Match between England and the West Indies in Barbados (1990) Richards and Barker again figured prominently. Here is some relevant background.

England's 1990 tour of the West Indian team was regarded by virtually all supporters of West Indian cricket as an event that would end in certain triumph for the West Indian team. That was not to be, though. The West Indies had lost the first Test and were almost certain to lose the third, had rain not disrupted play. The England team had been doing unexpected- ly well. I suggest that the unexpected good performance by England was not merely a basis to heightened interest in the game on the part of West Indian people. Its sudden impact was, also, a powerful and significant disruption of their taken-for-granted West Indian sense that England was going to be trounced. I submit, also, that disruption constituted a very substantial basis to rejection of the taken-for-granted and serious analysis of the sig- nificance of West Indian Cricket.

Thus, when the scene of Test Match Cricket shifted to Barbados, the analytical attention of Barbadian and other West Indian supporters must have been directed to matters of crucial significance: whether and how the West Indian team could emerge victoriously from that Barbados game. Their focus must have been well placed on the fourth afternoon of the match when England was in very grave danger of losing. The West Indians who would ensure defeat would be a fearsome and efficient battery of fast bowlers. So when

umpire Barker ruled England batsman, Robert Bailev. out (caught behind the wicket) as a result of a very quick delivery down the leg side from Curtly Ambrose, a leading spark in that battery, victory was well within the West Indian grasp.

The West Indies did defeat England. Victory was not, however, divorced from a context in which the circumstances of Bailey's dismissal were linked to controversy part of which was initially aired on television and also one of a sequence of events about competitiveness discussed in the Caribbean. What follows is a transcript of the television discourse the co-conversants are: AW Greig and G. Boycott (Tirey'), former England captains, and M. Holding, former West Indian fast bowler. These speakers are identified by the initials of the surnames.

G: Oh - he's got im - caught behind - down the leg side - VTV Richards (ah - uh wo) I TELL you what - the umpire wasn gonna GEEV that ( ) Richards ( wo) - CREated ( wha) on he RAN down the wicket doing that little weegle with his hand - and I REALLY did think that the umpire had decided not out and gave the batsman out late ( ) NOW - the umpire's having a word to Stewart out there who's indicating that it hit him on the thigh pad - and

74

THAT - REALLY was very interesting ((Action Replay)) now you're gonna have to watch Richards here - and the umpire ( ) this was a VEri controversial decision - there can be ABsoLUTEly no doubt about the fact that the umpire was walking away - 1 don't think he was shaking his head ( ) well Richards got heez way - and Bailey - a very disappointed Bailey is out ( ) its ten fii, three ( ) TEN fii three - England in all SORTS of trouble - and we have a second night Watchman ( ) one of England's great fighters - little Jack Rüssel is out there - four slips and a gully a - a forward short leg - a leg slip ( ) whatever he looks there's a close catcher ( ) and at the moment - Stewart taking control out there - he's not entirely happy - because Viv Richards is - in point of fact - maving the field - and Alec Stewart -

quite rightly saying to Jack Rüssel - hold it, he's still making field changes - Well on the right hand side ((referring to a group of spectators)) they are ABSoLUTEly out of their skeens ( ) Vic Richards no - wandering around ( ) ((Replay)) this is the wicket - the LB W what do you think 'Firey'

B: Well - ah think - tha a could be out ( ) probly heetting leg stump or even jus missing - bit I av no trooble with that - with the batsman playing on the back foot

G: Spose the only question was - was it going over the top ((Replay )) see if we can give you another view of that - 1 don't think it was - 1 think it's fair enough - the one before is the one that we really have to query ( ) Well - Viv Richards - again very excited there - why wouldn't he be - he's captain of the West Indies - an they're making a comeback in this series

B: Well - 1 doon't mind Veevian Reechards or any player being eekcited and uh - joomping oop in the air - thrilled - when the decision goes for them - but ah do object to any player ronning - careering towards the oompire - when the oompire had obviously not given th baatsman out - rooning - charging towards in-an putting him oonder pressure - and then he actually gives the baatsman out - thaat caant be right - eet ees not nice fu creekit - an I -

certainly - don like eet

G: Well - Geoff Boycott's so disgusted - he's packed his bags and he's leaving ( ) Michael Hulding's about to move in ( ) and the crowd down there have broken into song ( ) th y are SOW SOW happy ( ) Well - Michael - Hulding's got a little bit of a smile on hees fice too - Michael - first of all - that ah - that wan down the leg side - You saw that on replay - What did you think

H: Well definately on replay - Tony - you could see that it did - definately - did touch the thigh

75

pad - but what I can't anderstand is hy 'Firey ' is so upset - it as happened bufore in the game

- it will happen again - so - why get so upset - the umpire made his dicisian - he's baak in the paavilian - it wasn't good - great fu the game - but-iy - it's ovuh - it as appened bufore - as I said - many times - and it will happen again

G: I remember in fact - it happened to you - in ah - Ustrelia when Ian Chappel got a beeg nick and didn't go ( ) it worked the other way around on that occasion - just as a point of interest - on on Richards's charging down there - it looked jus fu fu me it looked fur a second as if Lloyd barker actually made up ees mind - he actually mide the decision from about FOUR yourds to what - perhaps - that's exaggerating - but from about three yourds to the left of the stumps

H: Yes - Lloyd Baarka - apparently - was cunvinced - or he thought, that at the biginning - that it wasn't out - he took ah couple ah steps - away from the stumps - and then - made the dicisian

G: Well - this is Malcolm Marshall - he's decided - well - he hasn't decided because - actually - Ian Bishop's off the ground - it may just be that - ah - he's twisted something - any thoughts on that

H: Ah - * Firey

' just wrote a note there Tony about the-saying you should ask me about kicking

the stumps over in New Zealand ((serious tone of voice)) I don't mind you asking me about that AT ALL - as a matter of fact ((serious tone and rapid speech)) I wouldn't mind him taking the SEAT and asking me himSELF

((Boycott invited by Grieg to take a commentary position))

B: Well - you say thaat Michael - cool and calmly - because eet went West Indies way - but eet caam be right to put pressure on the oompire ( ) I mean - you played a long time - and you went and kicked down the stoomps in New Zealand when you were upset

H: ((Serious tone and rapid speech)) Yes - "Firey"" - that's definately right - but - 1 was out there - on the field - YORE not OUT there - Are yu - yur - up here - in tbe stands - it's uh LOT easier to be calm and cool up here IYsn't it

B: You can't roon towards the oopire

76

H: I'm not - saying yu kean ( ) there's NO way I'm going to difend Vivion Richards for running towards the umpire ((serious tone» NO WAY kean I difend that - but - it as happened - there's no point getting all that firey about it - ((serious tone and rapid speech)) yer name is shlieady 'Rry

' - Geoff - take it easy

B: Well - when you see things like that where all countries of the world have their own oompires - then YOU'VE GOT to take the point of Imram Khan that it is time for neutral oompires - because whenever it happens - in England and Australia West Indies - every cuntry that's touring will say 'look - yur favourites to the home side' - and that's why neutral oompires will have to come in

H: I'm in total agreement with that - 'Firey' - I've always said that I thought neutral umpires would be the best thing for the game ( ) umpires - will make mistakes - people might say they are likkie bit biased - but - at least - the fact they they are NOT - from eethe^ country - either of the the countries taking part - they are - the players are more willing to accept them as mistakes - so I am not against neutral umpires at all.

B: DEFInitely - you MOOST have neutral oompires so that you take away the emotion - no side can say - well you favouring one of the other because you're a home oopmire - and -

they they've had thaat for many years in eentemational soocer where the re ferres aie always neutral - and its REALLY time the I.C.C. got their act together and sorted eet out - because nobody will tell me as an Eenglishman watching I am - no doubt about it - you want West Indies to win and I want England to do well - I've got to see that as a home decision

G: Well - 1 think - peifaaps - now that 'Firey's' had hees little say there and uhm - Michael - have you finished - have you god anything else you wanted to say after this

H: Not really Tony - 1 - 'Firey' -jes - taking - was just talking about emotions - he certainly got emotional about all this - hu hu hu

B: Yes - well - 1 woos always brought oop fu fair play - simply thaat - 1 like to coompete hard - 1 like it to be toough out in the middle - but I DO like fair play - and eh - ah doon think it was very nice

77

H: Kea - Kean I ask you a question bufere you fo 'Firey' - have yu evah - stand - stood uo for a caught - behind and given not out

G: Now - the question there from Michael Hulding is - have you ever stayed when you - nicked wan

B: Certnly not - wha should I do that - has the oompire given me out Lbdoob yu when I wasn't ( ) what I'm talking oobout is actually rooning towards the oompire an telling im what deecision to make - thaat caan't be right - 1 mean - if he'd uh given Bailey out - even if he wasn't out Bailey would have had to go - but it joos lukes bad when players on the field roon towards the oompire

H: Yes - 1 would agree with that - definately

G: Well - whad an interesting lit'dl dibite that was - I'm sure we can carry it on tomorrow - in FACT we're gonna insist on earring it on tomorrow ((laugh)) een fact - we're gonna insist on carrying it on tomorrow ( ) the umpires ( ) in keeping with consistency - bang on ten minutes to six have offered the light to the English batsmen ( ) an thy 've dididud to tike it young Alex Stewart has - done a sterling job for England - hees still out there - having a

deescussion weeth Deff Geoff Dujon ( ) he obviously wasn't happy with that decision - and it looks as if Dujon - may not be too sure about it ( ) Well - we wont know - the fact of the matteris - you got to accept the umpire's decision at the end of the day ( ) and ah - that was a very interesting little dibite by two grite crigiters - two grite guys who've been there before in their time - thy 've been under pressure - from umpires - thy 've ah - benifited from good and bad decisions alike ( ) ((ohm)) that't the way the gime is () as far as I'm concerned the umpires so far this year have been pretty good ( ) that was a very unfortunate incident - because there's NO doubt that the ball flicked the thigh pad ( ) ah think Michael Hulding conceded that ( ) Geog Boycott's point - eh think - forcefully mide - as usual ( ) woos that ah - the ooh little bit of extra pressure that was put on by ( ) Viv Richards charging down the wicket - perhaps ( ) was the thing that made the umpire give that decision ( ) well - so be it - when - everyone wikes up in the morning ( ) the pipers will say that Bailey was out - caught Dujon off the bowling of Ambrose - as indeed - it says on that batting card - for six - and the West Indian fast bowlers have - REAlly - been on fire here this evening - two fu six to Ambrose - one fur seven to Bishop - Marshall just bowled thewan over because Bishop was off the ground ( ) and England are fifteen fu Three ( ) and that is REAlly - going to Mike - the rest die - little less palatable ( ) thy need three hundred and fifty-six to win which won't happen.

78

Finally, cricket is supposed to be a "gentleman's" game. In conditions where collabora- tion and competitiveness exist, it would - by no means - be inappropriate to examine the genteleman's game in relation to them.

Conclusion

I have sought to lay a foundation for participation of ordinary Caribbean people in the cricketing arena. I believe that if such participation is examined seriously by Caribbean governments a strong basis to unity and, ultimately, socio-economic progress could be created. And it is from this basis that the foreground which threatens the progress of Caribbean Cricket could be made to recede or removed. I am also saying that it is through an understanding of the sociolinguistic dimensions of what is truly Caribbean that West Indian leaders and ordinary Caribbeanpeople can benefit both economically and culturally.

Within the last three decades much interest has been shown in the matter, what does it mean to be a Caribbean person? This is a matter which has been looked at frequently in terms of how full language status can be given to vernacular language with whose use

ordinary Caribbean people have been typically identified. I would like to suggest that, for the first time, users of this language, a universal medium for the production of ideas about cricket, would be given an opportunity to see that the knowledge they construct is used to deal with West Indian problems. In turn, West Indian governments would be provided with social situations in which they would be much better positioned to make justifiable claims about their understanding of ordinary Caribbean people.

In this regard, Manley's comment is most appropriate. He says that at a political level Cricket is the most completely regional activity undertaken by the people of CARICOM member state s it is also the most successful Caribbean co-operative endeavour, and thus is a constant reminder to "a people of otherwise wayward insularity of the value of collabora- tion."

Let me initiate closure to my work by urging political leaders to think very seriously about occupying this position. I also believe that C.L.R. James would urge them too. James (1963) asked: what do they know of Cricket who only Cricket know? He replies by saying that West Indians crowding to Tests bring with them the entire past history and future hopes of the Caribbean territories, he adds that while English people have a conception of themselves "breathed from birth" and a national tradition constituted bv events, persons and institutions such as the Charge of the Light Brigade, Drake, Nelson, Shakespeare, Waterloo, the few who did so much for so many and Parliamentary democracy, under-

developed countries have to go back centuries to rebuilt a tradition.

We of the West Indies have none at all, none that we know of. To [West Indian Test Match crowds] the three W's, Ram and Val wrecking English batting help to fill a huge gap in their consciousness and in their needs. In one of the sheds on the Port-of-Spain wharf is

79

a painted sign: 365 Garfield Sobers.

Should West Indian leaders take the aforementioned position, many a Matthew Bondman could rise to the top of the Test Cricket arena and in the process of their movement enjoy financial comfort in a climate of economic progress.

Finally, one of the first steps the leaders should take is to set up a Caribbean Institute of Cricket which would operate under the joint supervision of CARICOM, as well as the Universities of the West Indies and Guyana, institutions located in territories where Test Match Cricket is played. A primary aim of the Institute would be to examine culturally possible ways in which social action is performed in the Test Cricket Arena. A major aspect of the inquiry should be conducted by conversation analysts, those social scientists who are

prominently located within the field of modern interpretive Sociology and one of whose

major investigative goals is examination of the sequential organisation of discourse. Fur- ther, pursuit of the goal is guided by adherence to a postulate of adequacy.

Adherents to the postulate means that analytical constructs devised to describe social action should be understandable, not just to an anylst her/himself, but understandable also to a social actor and fellow actors in terms of their commonsense interpretation of

everyday life (Schultz, 1970, p.279). In other words, conversation analysts seek to ensure that their technical terms have ordinary application. They have also argued legitimately for

sociologists to emphasise the importance of language use to social interaction and have stressed the significance of understanding the everyday world through an examination of

language.

The boundaries may appear to be distant, but much more than the field is wide open.

FOOTNOTES

1. This article appeared in the English newspaper, The Mail on Sunday - p.72, 22/4/1990

2. This comment of Lloyd's appears on p. 32 of the Red Stripe Caribbean Cricket Quarterly (ed) Tony Cozier: Vol. 1, No. 4, 1991.

3.Cozier's statements appeared in the British daily, the Independent, 1 lth April, 1990.

4.1t was A.W. Grieg and G. Boycott, two former England captains, umpiring at the Test match level. Transcription symbols used in this and the other conversation are:

(( )) Double parentheses indicate physical action that accompanies talk.

: A colon within a work indicates lengthening of sound that follows it.

A short untimed pause within an utterance is indicated by a dash.

(2.6) When intervals in the stream of talk occur, they are timed in tenths of a second and inserted in parentheses within or between utterances.

(Mhm) Words or stretches of speech inserted in single parentheses are of doubtful transcription.

80

THIS Bold face upper case arrangement indicates extra-loud stress.

While single parentheses appear in the transcripts, no timing of speakers' pauses is recorded. This is so because I have no interest here in providing analyses of the sequential organisation of talk.

REFERENCES

Hudson, R.A. Sociolinguistic. Cambridge University Press (1980).

James, C.L.R. Cricket. London: Allison and Busby. (1986).

Lloyd C.H. Introduction, in M. Manley. A History of West Indies Cricket, London: Andre Deutsh and Pan Books (1988).

Manley, M. A History of West Indies Cricket. London: Andre Deutsh and Pan books (1988). Pit Corder, S. The Visual Element in Language Teaching. London: Longman (1966).

Robins, R.H. General Linguistics. London Longman (1967).

Schutz, A. On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1970).

Searle, J.R. The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press