Re-Imperialism: The West Indies Coach Debate
No, I don’t mean to equate the West Indies’ recent appointment of an Australian coach with the 300+ odd years of European imperialism — but I couldn’t help it. Since most of the arguments against choosing a foreign coach rely on not-so-subtle nationalist protests, it seemed like a good fit. And since the coach in the modern world of cricket is all-seeing and all-powerful (apparently), why not throw some history into the mix?
To recap: the West Indies appointed John Dyson to head their beleaguered team, which, as many West Indian commentators are fond of reminding us, was once the best team in the world. The Board’s decision — as most of the WICB’s actions do these days, it seems — sparked a major controversy across the region, mostly due to a wide feeling among fans that West Indians should be coached by West Indians.
A coach’s “foreign-ness” comes up often in the cricket world, especially in India and Pakistan, which still like to brow-beat their chests to remind themselves that they are in fact sovereign nations. But arguments against foreign coaches make absolutely no sense, as the West Indian case reveals.
Tym Glaser, writing in the Jamaican Gleaner, offers a particularly bizarre case against Dyson’s appointment. He initially seems to make sense, like when he says that no Australian could truly appreciate the West Indian culture. (Of course, no one knows exactly what the “West Indian” culture is, since there is no actual country known as “the West Indies.” But I digress.)
Glaser quickly loses the plot, however, when he goes into the finer points of what his home’s culture really is: staying out late and taking things a bit easy.
“Watch tapes! Study opponents’ flaws! Work on techniques and tactics! You’ve got to be crazy, mon. Where the heck is the fun in that? Much better if we picked one of our own like Big Phil Simmons. Now there was a man that never took things too seriously and he would be able to lime with the guys, no problem. Curfews, cho, y’all go to bed when Big Phil goes to bed and that could be mighty late.”
On some level, I understand what Glaser means: West Indians do not play cricket like Australians do, and they shouldn’t. That, I get. But this reductionist cultural nonsense? Surely, the West Indian team of the ’70s and ’80s would have something else to say about the virtues of a strict work ethic.
The paper editorialized against the choice as well, and made a somewhat less facetious argument:
“The coach is simply a man who teaches people how to bat, how to bowl, and how to field; and if a region that has produced, on its own, great batsmen, from George Headley to Brian Lara; great bowlers, from Learie Constantine to Curtley Ambrose, cannot find someone from home to do so again, then something is wrong, really wrong, with its people.”
In other words, choosing a foreigner is a huge insult to all the players and people of the West Indians, who are pretty darn good cricketers. But this editorial wrongly assumes that a good player is also a good coach, which is just not the case. David Lloyd, who enjoyed a very limited Test-level English career, went on to coach the England side, and did a more than decent job. Duncan Fletcher — until it all fell apart in Australia last year — was an amazing coach for England, but no one would say that he was as good a player. Meanwhile, Greg Chappell, a legend of the game, utterly failed in India. And so on.
The only argument that has actually made sense comes from Tony Becca, who writes that boards should not automatically assume that a foreign coach is better. Now this, I understand: too many cricket authorities in the Third World will turn to foreign coaches as a panacea, even though a good coach is much more than a good nationality. The relationship between the coach and the captain has to be seamless (as Fletcher also recently revealed); the coach must have a firm understanding of each player’s strengths and weaknesses, etc. There’s no reason to think that Australians have this knowledge or practice it better than a capable native variant.
Of course, assuming the opposite is just as bad: asking for an Indian coach in India simply because s/he is Indian repeats the same error. There is a reason that Australians are so technically perfect, and a reason that they are among the best fielders and bowlers around. Both sides in this debate should go by merit, not nationality — that would be ultimate value of freedom.
I could be wrong, but Australia isn’t part of Europe, and therefore Imperialism may be beyond us.
However, i think Phil Simmons would be a good coach, not because he’s west indian, but because he as done a good job coaching.
Uncle, a long look at the world map confirms your keen geographical instinct: Australia is not part of Europe. In every other sense, however, it is — most Australians descend (that being the operative word) from European settlers, and they were as imperialist as they come.
Of course, in the contemporary world, no one is politically imperialist — at least not like the old-school colonists were — but it doesn’t take much to see how colonial the post-colonial world is. Even in this discussion, the whole debate over a foreign coach stems from the colonial debate (ie, we don’t need a white man — Australian or European — to tell us how to behave), and Glaser’s comments are a perfect example: none of that modern Western ethic for him; let’s stay true to our roots.
But, as my blog post tried to argue, it’s merit, not nationality or origin that should decide who’s best for a team. Those Indian/West Indian administrators who argue for a foreign coach just for the sake of a foreign coach inadvertently reveal just how deeply the colonial mentality scarred them.
You say that “Those Indian/West Indian administrators who argue for a foreign coach just for the sake of a foreign coach inadvertently reveal just how deeply the colonial mentality scarred them.”
Perhaps it has nothing to do with that, perhaps it is simply that Australia, is the most successful cricket nation in the world. Most of these coaches are coming from the country with the best cricket academies, first class system and best grass roots training in the world.
It is no different than the fact most Gymnastic coaches at one stage in the 90’s were Russian.
Actually, I am an Australian working in Jamaica and the article was supposed to be satirical.
Apparently. I missed the mark.
tym, your article makes a lot more sense now. sorry about that.