[soundcloud][/soundcloud]
Beckles on the current state and future of West Indies Cricket. The audio is the closing remarks in a lecture “Frank Worrell: The Rise & Fall of West Indies Cricket” given at the University of the West Indies Open Campus St. Kitts Nevis on May 5th 2011.
Beckles is a Non-Member Director of the West Indies Cricket Board.
“Chris Gayle is the Don… Windies Cricket trying to uproot this donman’ship out of the culture.”
AUDIO: Sir Beckles on the current state of WI cricket
-
mikesiva
- Posts: 19320
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: Watford, Hertfordshire
- Contact:
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
[youtube][/youtube]mikesiva wrote:And here's an excellent critique by Jimmy Adams....
THANK YOU MIKESEVA...FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART! YOU CANNOT IMAGINE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR ME BY L;OCATING THIS ARTICLE AND POSTING IT HERE! LET ME TELL YOU WHY!
I met Jimmy Adams in Antigua back in the 1988 pr there-abouts. he was 18 years old, tall and redskin, handsome, gregraious but with a serious streak, extremely well-spoken, with a radicalism I for one found most endearing.
I was impressed with that kid, noted his name and kept of for future reference, to note his trajectory in life. I was elated when he made the westindies and scored well, especially when things were bad. I was very happy when he acceded to the captaincy and looked forward to great leadership from him
then he disapeared under a cloud of problems with hsi leadship lost or gave up the captaincy and them lost his place in the test team. the Jimmy Adams I had met had disappeared and I was disappointed. I had looked forward to much from him in the westindies. unlike Gayle Adams is a real westindian. like Gerry Alexander he is human, sound.
we here we have the real Adams again leh me tell you. this is the boy I met, now a man with manful opinion. trememdous! we may still expect sound contribution for Adams. he is right where he shud be at this time.
right on
-
mapoui
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm
Hilary Beckles is an academic, a man who exists on grants to run the projects he has established.
if Beckles did not toe the established line his projects would not have been funded.
if he deviates from the established line his projects will lose their funding.
beckles accepted a knightedhood from the queen. he is now Sir Hilary Beckles. that is the crowning achievement of his long climb up the social ladder.
dat Sir is the sign of his acceptrance of the staus quo. his passport will reflect that sir and he will be passed through everywhere without qualm or trouble.
it is right for Adams to critique Beckles words, what he writes relative to westindies cricket. it is right in the process to define Beckles accurate position in the scheme of things, where he stands, wat he stands for.
it is to all our benefit to know this...and not only about Beckles. we need to know our society and how it functions so that we may partricipate in it as effectively as we can from our own base of interest.
and in doin soe we will come to know that from Beckles we cannot expect critiques and contributions that go to the heart of the matter..certainly not to the heart from a labour or oridnary interest angle.
Beckles will do nothing to destabilise a status quo he is a part of if he can help it. case closed! we must criticise his ouput when necessary as Admas has done here excellently
if Beckles did not toe the established line his projects would not have been funded.
if he deviates from the established line his projects will lose their funding.
beckles accepted a knightedhood from the queen. he is now Sir Hilary Beckles. that is the crowning achievement of his long climb up the social ladder.
dat Sir is the sign of his acceptrance of the staus quo. his passport will reflect that sir and he will be passed through everywhere without qualm or trouble.
it is right for Adams to critique Beckles words, what he writes relative to westindies cricket. it is right in the process to define Beckles accurate position in the scheme of things, where he stands, wat he stands for.
it is to all our benefit to know this...and not only about Beckles. we need to know our society and how it functions so that we may partricipate in it as effectively as we can from our own base of interest.
and in doin soe we will come to know that from Beckles we cannot expect critiques and contributions that go to the heart of the matter..certainly not to the heart from a labour or oridnary interest angle.
Beckles will do nothing to destabilise a status quo he is a part of if he can help it. case closed! we must criticise his ouput when necessary as Admas has done here excellently
-
mikesiva
- Posts: 19320
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: Watford, Hertfordshire
- Contact:
I went to school with Adams, and those of us who did share our respect for him....
He was a deputy head boy who studied A Levels and would've gone to UWI if he didn't choose cricket instead. He's currently studying a degree in psychology in England, so he's nobody's fool.
As for Beckles, I'm disappointed in his biased and slanted speech, but with your explanation, maps, I can see why he toes the establishment line. However, I can't believe he could've been so stupid as to say so many things that are distinctly slanderous. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit coming out of this one....
he says that cricket was the only sporting force of any significance in all of the Caribbean countries. In this respect, he ignores the historical impact that McKenley, Wint and Rhoden had on the athletics tradition in Jamaica in 1948 and 1952.
Beckles suffers from a huge ego. He talks about how chummy he was with Manley and Lloyd when sitting together watching WI lose to Australia in 1995, and how much they valued his input. Self-praise, Beckles?
Beckles' discussion about Gayle refuses to take into consideration the financial appeal of the IPL, and instead questions the integrity of the players. It's a one-sided approach that fails to debate the issue, and is not worthy of a university professor.
Beckles also fails to discuss the pros and cons of comparing the current IPL crisis with the Packer crisis of the 1970s. He totally ignores the Packer crisis in his history-in-a-nutshell, as if it never existed.
Beckles seems to blame Gayle for the 'donmanship' as if Lara didn't have problems and clashes with the WICB management.
Beckles is being disingenuous in talking about 'donmanship', and then referring to Gayle and Samuels, both Jamaicans. For someone who talks about team unity, there is a distinct anti-Jamaican theme to that part of his speech.
He talks of his involvement with the HPC and the CCC, and that's clearly why he has such a bias....
Beckles did raise some interesting points:
1) Maybe the riots of 1937-8 had some roots in black Caribbean resentment at the white Grant brothers leading the WI team, first raised by CLR James, but not explored as a theme.
2) Garvey and his UNIA offices put aside funds to develop cricket among the working classes.
3) The Barbados of the time had rejected Worrell because of the controversy surrounding the WI captaincy, and UWI offered him a position in the Mona campus in Jamaica.
Beckles laments the lack of a biography of Worrell, but to date he hasn't made an attempt to do the same. All Beckles seems to do in this speech is regurgitate historical observations made by other writers....
I have to commend Jimmy for listening to this - is there a more boring speaker than Beckles?
But most of all, it was a rambling piece that went all over the place, and seemed to have no structure to it at all. It's what you expect to hear from your elderly, rambling grandfather....
He was a deputy head boy who studied A Levels and would've gone to UWI if he didn't choose cricket instead. He's currently studying a degree in psychology in England, so he's nobody's fool.
As for Beckles, I'm disappointed in his biased and slanted speech, but with your explanation, maps, I can see why he toes the establishment line. However, I can't believe he could've been so stupid as to say so many things that are distinctly slanderous. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit coming out of this one....
he says that cricket was the only sporting force of any significance in all of the Caribbean countries. In this respect, he ignores the historical impact that McKenley, Wint and Rhoden had on the athletics tradition in Jamaica in 1948 and 1952.
Beckles suffers from a huge ego. He talks about how chummy he was with Manley and Lloyd when sitting together watching WI lose to Australia in 1995, and how much they valued his input. Self-praise, Beckles?
Beckles' discussion about Gayle refuses to take into consideration the financial appeal of the IPL, and instead questions the integrity of the players. It's a one-sided approach that fails to debate the issue, and is not worthy of a university professor.
Beckles also fails to discuss the pros and cons of comparing the current IPL crisis with the Packer crisis of the 1970s. He totally ignores the Packer crisis in his history-in-a-nutshell, as if it never existed.
Beckles seems to blame Gayle for the 'donmanship' as if Lara didn't have problems and clashes with the WICB management.
Beckles is being disingenuous in talking about 'donmanship', and then referring to Gayle and Samuels, both Jamaicans. For someone who talks about team unity, there is a distinct anti-Jamaican theme to that part of his speech.
He talks of his involvement with the HPC and the CCC, and that's clearly why he has such a bias....
Beckles did raise some interesting points:
1) Maybe the riots of 1937-8 had some roots in black Caribbean resentment at the white Grant brothers leading the WI team, first raised by CLR James, but not explored as a theme.
2) Garvey and his UNIA offices put aside funds to develop cricket among the working classes.
3) The Barbados of the time had rejected Worrell because of the controversy surrounding the WI captaincy, and UWI offered him a position in the Mona campus in Jamaica.
Beckles laments the lack of a biography of Worrell, but to date he hasn't made an attempt to do the same. All Beckles seems to do in this speech is regurgitate historical observations made by other writers....
I have to commend Jimmy for listening to this - is there a more boring speaker than Beckles?
But most of all, it was a rambling piece that went all over the place, and seemed to have no structure to it at all. It's what you expect to hear from your elderly, rambling grandfather....