West Indies Cricket Fans

I am suprised however.. why would Marley ask his recommendations on the captaincy? why would'nt kanhai have been automatic..if not sobers them Kanhai?

I was dead wrong about how that situation went!

they would drop Sobers as captain anyway after NZ. his leadership was tired and going nowehere!

could it be that Marleys hesitation had been stimulated by Kanhais attitude to Rhodesia/South Africa?

mapoui wrote:

BallOil wrote:ah did a lil search and found this ...

1973
Sobers declared himself unavailable as a player on being asked by the West Indies Cricket Board of Control to prove his fitness, so he was replaced as captain by Rohan Kanhai for the 1973 home series against Australia. Sobers had "… led a strong side effectively but not shown the capacity to lift a weak or ageing side" (Manley)
"Cecil Marley, president of the West Indies Cricket Board, asked me who I would recommend as my successor," wrote Sobers. "I opted initially for David Holford but I didn't think he would be accepted as my nomination because he was my relative. I offered Clive Lloyd as an alternative choice but Clive had not even been invited to join the squad, so my third choice would be Rohan Kanhai." [16]
Kanhai retained the captaincy for the 1973 tour of England, which West Indies won 2-0. "Kanhai is credited with restoring both discipline and morale to the side" (Manley).

link

interesting to see Kanhai was the third on his list of recommendation. I wonder if there was some rift between Sobers and Kanhai.. why would Sober recommend a player that is not even in team ahead of Kanhai?

is that from Michael Manley?

if it is it is credbile reporting! I dont see any rift necessary for such reasoning by Sobers. thats seems like the way Sobers thinks to me.

that is the same kind of mentality that resulted in him thinking he could go to Rhodeisa, embrace Ian Smioth and that it would be ok!

actually the article quote it from Sober....^ Garry Sobers (2002) My Autobiography Headline Books. I have a copy of this book will look it up..

and why would ...or how come sobers declared himself unfit and ended up on the side anyway?

mybe he just wanted to be rid of the captaincy?

actually I doh have that book, I'll surely get a copy.....I have SOBERS: Twenty years at the top and there is a chapter on captaincy... will fast forward to that section.

mapoui wrote:I am suprised however.. why would Marley ask his recommendations on the captaincy? why would'nt kanhai have been automatic..if not sobers them Kanhai?

I was dead wrong about how that situation went!

they would drop Sobers as captain anyway after NZ. his leadership was tired and going nowehere!

once again you are proven wrong!!! at least this time u got the balls to admit it!

mapoui wrote:if Burnham banned Kanhai in Guyana he was at least consistent. he banned everybody who came by guyana who had contravened the Apartheid issue.

!

you call banning one man and accepting "sorry" from the other, consistent?

what a transparent racist statement !

Bannam did not accept Rohan's apology!

if banam was consistent, it was one thing...but thats too much for you to comprehend.

just like the crap you were spewing about Rohan being rewarded with the captaincy....what a bunch of crock!!!

bwoy your brain sprained. yu have the very greatest difficulty reasoning, making sense out of things as they happen eh!.

Burnhan was responsible strictly for Guyana. Burnham could make the then wicb do nothing at all... save possibly play Lloyd when he rass should have been dropped.

if Burnhan banned kanhai in Guyana what happened to allow kanhai to be westindies cappo, appointed by the then wicbc..a jurisdiction over which Burnham had no influence?

the apology by Sobers was made to the westindian people and in that regard the wicbc had the jurisdiction. the wicb accepted the apology and Sobers continued..as did kanhai.

if Burmnham did his thing in Guyana so be it. he did nothing..and could do nothing.. in the whole of the westindies to prevent anyone from representing the region...even guyanese born westindians!

and as far as I see Burnham had his case and he had to do something about that breach of internation convention to boycott southern africa. what should he have done nothing?

you dont seem to understand googly that you recommend and agree with the disrespect of of a convention the whole world had agreed to..just becuause of Kanhai. you are one lawlsess impse. you imply you are prepared to observe no law as long as it impinges upon Indian behaviour. Indian people must be free to do as they please in the world, even if it affects blac people in particular, for whom you clearly have no respect or concern all.

you apear to be unaware of the terrible impression you create of yourself in this situation. you are one hateful son of guyana leh mih tell you!

anyhow you have no case...none at all. Sobers continued...so did kanhai. westindies did not lose these 2 of our greatest sons and dats dat.

now please..if yu do not have something intelligent to say and add to this debate, please keep it to yourself!

the two of you chaps are funny... However, I think this a good topic...we all see things differently..eh

Bally, at least we are all on the same page that Kanhai was not rewarded with the captaincy. Like you said, he was not even the first choice!

Second, some people are still defending burnham and his racial ways. If Burnham had not allowed anyone (black, brown, white or yellow) to play in guyana after visiting SA or Rhodesia, that would be based on principle. Some are still claiming that Burnham did that on principle.

However, when de man selectively banned some people based on the color of their skin...thats Racism! And I am not just talking about Kanhai! There were white members of other teams who could not play in guyana either! and thats a Fact!

I call it like i see it!