The WICB saga heats up

On what basis was this determined? We were never really sure.
The fact is that Gayle has never displayed any special talents that would have suggested he was captain material. Indeed the opposite may well have been the case.
One should recall the nonsense accredited to Gayle when Michael Findlay managed the team to England soon after the CWC2007 and insisted on a curfew for the team members. Gayle was credited with saying to the BBC that he was not in agreement with the curfew but that he had to abide by it because of his position of leadership on the team. That statement ought to have been enough to convince the leadership of the WICB that he was certainly not what they were looking for in a West Indies captain. His utterance was the surest sign of his lack of readiness for the position of team captain. But the WICB is a strange phenomenon. The members of the WICB went ahead and replaced an injured Sarwan with Gayle.
It can be stated here without fear of contradiction that Gayle has not displayed any particular leadership qualities enough for us as enthusiastic supporters of West Indies cricket to feel confident in his appointment.
What did Sarwan do besides getting injured that could have been used as a legitimate reason for removing him from his post as captain? Here again we have never been told.
During the One Day series against Australia recently there must have been few people in the region, cricket enthusiasts and otherwise, who understood why Chris Gayle, not fully fit, was playing. He had no business on the field. To suggest that he was an inspiration to the team is utter rubbish. He was an embarrassment to himself, Jamaica, the West Indies team and to us as a people in the Caribbean, and this, regardless of how many runs he made. He was less than fully fit and should not have been on the field of play.
Additionally, we had to out up with the region’s excuses for journalists q
uoting Gayle’s claim at being dissatisfied with the selection policy and perhaps, the selectors, in respect of the teams selected.
The truth is that the captain is one among several selectors. He is a player and while he may want to suggest that he knows how this or that player may conduct himself on the field the other selectors often have a more objective view based on the vantage point from which they observe the entire team. It would be irresponsible for the WICB to leave the major say in the team selection process in the hands of the captain. Such an act may well be facilitating an approach to the game that requires no overarching leadership from the WICB itself, in the final analysis.
Gayle’s decision to vacate the captaincy must be welcomed by all in the region. He should never have been appointed in the first place.