Facing the facts of history

Let's get something straight here.

It is one thing to lament the seemingly unstoppable slide of West Indies cricket from incomparable superiority to almost laughable mediocrity. No-one can seriously argue either that the decline has been pretty much the result of our indifference and incompetence at all levels, even if we often lean on issues like restrictions in English county cricket and the modification of playing conditions and financial arrangements by the International Cricket Council in the hope of deflecting some of the responsibility for what essentially amounts to complacency and negligence on the part of the people of the Caribbean.

So we are very much the smiling, tolerant architects of our own demise, to the extent where England captain Kevin Pietersen feels comfortable enough to imply that our poor little black and brown boys needed Sir Allen Stanford's millions more than his whingeing, whining lot two weeks ago, and not be raked over the coals for such an outrageously condescending statement.

But it is entirely another thing to seek to minimise the degree of West Indies' dominance in the rush to hail the conquering heroes of the present era. And this is precisely what is happening right now as Australia's hold on the dominant position in the game continues to be loosened while challengers big-up themselves as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

As West Indians with an almost in-built culture of compliance based on a legacy of slavery, indentureship and colonialism, and a dependency syndrome nurtured by a continuing reliance on external powers, we feel no compunction to respond to the assortment of experts who are increasingly selling the era of unprecedented Caribbean cricketing rule as one defined by such terms as "raw brutality" and "relentless aggression."

If you buy into that heap of eloquent, articulate tripe (and by our silence, many of us have), it therefore becomes easier to accept the notion that an era defined by some of the greatest fast bowlers the world has ever seen was somehow not in keeping with the genteel, gentlemanly spirit of the game, which is a joke by itself but will require proper attention at some other time.

So now we sit quietly with arms folded, index fingers on the lips like some obedient primary school students enjoying the privilege of being lectured to by our superiors on how great the Australian teams from 1995 to the present time have been, and how great the Indians are likely to be with their array of delightfully talented and charming cricketers.

No problem with that, for the facts speak for themselves. Yet it seems the factual record is being conveniently ignored when it comes to assessing the "reign of terror" - as one whingeing scribe once described it - of West Indies. Indeed, it is almost as if we should be ashamed for the "brutishness" and "savagery" that we unleashed "mercilessly" on a game previously defined by its nobility and sense of fair play (I'm feeling a bit nauseous, but I have to go on.).

Here are the facts.

From February 1980, when we lost a three-Test series in New Zealand 1-0, to May 1995, when Australia completed a 2-1 triumph in the Caribbean, West Indies did not lose a single Test series. Not one. That's 29 Test series unbeaten all over the cricketing world, a time when the regional side had yet to face Zimbabwe and Bangladesh at the highest level and had only played a drawn one-off Test against Sri Lanka.

So we're talking about 15 years unbeaten in Test series. In contrast, Australia haven't even managed a four-year stretch of invincibility, losing series in India in 1998, Sri Lanka in 2001, England in 2005 and now in India again just a week ago.

You can decorate these realities as much as you want, they won't change, although perceptions of the relevant periods are influenced by inferences that West Indian dominance by speed was just not cricket and it was repressive, monotonous, patently unfair and allegedly turned millions of people away from the game.

Well, having been blessed by the Almighty to rejoice in every minute of Caribbean conquest, and having interacted with so many people from so many parts of the world who seem to have such reverence for not just the likes of Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Ambrose, but also Richards, Greenidge, Richardson and Lloyd (we had a few decent batsmen also), I can only assume that simple jealousy, or the arrogance of perceived superiority, has blinded many from acknowledging unavoidable reality.

None of this is intended to soften the blow of accepting the levels to which we have sunk. If anything, recalling the days when we ruled over everyone everywhere only deepens the anguish associated with a succession of defeats on the field and a lengthening litany of woes off it, especially as there is little sign of any light at the end of what has been a long, dark tunnel.

It is one thing to be ridiculed and have others pass judgement on the ills of West Indies cricket and recommend remedies, especially when we lack the will and the integrity to do what really needs to be done. We have only ourselves to blame for this.

But that doesn't give every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to seek to demean our achievements and escape unchallenged, just because too few of us take pride in our own history and have the courage to tell these revisionists where to get off.