Coach Amsterdam’s decisions questionable in U-19s lacklustre performance

WICB Regional U-19 Tournament…

— Batting structure a major concern

BY DELVON MC EWAN

Prior to the team’s departure for the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) Regional three day and one day tournaments, the national under-19 team was touted as a strong unit which could repeat history to win the regional title for a third successive year.
However, after two matches in the three day version that has not been the case as Guyana has suffered two humiliating defeats that has left the local cricket fraternity in shock. In the first round the lads lost to Jamaica by 39 runs and on Monday they surprisingly went down to Leeward Islands by six wickets. Both losses happened within two days.

Like the national Under-15 side, the Under-19s have enjoyed two years at the helm of Regional youth cricket and prior to departure both teams were regarded as strong units that would make Guyana proud at the end of their respective tournaments. Withstanding their poor showing to date, the members of the U-19 team in St. Vincent were the best options judging from their performance at the inter-county competition which enabled their selection to the national set up.
However, is it the best 11 based on team balance?Is it their poor showing the manifestation of unpreparedness due to the weather here in Guyana?Or is it the incorrect structure of the batting line up which is affecting the best results?I believe these are questions answerable by the team officials, especially the coach who is with the team in St. Vincent and has been with them for some years now. In the first case, Guyana started their first game with three batting all-rounders who bowls medium pace and a genuine pacer. Those four accompanied one spinner and six batsmen as the initial playing 11. Among those six batsmen, one was the wicket keeper and three bowl spin. That composition gave the captain multiple bowling options to dismiss the opposition and more than sufficient batting to set big totals. However, the former was done effectively while the latter struggled to the surprise of many. In the second game two changes were made, Sylus Tyndall and Joel Seitaram were replaced by Malcolm Hubbard and Keshram Seyhodan and both new comers made important contribution to give Guyana a chance.
In Guyana’s past successful campaigns the tournament was held around the same time and due to the weather pattern here the preparation is usually hampered. However, due to that issue the players would utilize the indoor training facility at La Bonne Intention (LBI) to work on their mental and technical facets while other locations are used for their physical development. Therefore, their lackluster performance to date cannot be justified by unpreparedness because other (local youth) teams, arguably weaker teams, would have gone through similar setbacks caused by the weather but still managed to come out on top.
Looking at the structure of the batting line up in the two games, seemingly it is one of the major concern. Although the opening pair of Ronaldo Renee and Raymond Perez has been used over a period of time, is it the best option for Guyana? I do not think so and if it is the best in the eyes of the coach and skipper then Joshua Persaud, who batted at number three needs to be shifted down the order to number eight. Using the playing eleven from the previous game, my batting line up would be in the following order, Joshua Persaud, Renee, Perez, Travis Persaud, Malcolm Hubbard, BhaskarYadram, Keemo Paul, Sherfane Rutherford, Renaldo Ali-Mohamed, Akenie Adams and Seyhodan.
A batting line up of such provides solidity at the top and middle and pure hitting power in the lower order thus the ideal balance for big totals. The combination of Renee and Perez is lacking in ways that has affected the team from getting good starts. Both batsmen are sound in technique but are not compatible in partnership since they are both limited in shot selections and are not through strikers of the ball. Joshua Persaud, who plays a barrage of shots and is a naturally confident and talented player would be the ideal opening partner for Renee, who is a solid batsman and love to take his chances. With the Persaud, Renee combination it would be difficult for the opposition to tie down both batsmen and create pressure like they did in the first two games. Following the opening pair should be Perez, who can now play himself in and look to bat through the innings. He is hard to get out once settled and is known for making big scores like he did making a century on debut in the three day inter-county u-19 competition.
The skipper would bat at number four, not because he is the best for that position but because he is a responsible player who understands his roles as a cricketer. Batting him at number six and eight as he did in the previous matches is definitely unbeneficial to the team. Hubbard is a batsman who can bowl not the other way around. He is yet to show his through potential but batting him at nine and 10 is injustice to him and the team. The number three, four, five and Yadram at six could create depth for the other batsmen to come, by tiring and frustrating the opposition bowlers in lengthy partnership that could encourage aggressive batsmen Paul, Rutherford and Ali-Mohamed to play their natural game. Spinners Adams and Seyhodan would fill the other two spaces.
With our batting it was predicted we would have been making hefty totals, however, that is yet to be manifested because the structure has been all over the place. To date the team has just one score over 150 while in its other three innings there were scores under 125 with the lowest being 42 all out.
Besides the concerns of team balance, the weather, and batting structure, there are two other areas that should also be of concern, that is, the coach’s function and the responsibilty and execution by players.
About the team’s balance and batting structure, I should think that relies heavily on the coach’s input and since he is there in St. Vincent then he should have firsthand knowledge of the batting woes and poor execution by the players. Or is it a case where he cannot rectify the issue because he is not the best man for the job?
In Guyana’s two most recent success at home and in Jamaica, Adrian Amsterdam was the coach but was he solely impactful or responsible for the results? No I do not think so, because at home he was assisted by Micheal Hyles, who is a vastly experience coach while in Jamaica he was blessed to have a team with mature players who know how to execute and was aided by somewhat of his coaching ability.
In 2014 when Guyana won the double crown for the first time, it was Hyles who were calling all the key shots which worked in favour of the team. One of the most important and memorable one was the promotion of Paul to bat at number four in the limited over version which saw the youngster score several half centuries as well as played some important knocks for his team.
My views are definitely not an attack on the coach but it would be explained in my very next point which is the players’ responsibility and execution. The players have their responsibilities and it is to fulfill their duties. However, some may need most advice from the coach while others may not. This is due to their individual knowledge of the game, their confidence and the area of critical thinking which is usually led by the coach in his approach of each situation at hand.
When Rutherford and Paul along with Ali-Mohamed are playing for their respective local teams the Demerara Cricket Club (DCC) and Georgetown Cricket Club (GCC), they return sterling performances in any situation, this is due to their coaches’ critical assessment and the way he asks them to approach the situation. Because of this relationship and guidance from the coach local cricket fans get to see the through potential of these players when they play for their team. Similarly the Guyana U-15 coach Julian Moore is good at critical thinking and get his players to execute on most occasions. With a u-15 team that is not as talented as the 2014 and 2015 teams, Moore who is currently in Grenada is enjoying another successful campaign with three wins from four matches, with one game being abandoned due to rain. Not only is he good at critical thinking but he creates a work friendly atmosphere for the youngsters.
So to conclude on this note, Guyana main reasons for such poor performance in the u-19 tournament is due to the coach’s inability to get the players to think critically and execute in a manner they ought too, incorrect structure of the batting line up and the lackluster performance of the coach.
I maintain the view that the under-19 team is very strong and should have won both versions of the tournament, but unfortunately this could no longer be the case. However, they do have a chance to excel in the limited overs, but it depends on the coach’s chemistry.