One can easily imagine the contrasting emotions of the quarterfinalists in the Stanford 20/20 tournament.
Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua and St. Vincent follow the early losers home while Nevis, possibly the major surprise package, Grenada, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago prepare for the final four exchanges at the completion of Antigua's Carnival celebrations in August.
Cayman is probably still reflecting on a mixed performance in the competition but hopefully there will not be the type of criticism here that has been associated with the public response to the exit of Bermuda from the tournament.
Since Bermuda's qualification for next year's ICC Cricket World Cup expectations have been high, possibly bordering on unrealistic, and the players as well as team management have been feeling the pressure.
There is no need for such a response in Cayman, despite the disappointment of losing to Trinidad and the meek manner in which the team capitulated.
Regardless of the mournings of persons with a specific agenda it is hard to deny that cricket has made excellent progress in a community where it is not widely accepted and supported. For much of the early part of the tournament Cayman was the team most talked about and admired for their organized approach in the opening match against the Bahamas. The loss to Trinidad and the limited resistance put up by Cayman while disappointing must not be allowed to detract from the positives.
Trinidad has had outstanding success in every format of the game over the past couple of seasons during which time they have won the KFC Limited Over Cup and both regional four-day trophies. It is noticeable that Barbados, a side boasting five Test players, four of them current, fared little better than Cayman against the Trinis.
With the expectation that the Stanford 20/20 will not be a one off event, Cayman must now continue to build on this year's achievements and prepare to be a more competitive unit in future tournaments. I suggest the starting point should be a domestic 20/20 tournament which could serve the twofold purpose of exposing players to the game and building an atmosphere that will encourage more public awareness and support for cricket on these islands.
Undoubtedly there are numerous ways of organizing a 20/20 tournament but my preference is for a format that includes the seven division one teams and a combined division two side. Those who may want to suggest that a division two team would be less than competitive may need to be reminded that Stanford could have used the same argument to exclude teams like Cayman from the ongoing regional contest.
I would like to see Cayman's 20/20 tournament played during the off-season between October and January. If two grounds are used four matches could be played in one day. The Cayman Islands Cricket Association could determine if matches will be scheduled for Saturday and Sunday or if just one weekend day would be utilized.
With the continued support of Cable & Wireless and Money Express creative means could be found to encourage spectator involvement through activities that capture the interest of juniors right through to adults. Prizes could be offered for skill-based activities such as bowling to hit an unprotected wicket, throwing the wicket down from a specific distance or taking a number of consecutive catches. These activities would probably best be slotted in during the break between innings. Other activities such as quizzes could be included for those less skilled in the basics of cricket.
The West Indies Cricket Board was caught napping, opening the door for Stanford to expose its shortcomings. The CICA has been a proactive organization and actually introduced a form of 20/20 cricket at the division two level long before the Stanford 20/20 was born. The development of cricket through 20/20 provides another opportunity for the CICA to chart a course for other regional bodies to follow.
