BY ANDI THORNHILL

I SELDOM TOUCH on more than one topic in this column.

However, this week I will depart from the norm and touch on a couple of subjects that upset me and others that made me happy.

My first peeve was the comments of the Jamaican and West Indies captain Chris Gayle who I have supported in the recent past for his directness and outspoken nature.

He was, in my opinion, right on the ball when he told the West Indies Cricket Board (WIBC) exactly how he felt about the delay in ratifying him as the One Day captain on last summer's tour of England and how he called on the board to improve their own standards while expecting the players to do so.

I thought that last week, though, he spoke out of turn after Barbados had defeated his team at Kensington Oval by 17 runs. He sought to blame the defeat on poor umpiring but went further by suggesting that the Jamaicans are targeted in this respect when they travel.

It would have been very gracious to accept defeat and acknowledge that his team batted poorly in chasing a further 88 with six wickets in hand on the final day.

The match was there for the Jamaicans to win and Pedro Collins, in particular, snatched the game out of their hands.

Nobody is saying the umpiring was perfect in this match but the Jamaicans moreso than the officiating umpires contributed to their demise in a low scoring game.

Primarily I saw his comments as a case of proverbial sour grapes but he crossed the line with his inference about the victimisation of Jamaican players by umpires. This was his poorest verbal innings to date.

If he has the courage to listen to the replay he might agree.

That side of the scale was balanced by the news that Bajan left-arm spinner Suleiman Benn had been called up in the West Indies Test squad to face Sri Lanka in the first Test in Guyana.

This was just reward for a very disciplined and productive season with the ball in all the competitions to date.

There is a view that Benn should have been in the West Indies set-up a long time ago but disciplinary-related problems would have been the stumbling block to his entry.

In the event that he gets a play I am sure he will do well. His game is on song, his attitude is brilliant, his work ethic excellent. Perhaps he has finally matured and realises he should let his cricket do the talking, plus it would be a shame if his calibre of bowling, in particular, and the other improved aspects of his game weren't tested at the highest level.

Bad move

The Bayley's Primary saga was horrendous. Under what conditions would a school's management want to pull a group of eager, hardworking primary school athletes out of the national competition against their peers?

I honestly can't fathom any good reason when from all accounts the children, assisted by their parents, had done all that was necessary to prepare themselves for action. And to think they were taken out of the picture just a day before they were to compete in a zonal meet!

The worse part of it all is that no explanation was given although the concerned parents asked what was going on. They sent correspondence, and even arranged to meet with the management but with no success.

This isn't the way to do business when it comes to dealing with the future stakeholders and nation builders of this country. You cannot scar the minds of the youth in such a way and expect to win their confidence when they return to the classroom.

Honestly, I hope the school's decision to withdraw the athletes had nothing to do with performance because that would've been very myopic. The essence of competition at this level is about learning the basics of your craft, but having enjoyment above all else.

Creating a winning culture is also important but you have to soldier on in good times and bad. Evenso, some parents were brave enough to defy the ban and sent five athletes to the zonal meet and they finished tenth! What do you think about that?

It's a real shame Bayley's full slate didn't get a chance to experience what Springer and Queen's College did at the secondary schools finals.

Springer, as we know, have the winning formula down pat but they can't do it so consistently unless they have the quality athletes to compete and the quality staff to prepare them adequately for competition. They have a potent combination that should be used as a national model for success not only in athletics, but generally.

While the Government Hill queens were celebrating their tenth title, Queen's College boys were sitting on the throne for the first time.This was an achievement that was bound to happen if we examine and analyse how close they came last year. Just a few points separated them and the school they dethroned, Harrison College.

I don't think they were fully equipped to change all of the right gears at the right time but this year was different. They were well balanced on track and in the field. This is, in fact, the likeliest avenue to secure victory.

The hunger to succeed is also vital and we saw that vividly in the kings of Queen's throughout the meet. Kudos must be given to their coaching staff for being able to motivate them to go one better this time around.

I was also proud to see the performance of the Parkinson girls and the St Leonard's boys. The former showed that despite recent adversity, they could rise from the ashes and shine like a phoenix.

Maybe their athletes would have done enough to inspire others to get on board and mount a serious challenge in the near future. It all can begin with the first step which they made this year.

St Leonard's last won a major athletics title in 1973 under the old system where the older grammar and newer secondary schools held separate sports. Something tells me if they keep on the present course it won't be long when they, too, will become kings of secondary track and field.

Like life itself, it's the ups and downs of sport that make it so intriguing. There's hardly a dull moment.