By -Steinberg Henry, PhD
It was Sunday, July 26, 2009. Bangladesh was playing the West Indies at Dominica’s Windsor Park Stadium. During lunchtime, Barry Wilkinson interviewed with the island’s Prime Minister, Roosevelt Skerrit. “From time to time,” the PM said, “you get the sense that there are players who continue to succeed at the regional level, but who are never allowed to make it to the West Indies team. If I may be parochial for a moment, we have Shane Shillingford. He has been consistent both with the ball and the bat. He has been by-passed . . . Unfortunately, those things happen.”
I visited Shane Shillingford’s bowling matter with the ICC after hearing about Alick Athanaze and Kavem Hodge, who were not selected for the West Indies team playing in the three-match home Test Series against Australia, beginning Wednesday, June 25th, at Kensington Oval, Barbados. This must be a Dominican problem: whenever a Dominican cricketer was doing well on a West Indies team, he was sure to be replaced after a few games.
I knew intuitively that this must’ve been the case with Greyson Shillingford, Irvin Shillingford, and more. Only that at that time media in all its forms were not as ubiquitous.
Felix Gregoire, cabinet secretary and one-time vice president of Windward Islands Cricket, in the spirit of transparency, told Kairi FM’s Heston Charles that he saw no reason why Shane Shillingford was not on the West Indies team playing in Dominica. “ . . . I hope the selectors are hearing me, and if they cannot pick Shane, at least tell somebody why Shane cannot be picked, because it is a disgrace for somebody like that to be left out of the West Indies team at this point.”
The stratification among us is bewildering—when the team is comprised of players from the Windward Islands, Dominica is still within a subspecies. Somebody needs to tell us the truth from an in-depth place: why is it that throughout their cricketing history, Dominican players who make it to the West Indies are likely to be dropped just when they are at their best? I am choosing to inscribe for memory, the unusual, the issues within battle zones of the historically dismissed, traces of discrimination among islands.
We are going to need an explanation for this at some point. It may be that a Dominican does not have a killer instinct. It may be that our players play too non-assertively, non-aggressively. It may be the remains of that old clause of dismissiveness pursuing us like a curse.
Another shouts, your players are not bold, consistent, and execution-driven. Sammy could clarify and tell us how he allowed these qualities to emerge in and from him.
There are other names from distant communities and experiences. Grayson Shillingford and Kaleb Laurent died before they were officially recognized. Grayson Cleophas Shillingford—who played seven test matches for the West Indies between 1969 and 1972—died at sixty-five in December 2009. Kaleb Laurent—a school principal and 1980s politician—who played for Dominica, Combined Islands, and Windward Islands, died at sixty-six in April 2010. According to Clem John, Kaleb Laurent was “one of the best off-spinners never to play Test cricket for the West Indies.” Never. The tightrope’s ride is unimaginable, is it not?
Cricket is enmeshed in Caribbean street corners, yards, and politics. Guyana’s Alvin Kalicharan was not as well-rounded as Dominica’s Irvin Shillingford when the former was selected over Shillingford to play for the West Indies. Irvin Shillingford—a consummate stroke-player—would play, of course, but selectors struggled between him and Kalicharan. Thing is, Guyana’s president, Forbes Burnham, held greater sway over the West Indies Cricket Board of Control then—and controlled interests in the Guyana Cricket Board—than Dominica’s first prime minister, calypso and sports enthusiast, Patrick Roland John.
And just in case we thought this to be all, Chris Gayle drew on his inside wealth and of the West Indies 580/9 against Sri Lanka, he scored 333! This first test at Galle in Sri Lanka was drawn with my island’s Shane Shillingford taking 4/123 in the first innings and attracting cricket drama spotlights when suddenly the ICC noticed a strange action in his bowling. In our cocoyea-swept yards, we would accuse a bowler of stoning when he did not swing the hand right through. Stoning. Hmm. Shane was not stoning.
The ICC spoke of an illegal bowling action. The ICC. That must’ve been concerning. Dominican Reginald St. Havis Shillingford gave them the benefit of the doubt by identifying initially, a slight ten-degree angle at the top of Shane’s action; an action that he thought could be speedily remedied through rehabilitation.
Ossie Lewis in his usual Friday night conversation on sports with Dominica Broadcasting’s Ted Dailey, thought that from then forward, Shane’s only problem would be the psychological—the fact that all eyes would be on him for about three weeks; the stresses involved in lab tests, bowling tests, and the ever-present radio, television, and Internet reporting on the slightest comment regarding his delivery angled and honed in an unknown yard time, space, and place. I am convinced that Shane Shillingford must be the critical wicket-taker, the reincarnated Kaleb Laurent, dangerous and skilled. Speaking before the second test, the experienced Sri Lankan Sangakkara told WICB News, “Shillingford is an interesting bowler—the lines he bowls and the little bit of variation that he has in pace. He is a bowler who can probably change direction at the very last minute, the way he bowls. We had a good chat about him. We’ve got a few plans in a few different areas to try and defend and then attack him as well.”
This is a very interesting Dominican something. Shane Shillingford bowls an intriguing line. Given the little bit of variation that he has in pace, he can change direction at the very last minute, the way he bowls. The Sri Lankans attempted to unravel this loaded village net.
Mythology has it that when India cried, a healthy tear was Sri Lanka—in the context of passion and romance, I must admit Sri Lankan women carry names that sound nectar-laden. Dominica’s Shane Shillingford bowled at Galle in that land of beautiful women, taking 4/123. When did ICC officials first observe Shane’s yardy actions? Was it in Trinidad, at Kensington, or at Warner Park? When did the trace begin? Did it suddenly—the above-normal angle which produced 4/123—appear as if elicited, as a novel third millennium thrust of spirit in arm, yet inconsistent with ICC rules of engagement? Hold here. This is unassuming. Like C L R James, it can barely stick to the pitch’s parameters, but I’ll try in the context of communal resurrection. Shane Shillingford bowls in Sri Lanka, and after that first test, an outside-the-boundary action was mystically pressed into his hand and had to be intercepted and remedied as if bearing traces of disease and thus imbalance. This text hands you a bouquet, Shane, compliments from my favorite island florist.
The news that Shane Shillingford was banned moved to important places. On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, a story begins to make its rounds—the West Indies off-spinner Shane Shillingford has been “banned,” some say, while others use “suspended.” Dublanc stopped not in response to the linguistic inexactitude, but both words said something was not right, and their son had met some difficulty overseas.
If he was suspended, they would take him back; but if he was banned, he would not be allowed to return to the team, the old man mused. Suspend. Ban. Which one was it, and why were the headlines using both when they’re different? Could a suspension lead to a ban if the action leading to the suspension was not remedied, if there was no rehabilitation, as if a disability was spotted by the acclaimed discoverers of cricket?
When I heard the breaking news on Dominica’s Q95’s Hot Seat with Matt Peltier Jr., I flowed intuitively and moved to the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) online to see whether the Shillingford story was in. It was after 8:00 a.m. Just above the “just in sports” section was a story highlighting a dual-citizenship matter in which Dominica’s prime minister was embroiled. That was the Dominican significant event for CMC, not Shane Shillingford. The sports story on that page at that time originated apparently from St. John’s, Antigua, and was headlined, “Sarwan Returns in Thirty-man World Cup Squad.” Sarwan. I googled both the Jamaica Gleaner and the Jamaica Observer, and the story had not appeared, though there were references in both to the matter that had drawn the early comment of Reginald St. Havis Shillingford and later Ossie Lewis in his conversation with Dominica Broadcasting’s Ted Dailey. I searched to find the Trinidad Express in a November 21-22 report, stating that “if in an independent analysis, Shillingford is found to have bowled illegally, then he would be suspended from bowling in international cricket, until he undertakes remedial action and is reassessed.”
In part, Shane’s action was adjudged crude. I could not settle for a remedy since it was not a pathology, nor was it deficient, but simply had to be managed on account of its superabundant energy flow. Guyana would have something, I thought. Stabroek’s story was headlined “ICC Bans Shillingford for Illegal Action.” Ban. To prohibit, particularly by official decree. Sounded rather Romanesque, but was different from a suspension. The Stabroek story came from Reuters in Singapore—I mean by that time in the morning, windiescricket.com had not updated its site to accommodate the battle cry! Shane Shillingford had been “banned” from bowling in international cricket because of an illegal action, the sport’s governing body ruled today.”
According to Stabroek, “the 27-year-old from Dominica was reported by on-field umpires Steve Davis and Richard Kettleborough after the Galle test . . .”
“A comprehensive analysis revealed that his ‘mean elbow extension’ was 17 degrees, which is above the 15 degrees level of tolerance permitted under the relevant regulations,” the ICC stated.
The Stabroek story originating from Reuters in Singapore continued, “The ICC decided for an independent analysis of Shillingford’s action by Bruce Elliot, member of the ICC Panel of Human Movement Specialists, in Perth on Dec. 9.” Elliot is a member of the ICC’s Human Movement Specialists. How independent could his analysis be? Might’ve been the story and its busy journaling, its economy of style and space use; it did not care to mark explicit distinctions between rules, regulations, legalities, suspensions, and bannings, independence, and possible conflict of interests.
Dominica News Online (DNO) went beyond Davis and Kettleborough, citing two other umpires who had come to the same conclusion after observing Shane’s actions. The DNO story added the names of TV Umpire Asad Rauf and fourth Umpire Tyron Wijewardena. The four were mentioned as coming from the Elite Panel of Umpires, including Dominica’s Billy Doctrove. Methodologically, the assessment seemed tight, having used both advanced bowling-measurement technologies and observations of experienced officials. Dominica’s Billy Doctrove may tell us one day who made the first observation and drew it to the attention of another.
The story, appearing finally on the West Indies Cricket Board site, originated from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and interestingly, the headquarters of the International Cricket Council. From those banks of the Arabian Peninsula, we found out too that, like Hilary Beckles, Bruce Elliot was a Professor—he conducted his independent analysis at the School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia.
Australia’s Herald Sun carried its story on Wednesday, November 22, 2010, under the title “West Indies Off-Spinner Shane Shillingford Banned over Action.” No illegal here. Daniel of Melbourne posted the single comment. It read, “pity for him that he’s not from the subcontinent. If he were, they’d just change the rule to allow him to keep chucking. As it stands, he’ll have to rework his action.”
When I heard about Alick Athanaze and Kavem Hodge, I remembered the issues and troubles touching Shane Shillingford in the days when West Indies Cricket was trying to determine its constitution. Were Kavem Hodge and Alick Athanaze not the ones who stood firm, strong in England, to the pride of West Indians in general and Dominicans in particular?
Alan Gardner watched the Nottingham spectacle unfold. He described Alick and Kavem as “two little pals worthy of a modern-day calypso.”
The cricketing world followed emergent Creole dancing steps on that wicket in England, of all places. Gardner, writing for ESPNcricinfo, subtitled his story “England vs WI 2nd Test – Dominica dominant as two little pals Athanaze and Hodge make England sweat.” The date, July 19, 2024. It was becoming hot on that field!
Look at what Gardner wrote about these two. “Timely resistance came in the form of Athanaze and Hodge, Windward Islands teammates, left-hander and right-hander, coming man and seasoned pro, who formed an unbreakable maroon line through the afternoon and into the evening. Their partnership of 175 in 36.4 overs — the biggest of the series on either side — finally gave West Indies something to rally around after being crushed inside three days in the first Test.”
He wrote, indicating that he admired the performance of these two Dominicans. “Kavem Hodge and Alick Athanaze batted through the afternoon session in an uplifting display for West Indies.” An uplifting display.
Kavem Hodge celebrates his maiden Test hundred, England vs West Indies, 2nd Men’s Test, Nottingham, 2nd day, July 19, 2024
Gardner sealed the moment with this. “It was a moment to savour for a man who has been feted as the future of West Indies batting but had failed to better the 47 he made on debut a year ago
in eight subsequent innings …. It is not hard to see why Brian Lara, among others, has been beguiled by Athanaze’s talent.” Beguiled. Lost for words. Stunned.
Who is Athanaze? What is this way of batting, this aggression, where does it come from? Is he a potential leader emerging? A Dominican?
Nature Island News carried a story on June 10, 2025. “West Indies drops Hodge and Athanaze from test squad.”
The story ran: “Cricket West Indies (CWI) has announced its 16-member squad for the much anticipated three (3)-Match home Test Series against Australia, which begins on Wednesday, June 25th at Kensington Oval in Barbados for the coveted Sir Frank Worrell Trophy.
With this series signalling the critical start of the 2025-2027 ICC Test Championship Cycle, several changes have been made to the squad that last featured in the drawn series against Pakistan earlier this year.
Dominicans Kavem Hodge and Alick Athanaze are notable omissions from the team that sees the return of white ball skipper Shai Hope.”
Then, the selection criteria. “CWI Director of Cricket, Miles Bascombe, expressed that selections were made in line with the team’s commitment to building a bold, execution-driven identity in Test cricket, with consistency in batting output and a dynamic bowling attack being key in the overall assessment.”
The two Dominicans did not “fit” in the selection criteria at this time, says Sammy. Execution-driven identity, consistency, and boldness. I am wondering whether these qualities pertained to Shane Shillingford, too. Maybe not. Shane was a batsman and bowler, like Kaleb Laurent before him. Irvin Shillingford was a batsman like Kavem Hodge and Alick Athanaze. At some point in that career, they were all left out just at the point when we all thought they were at their greatest. Tell you, there’s something about the Dominican that cannot be disrupted or made timid.
Kavem and Alick are bold cricket warriors. Shane was, too. So was Grayson, Irvin, Norbert, Clem and more. But, in this cricketing world, there are still technicalities that elude us Dominicans. Trust me, as we say, we are fast-finding out what they are!