Dominic Sabir (Photograph by Ras Mykkal)
I have read the Bermuda Cricket Board’s statement, and I feel compelled to respond because the version of events presented does not accurately reflect what happened from my position as captain of Somerset Cricket Club.
I have always tried to conduct myself with respect for the game, the officials, opposing clubs and the Bermuda Cricket Board. I have no interest in creating unnecessary controversy, but I also believe that when a governing body issues a public statement that places responsibility for a situation on a club and its captain, that club and captain have every right to correct the record.
This was not simply a case of Somerset “failing to show up” because of a misunderstanding.
The original fixture was clear
The Premier Division 40 Overs Knockout Cup Final was originally scheduled for Saturday, September 12, at St George’s Cricket Club. That was the fixture Somerset was preparing for.
Approximately three days before the scheduled final, I contacted the BCB because I had become aware of conflicting information regarding the fixture.
The reason I made that call is important.
I happened to see one of my team-mates and good friends from St George’s on the Thursday. He said to me, essentially, “See you Sunday.”
That immediately raised a red flag because my understanding and correspondence had the final scheduled for Saturday.
I asked him why he believed the game was Sunday, and that was when I realised there was a discrepancy between the information I had and the information apparently being communicated elsewhere.
That is not something I should have had to discover through a casual conversation with an opposing player.
I contacted the BCB precisely because I wanted clarification. That is the opposite of a club attempting to avoid its responsibilities.
BCB changed fixture and characterised consequences as a Somerset problem
The BCB’s statement says that there was a “key misunderstanding” during an initial conversation and that the board interpreted Somerset’s request as being about changing the date.
That characterisation leaves out a very important part of the situation: the match date and venue were already established, and Somerset did not simply ask the BCB to move the final to Sunday.
The board subsequently moved the fixture to Sunday.
That decision created an availability issue for Somerset because our players had already made commitments based on the original fixture. Those commitments did not appear overnight.
Players have jobs, businesses, families, children, vacations and other responsibilities. They also make those commitments based on the schedules provided by the governing body.
The BCB cannot reasonably publish a schedule, have players and clubs organise their lives around that schedule, subsequently change it with very little notice, and then act as though the resulting player availability problems are entirely the club’s responsibility.
That is not reasonable scheduling administration.
Issue is bigger than one match
I also object to the suggestion that this was simply an isolated communication error.
The frustration among players and clubs has been building for some time.
Throughout this season, there have been numerous changes to fixtures and scheduling. Clubs have had to continually adjust their plans, and players have had to repeatedly rearrange their lives around changes to the cricket calendar.
There needs to be an understanding that these are not professional cricketers whose only responsibility is to be available whenever the BCB decides a match should be played.
These are people volunteering their time to play cricket.
They train. They work. They have families. They make travel arrangements. They book vacations. They make commitments based on the schedules provided to them.
If a five-month cricket season is announced and a club is given a certain number of byes, players reasonably plan around those dates. If those byes are subsequently removed or fixtures are repeatedly moved, it creates real consequences.
I do not think anyone expects the BCB to accommodate every individual player’s personal plans. But there has to be a reasonable level of stability and consistency in the competition schedule.
You cannot continually move the goalposts and then criticise players and clubs when they cannot simply drop everything to accommodate the latest change.
Somerset vice-captain Dominic Sabir celebrates after achieving a Cup Match half century (Photograph by Blaire Simmons)
Relegation implications make this even more serious
There is another important element that should not be overlooked.
When a competition is structured so that a particular match is effectively a do-or-die fixture, especially where relegation is at stake, player availability becomes even more significant.
A club should not have to choose between honouring commitments that were made based on an official cricket schedule and suddenly finding its strongest possible team for a crucial knockout fixture because the date has been changed at short notice.
That is precisely why consistency in scheduling matters. It is not about Somerset expecting special treatment. Quite the opposite.
We are asking for the same standard of treatment and consistency that every club should receive.
Communication surrounding final is also a major concern
The BCB statement places significant emphasis on the idea that there was a misunderstanding between Somerset and the board but there is a difference between a genuine misunderstanding and poor communication followed by a unilateral decision.
If the BCB believed Somerset had requested a change to the match date, there should have been an immediate written confirmation before the fixture was changed.
Something as significant as changing the date of a Premier Division knockout final should never be based on an assumption.
It should be confirmed clearly in writing with the affected club.
That is basic administrative practice.
The BCB is the governing body. It has a responsibility to ensure that clubs, captains, officials and players are all working from the same information.
The fact that I discovered the conflicting Sunday information by speaking casually to an opposing player is, in itself, extremely concerning.
How can an organising body have two different dates circulating for a Premier Division final only days before the match?
And once that discrepancy was identified, why was the solution to move the fixture to another day rather than first ensuring that the club had actually agreed to that change?
The conversation with Steven Douglas
I also take issue with the way the BCB has presented the subsequent communication involving Cricket Committee chairman Steven Douglas.
My concern is not simply that we disagreed about the final decision.
My concern is the inconsistency in what was communicated to me.
I was involved in a conversation in which one position was communicated, and approximately an hour later the position being communicated was materially different.
That creates a serious problem when clubs are trying to understand what decision has actually been made.
If the governing body cannot provide consistent information to the captain of one of the clubs involved in a cup final, how are clubs supposed to plan and operate effectively?
The response cannot simply be, “deal with it”.
That is not constructive governance.
It does not resolve the issue, and it certainly does not build trust between the governing body and the clubs it is supposed to serve.
‘At no point did Somerset indicate it was unable to play’ needs context
The BCB’s statement specifically says that Somerset “at no point” indicated that it intended to forfeit or fail to appear for the scheduled Sunday final.
That statement may technically describe one part of the communication, but it is being used in a way that creates a misleading impression.
The issue was never that Somerset woke up on Sunday and arbitrarily decided that we did not feel like playing.
The issue was that the BCB changed the fixture from the date we had been given, despite Somerset’s position regarding the change, and created a situation where the club could not field the team it had originally organised for the final.
There is a substantial difference between a club voluntarily refusing to play a scheduled match and a club objecting to a governing body’s last-minute change to the terms under which the match was originally scheduled.
The BCB should not blur those two things together.
Accountability has to work both ways
I love cricket. I have given an enormous amount of my time to this sport, as have the players around me.
The last thing I want is to see the relationship between players, clubs and the governing body deteriorate, but accountability cannot only apply to clubs and players, it has to apply to the governing body as well.
If a club misses a fixture, there are consequences. If a player breaches a rule, there are consequences.
If a club fails to meet an administrative requirement, it is expected to answer for it and the governing body should be held to the same standard.
When there are repeated scheduling problems, communication breakdowns and last-minute changes, the response should not always be to explain why the BCB was justified and why somebody else misunderstood something.
At some point, the organisation has to look internally and ask whether its systems are working.
Dominic Sabir and Delray Rawlins in the middle (Photograph by Cleon Scotland/Airhorn Media)
This should be an opportunity to improve
I am not asking for special treatment for Somerset. I am asking for a level playing field. I am asking for proper communication.
I am asking for schedules to be established and respected wherever reasonably possible.
I am asking that significant changes be communicated clearly and confirmed in writing with the clubs affected before decisions are finalised.
And I am asking that when mistakes happen, the BCB has enough accountability to acknowledge them rather than immediately framing them as somebody else’s misunderstanding.
If the BCB genuinely believes that everything about this situation was handled appropriately, then I would welcome the opportunity for the relevant correspondence and timeline to be made available so that everyone can see exactly what was communicated, when it was communicated, and by whom.
That would be far more productive than simply issuing a statement saying there was a “miscommunication.”
Because ultimately, this is bigger than Somerset.
If the scheduling and communication processes continue to operate this way, the people who will suffer are the players and clubs who actually keep cricket alive in Bermuda.
The passion for the sport is already being tested by poor planning and inconsistent administration. The BCB should be listening to that frustration rather than dismissing it.
I respect the role the Bermuda Cricket Board has in governing the sport but with that responsibility comes an obligation to do the job properly.
Clubs should not have to constantly chase the governing body to determine when and where they are actually supposed to play.
Players should not have to discover changes to major fixtures through opposing players.
Captains should not receive conflicting information about decisions affecting their teams.
And when something goes wrong, clubs should not automatically be portrayed as the problem.
Somerset Cricket Club has done its part. We have trained, competed, committed our time and represented the club and the sport with pride.
We simply expect the governing body to show the same level of commitment, professionalism, consistency and accountability in administering the game.
That is not asking for special treatment. That is asking for the standard that Bermuda cricket deserves.
• Dominic Sabir was talking to Colin Thompson