Some long time ago, while I was still in high school, I saw a film called ``Twelve Angry Men.'' The film, not me, was so old that it was in ``black and white'', not technicolour. That film has become a classic in the eyes of the cinema people and has even been remade, this time in colour.

The story of this film was simple. A jury was supposed to decide the fate of a young man charged with a stabbing murder. As they enter the room to make the decision, at least eleven of the jurors were convinced that he was guilty of the crime. By the time, some long time later, that they had angrily agonized and sifted through all of the facts of the case, all twelve eventually voted correctly, but grudgingly, ``Not Guilty.''

Somehow, this film always comes back to my mind when I think of cricket selectors, especially those of the West Indies and England. I am sure that these erstwhile gentlemen go to their respective rooms with pre-conceived thoughts of the selections they will make. The combinations which come from those rooms, though, are so confusing sometimes, that one has to wonder what sort of thought and process would have gone into the selections. I am convinced that when in those rooms, the imagination of the selectors do not go further than the walls.

As all now know, England were badly beaten by New Zealand last weekend in the final Test at the Oval in London, thus losing the series 2-1 to New Zealand. England is now, unofficially, but more importantly, by their own supporters, considered the worst cricket team in the world. After their victory in the first Test against the Kiwis, I thought that England would do better than this.

Two things immediately come to mind after England's dismal series against New Zealand.

During the World Cup in May and June last, while doing commentary, Chris Broad, the former England opening batsman and Ian Botham, their former dynamic captain, suggested that even with all its cricketers, England would be hard pressed to find a team to beat anyone. It should be noted that England has some eighteen cricket playing counties, each county having about twenty five players on its staff. Despite the fact that I have always thought that the concept and implementation of English county cricket is really useless outside of providing a living for some sportsmen, I found it almost impossible to believe that they could not put out a good enough team with so much personnel available. The recent results have justified the thoughts of Messrs Broad and Botham.

The other poignant thought coming from this scenario was that the West Indian selectors, in picking the last World Cup team, openly suggested that the team would have been selected from personnel who would have had experiences in English county cricket. Except for Jamaican Franklyn Rose, who was out of favour for other reasons, the selectors did implement this plan. We all know the dismal results. Australia and Pakistan, on the other hand, the teams that got to the final, simply played their best team, period.

How, in the name of anyone you believe in, could we in the Caribbean use English county cricket and the experiences gleaned there, to pick our team when England's team and its cricket are so bad, despite using their own system? We should use our own criteria.

What happens to our selectors when they go into that room is not known. Sometimes the three letter word, starting with ``m'' comes to mind when we try to describe them. Even such luminaries as Prime Minister Keith Mitchell of Grenada has agreed with what I have suggested long ago and put the blame of our recent lacklustre showing on the selectors. Their combinations have been terrible, at least, in my mind, pandering to another nine letter word starting with ``s''.

Perhaps we could adopt a stance as suggested by Australian Steve Rixon, the now retired, but very successful Coach of the victorious New Zealand team. ``What we have done in New Zealand'', he said after the Oval victory, ``was to invest in players and give them time to develop. Look at Daniel Vettori for example. He is only 21 years old, but already, he has 80 Test wickets. He may not be spectacular, but he is very consistent. That is because we have invested in him and have given him and ourselves a commitment that only time will help.''

This is a similar situation as was given to South Africa's Herscelle Gibbs when he was floundering before he came to Test cricket against the West Indies late last year. He was simply asked to ``play your cricket and do not worry about being dropped. You will not be.'' He was mildly successful against the West Indies but blossomed in the World Cup.

What is amazing about this is that this is the way the West Indies used to go in the glorious past. Almost every name anyone could call from the victorious West Indies cricket team of the past has this unofficial commitment. Opener Gordon Greenidge and middle order batting alrounder Larry Gomes especially were great failures when they started Test cricket, yet, both are rightly thought of as being very important, eventually successful, cogs in that winning West Indies machine of the 80's.

We now hear from our selectors, Messrs Joel Garner of Barbados, Joey Carew of Trinidad & Tobago and Chairman Michael Findlay of St Vincent, that the West Indies selectors will now ``be looking into the future, and sees the need to use the short upcoming tours of Singapore, Bangladesh and Sharjah to expose and groom young talented cricketers.'' What the hell were the selectors trying to do over the last few years before this statement was made?

Only three changes have been made to the West Indies team from the World Cup for the immediately upcoming tour of Singapore. Keith Arthurton, Stuart Williams and Phil Simmons have finally been discarded. Adrian Griffith, whom I advocated for the World Cup team, Wavell Hinds, who should have played against the Australians earlier this year in the Caribbean, and Nixon McLean, whom, like Griffith, should have been selected for the World Cup team because of his tremendous pace (look at Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar) have been selected. I have absolutely no quarrel with these selections.

We wait to see what the selecors would do as to the longevity of these players. West Indies cricket needs some continuity, not chopping and changing, especially of the younger players. We must put a nucleus of younger players together and keep them in place to gain confidence, experience and know-how. While we may lose more than win under these building circumstances, it must be understood that an investement is being made in the future. We simply cannot allow ourselves to fall as low as the English. It is very obvious that our situation here in the Caribbean is much more important!!