Cricket India

The discussion on the future of Indian cricket now has, after a severe scrutiny of the players’ and captain’s culpability, has moved on to the future of the coach of the national team. After the initial euphoria, Greg Chappell was quick enough to collect critics and they are now making use of the plight of the Indian team to pull him down from his pedestal. Many were at the very beginning itself.not at all happy about such a high profile coach. Chappell who was armed with certain well chiseled concepts and ways to put them into action promptly went ahead with his campaign buoyed by his initial success.

But soon the momentum was lost and many of his moves attracted harsh criticism. If you look back the criticism that he comprehensively tinkered with the cohesion of the team was not exactly true. All that he was fond of was forcing a little flexibility to the batting line up. And that is a strategy which has several takers in all countries. Many believe that the ability to contribute at any position-within a reasonable range- is a must for the versatility of a batting line up. And they don't believe in the theory of comfort which a batsman requires by being told of his continued occupation of a particular position. The most important thing in a match are the emerging situations and the duty of the batting line up is to respond to them effectively. Reputations and satisfied egos have to take the back seat in such situations. A batsman with his strengths and weaknesses should be willing to submit his skill to the cause of the situation. And for that he requires repeated exposure which serves as practice.

Another step by Chappell which invited criticism was his faith in Pathan as a batsman. He saw in Pathan a tool to insert at strategic positions and gave him opportunities to enable him to acquire the required skills at the top level. The limited success of both moves should not take away their merit as strategic steps initiated by a thinking coach.

Chappell like Dravid is not indispensable to Indian cricket. But a great deal of thought has to be given to the next logical step if it is meant to serve Indian cricket in a more useful way. I personally believe that a coach is to be invested with more powers as in football. He should have more if not absolute say in selecting players. In fact it is better that we dispense with the selection committee. But unlike in football cricket has and needs a captain who can take control of the on-field proceedings unlike the football captain who is more of an ornament. So depositing the entire decision making with the coach might not be a happy a way of organizing things if the captain does not think in the same frequency. So it has to the collective effort of the captain and the coach. A technically well equipped committee without executive powers should be there to co-ordinate things and to intervene if frictions arose. All major items like pitch preparation, team selection, giving shape to strategies etc have to primarily the job of the coach and its execution should be the captain’s job.

What we hear like having an interim coach to Bangladesh may not be the ideal response to the crisis before India. Chappell may not be essential for India but he should not be sent out because some busybodies in the corridors of BCCI do not like his looks.

I am deliberately keeping away from reports on Chappell’s views on the mafia of the senior players. I cant behave like the irresponsible visual medium which in its eagerness for one-up-manship dives into any story without verifying its truth. They can use the safety latch of ‘sources say’ and sink their teeth into the rumor. So I will wait till the crucial BCCI meeting on April sixth.

Tags: chappel, players' mafia

# posted by Upendra Varma @ 12:22 PM