Wednesday, April 04, 2007
End Of Chappell Era
What follows this paragraph was intended to be an independent post. I wrote it and went to have a coffee. And on TV the news of Chappell’s resignation was breaking out. I was a bit perplexed by this development for a moment but soon it became clear to me that things were taking their expected course. So I thought I would let the post follow this intro.
I was almost certain that I would ignore the highly inflammatory rumors which appeared in some channels in the form of reports. So long as they retained the ‘from reliable sources’, the best one could do for Indian cricket was to keep quiet about it. But now that Sachin Tendulkar has come out in the open against Greg Chappell, India’s coach, my silence might be construed as my inability or unwillingness to respond to such unpalatable developments.
No body knows what Chappell is likely to include in his report to BCCI. You have only rumors to go by. Rumors, they are aplenty. All the channels had this issue as their staple diet for the last few days. Most of them talked about it as if they are handling a statement made by Chappell. But it is now clear that Chappell had something unpleasant to tell the Board about the senior players as betrayed by Tendulkar’s interview given to Times of India. He has expressed his hurt at the insinuation that the senior players had an attitude problem in no uncertain way. Chappell’s authoritarian style and his methodical divide and rule strategy etc are likely to the players’ main weapons in the no holds barred war against Chappell which is now in the open.
We don’t know what went within the four walls of the dressing room. So we will wait till the dirty linen is washed publicly. But we know one thing. India failed to enter the Super Eight because of the failure on the part of the players primarily. The coach also may be guilty in a technical way. But without attributing any motive to the players, you can say that it is their incompetence that caused the dismal performance. I admit no team would like to get trapped in such an agonizing position. Nor would any coach. Chappell obviously came to India with great dreams. To coach this Indian team to the World Cup win must have one of his dreams.
Then what caused this almost total parting of ways? Difference in perceptions? Or ego clashes? May be but the difference in approaches to achieve the same result might also be a reason. What Chappell wanted the team to do might not have been the ideal way for the players to get the same thing done. Taking into consideration the inter-relational structure in this case; Chappell seems to on the right side at least technically.
But that is not going to help matters a bit here. He has to go. Simply because no coach can hope to coach an Indian team after having got on the wrong side of such indispensable superstars like Tendulkar. By now it must have become clear to him. And he is not going to have any VIP friends either in India. Because of certain inherent reasons most of the former players are not interested in having a foreigner as India’s coach. None of the journalists would commit the foolishness of endorsing Chappell’s stand even if they believe him to be right simply because their reporting efficiency depends crucially on the co-operation of the major players. Which would be zero once they decide to move over to Chappell’s camp.
So without going into the arguments in this case which we are totally in the dark about, we can be sure that India is going to have another coach. And this Chappell also should know.
Tags: Chappell resigns
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Ideas Matter Not Persons
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
