Duncan Fletcher’s term is about to end in 3 months time and it would be a surprise if the BCCI decides to extend his term. In all probability, India should have a new coach at the end of Duncan’s tenure.
Coaching India has to be one of the most fascinatingly challenging jobs in the world of cricket; quite akin to winning a series in India or Australia for a captain. Even in general, coaching and captaincy are jobs that require timely mobilization of varied faculties and skills. And if the country in question is India, the job only gets tougher for here, often fan enthusiasm borders on fanaticism, administrators are way too domineering to give a coach’s opinion due weightage and the worst: for all your efforts and processes, there just happens to be a single judging criterion – the figure in the wins column.
Attached to all these, however, are some appealing privileges perhaps on offer only in India. An Indian coach almost never has to worry about his monetary well being. Especially for people involved at the highest level ( players, coach, trainers), money definitely would be one of the last concerns. Also, as Gary Kirsten would tell you, there is a lot of love and adulation reserved for you if you do manage to lift the team to something significant.
The titillating question now is who or more importantly what, should the new man to coach be like? Should the recent trend of having foreign coaches be bucked or does the practice have merit and should be continued?
First, the big debate about the foreign coach. Quite often, people tend to view the issue only through the lens of patriotism. There is a bigger picture attached though. The colour of the coach’s skin hardly matters. What does matter however, is that the man has to be necessarily free of any baggage or prejudice both about players and regions; that he should be a thorough professional and that he should have the necessary ammunition to shake the setup out of a sluggish inertia that inevitably creeps in. Given all these, a foreign coach fits the bill aptly.
An alternative way to fulfill all of the above requirements is if either of Ganguly, Dravid or Kumble decide to take up the coach’s mantle. All three have been a part of a very successful era and more importantly, going by their playing days, have a strong will to rise above petty politics, to the extent of sacrificing their preferred roles for the team’s cause.
India has had 4 foreign coaches in the past decade with two of them (John Wright & Gary Kirsten) enjoying some illustrious milestones. Not only were they proficient amongst the four foreigners but even in the context of complete Indian cricket, their ranks would be quite high and the atmosphere they created very desirable. So, is there some fundamental quality that should be scouted for when selecting a new foreign coach (or a new coach for that matter)? Is there a pattern to the happy tenure of both Wright and Kirsten?
In the lines to follow, I venture to explore some common traits between the two (Wright & Kirsten) that led them to have such an efficacious impact. To start with, both Wright and Kirsten were very humble human beings. I can’t say if that has a direct impact but Indians tend to like such people. Even at our homes, we are regularly told by elders to inculcate this quality.
The second similarity, and a very decisive one, was that both understood the Indian cricket system well and had profound and meritorious ideas on how to better not only the national team but also the culture from its grassroots. Wright, for example, was always on the lookout for quality spinners for the simple reason that spin was India’s strength. That they also developed on the pace front during his tenure is a different issue. Before the historic 2001 series against Australia, Wright is supposed to have advocated the name of 45 year old Kanwaljit Singh, a right arm off-break spinner from Hyderabad. Fletcher probably was a little too conservative in this aspect, tending to keep himself confined to mostly the national team.
While Wright and Kirsten had ideas, they never imposed their personality too heavily on their jobs. Greg Chappell erred grossly here. Although he had a fantastic cricket brain, he sometimes seemed too hell bent on having his way. The mentality he had was more in tune with that of a captain than a coach. Chappell showed a ready willingness to hog the limelight and give an account of himself. Wright and Kirsten preferred the backstage, letting their wards soak in the limelight. In any other setup, the Chappell way might have worked but in India, often egos can run high and if the coach has a king size ego of his own, harmonious progress becomes a distant dream. Duncan Fletcher too prefers to remain in the shadows but he gives the impression of being way too under-involved.
And lastly, Kirsten and Wright were excellent man managers. Here in India, talent and skills have never been threatening issues. Players generally are decently talented and batsmen esp. are of extraordinary caliber. But, per se, Indians are sensitive people. It is as easy to hurt them and turn them away as it is to win them over by a sincere will to help. Wright and Kirsten chose the latter and hence, were quite popular amongst the players.
There is a very good instance to illustrate what I just said. Gambhir is innately an insecure but skilled player; brimming up with talent but very often, woefully short on the mental front. This is what he had to say after the world cup final – “I feel I can smash the wall with my head”. What Gambhir is trying to say is that he had been given so much confidence by Gary Kirsten that he could do what you just read.
And this is what Kirsten had to say about Gambhir after the WC win – “Gautam is a serious and intense guy but lacks a bit of his own belief. And this is a great player, who ended up getting a 97 in the World Cup final and set up the game for us to win. I knew Gambhir was a crucial component to our team, and if he lacked self belief or had self doubts, then it was my responsibility. So, everytime I got on the team bus, I would give him that sense of affirmation of what he meant to the team.”
Sometimes, it becomes imperative the coach brings out his humane side too rather than just sticking to technical expertise. Kirsten had a way with players, knowing exactly when to use the stick and when to put an arm around. There is one more incident where Kirsten reportedly told an unfit Yuvraj that he (Kirsten) was fitter than some of the Indian players. Yuvraj worked hard on his fitness and the rest is history.
Duncan Fletcher has had a reasonable amount of success in one dayers. It is the losses in Tests and esp. the humiliating manner in which they have come that is unendurable. Many players, most notably Sehwag and Gambhir, have lost their form and don’t look anywhere near their best. He might consider himself a wee unlucky in getting to coach a team in transition. For some reason though, this version of Duncan Fletcher is far less engrossing than the one that coached England where along with Nasser Hussain he positively changed the way England played their cricket and effected their revival.
Whatever might be the case and whoever is India’s next coach, one thing is for sure – he is going to have quite a task at hand. People are talking of changing the captain, there is a team in absolute transformation and even a perception of players lacking test match skill is doing the rounds. That is quite a handful to deal with but of what value would a coaching assignment be without any tides to sail against; after all, like a player, a coach too needs his share of trails.
0 votes
