More armchair expertise

Avinash Subrmanium

The armchair expert is back. And doing what he's best at. Dishing out absolutely unasked for tips on the dos and don'ts for the season ahead. (Though considering the singular lack of thinking that has characterized our cricket over the last year or two, it should be more than welcome.) And the best place to start, perhaps, would be with the most important armchair expert of all, the coach.

When it comes to the coach, the one question that remains unanswered is what exactly is his role in the modern game? Is it to teach the players how to bat, bowl and field? Right. In which case, why does he have to be an ex-cricketer? Let alone a superstar? Who says only an ex-cricketers know how to deal with pressure? Who says only an ex-cricketer can think tactics? (The utter lack of tactical emphasis in our game at most points in our cricketing history should tell us otherwise.) Who says an insider is the man best suited to make the most objective analysis of the game. In fact, the 'extremely cricket focused' approach pure cricketers bring to the table make it that much more difficult for them to open their minds to new ideas, methods and even other sports so necessary to keep pace with the evolving nature of the modern game. (Something everyone from John Buchanan to the Kiwi think-tank to Dave Whatmore to Steve Waugh has talked about.) Am I making sense?

Perhaps a different take on the coaching conundrum will illustrate my point better. Consider this, I work for an Internet company. Okay, okay, I know. The whole world works for a dot-com. But that's not my point. And believe me, I try and not make a big thing about it. But I digress. (As usual.) Anyway, like I was saying, I work for a dot-com. But the head of my company can't do what I do. In fact, he can't do what most people on his team do. Do we respect him any less for it? No. Do we wish he were a writer, a programmer or anything that anyone on the rest of the team members is? Sure we do. But we know it's not possible. Which is why we keep reminding ourselves of our roles in the overall scheme of things. (Not that he lets us ever forget.) We know each of us is there to do a job we're uniquely skilled at. And we look to him to make it conducive for us to do it to the best of our abilities. We don't expect him to do our job. We don't expect him to teach us to do our jobs. All we expect him to do is make us want to do it for the team/company and do it well. Simple. It's not easy. But it works. (Even though, we always wish we were paid more for it. But I digress. Again, as usual.) And that's the way we go about spending the better part of our lives. So how different is real life from cricket? Well, if John Buchanan is to be believed, not very.

I managed to catch a short chat John had with Harsha during the indoor series Down Under. When asked whether his not being an ex-cricketer impacted the degree of respect he was able to garner from his team, he said that if one were to go by that logic, the person best suited for the job would have to be Superman! Well, not quite the words he used. But he did say the 'perfect coach' would have to be a guy who could bat, bowl, field, think and - - - and, well, be perfect in everything! Which of course, none of us are. (Not even if we happen to be one of the greatest all-round cricketers in the history of the game.)

Presuming the train of thought above makes sense to you, does the absolute desperation with which we seem to be parroting the need for a foreign coach make as much sense as they'd like us to believe? Is the issue really the need for a foreign coach or for us to understand exactly what is it that we expect our coaches to be? (White-skinned or otherwise.) What was the great revolution Bobby Simpson, the expert from outside, managed to bring to our cricket? Did our fielding standards go up exponentially? Did we exhibit some startling new advances in tactical thinking? Were we transformed into a team that pulled for one and other during times of need? Have we - - - well, nothing of that sort has happened? (Worse, he happened to be on the notorious chucking committee that consigned Harbhajan to the sidelines.) No sir, Bob Simpson did little for us. Except take home a big, fat paycheck. But then, like I said, if there's one thing that has characterized our cricket from time immemorial, it's the singular lack of thinking. Now, there's some food for thought. (I hope.)

Avinash Subrmanium

Mail Avinash Subramanium