Kolkata Test Day 3 – "Battles" on and off the pitch

In my review of the first two days of the Kolkata Test, i speculated that Anil Kumble’s handling of Harbhajan Singh would be crucial, and that the Pakistan batsmen would take an aggressive approach against Harbhajan Singh especially. As it turned out, Kumble began with Harbhajan, who responded brilliantly with an exhibition of teasing flight and length. Bedi’s dictum about the perfect spinner’s length being the shortest possible length which would still have the batsman playing forward was on show. Both Salman Butt and Mohammad Yousuf were beaten by the flight and the trajectory. This was a Test Match bowler with 240+ Test wickets to his name giving us a demonstration of his skill.

That the Pakistan batting strategy dictated assertive batsmanship against Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble was immediatly evident. Harbhajan Singh landed one on middle stump, full enough for Younis Khan to whip away to the squarish mid-wicket fence. Kumble’s response was swift – the cover point moved over to mid-wicket. The game was now set. Harbhajan would attack the stumps with his stock delivery and occasional drag the batsman out to induce a cover drive. Or so Kumble thought. The next ball, Younis Khan aimed a reverse sweep to the vacant cover point region and missed. Before the over was done, Younis tried it again and got a boundary for his trouble. It seemed to put Harbhajan off. At the other end Misbah Ul-Haq brought out the sweep and the battle was well and truly joined.

Slowly but surely Pakistan’s batsmen repaired the early damage. Kumble was unable to build on the early advantage that Harbhajan’s first spell brought. Munaf Patel and Zaheer Khan got nothing out of the wicket or in the air. The ball stubbornly refused to deviate off the straight, and the forced change of ball didn’t help vis a vis reverse swing either. For their part, Akmal and Misbah were superb, reminscent of Akmal and Razzaq at Mohali in 2005. Whether their effort brings a similar result for Pakistan remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, off the pitch, there was much speculation. Dilip Vengsarkar left for Mumbai to attend to a bereavement in his family. This led to speculation that he had left the test match mid-way to protest the BCCI’s refusal to compensate him for lost income after they ordered him to stop writing his weekly newspaper column. Cricinfo clarified later that Vengsarkar had in fact threatened no such thing. The gist of that story is that there is a disagreement between the Chairman of the Selection Committee and his employers at BCCI about compensation. To this end, as the Cricinfo story reveals there is ongoing negotiation.

The press of course has its own dog in this fight. The BCCI diktat which has caused a spirited exchange of views anonymously in the press and behind closed doors between the selectors and BCCI, is also concerned with the selectors dealing with the press. The lack of a press conference is something that hurts the reportage. Hence, we get reports like the one on Express India, which stoops to the asinine depth of doubting a bereavement in the Chairman of selectors family (if this had to be brought up, it ought to have been easy enough to verify for any reporter worth his salt) and speculating about Vengsarkar threatening to resign. The press has been systematically constructing this “battle” off the pitch. In doing so they abuse their position of being above the fray. In this instance they are not in fact above the fray, as the outcome directly affects them. They would ideally like Vengsarkar to give press conferences again. But in their reportage of this story lies the the gist of the BCCI’s case against them, and the reason for its ban.

Sixty thousand or so have watched each day of the Kolkata Test at the Eden Gardens, many millions have watched it on TV, and possibly many more millions have followed the progress of the Test match on the news. As long as this interest persists, the nature of the coverage by the press will have limited importance. These skirmishes however will continue to reveal the standards which the press sets for itself.

The outcome of the Kolkata Test will be known by the end of play tomorrow, much like it was with the Delhi Test match. The Selector v BCCI (v Press) battle will be resolved soon as well. The team for the third test and the Australia series is to be announced before the end of the Kolkata Test match. This announcement will hopefully be accompanied with a clarification from BCCI and the selectors about the whole selectors v BCCI issue. Gary Kirsten’s appointment is also likely to be announced.

This press story linking a family bereavement to all alleged (by the press) threat by DBV to resign will be forgotten.

Coach Kirsten?

Cricinfo reports that Gary Kirsten will be the next coach of the Indian Cricket team. This is a textbook “scoop” with the news being leaked before it is announced. On the main Cricinfo the captain says “Deal finalised, says official”. Yet if you look in the actual story, there is a subtle difference:
“It has been finalised,” a senior board official told Cricinfo. “We just need some time to complete the formalities.”

A reading of that quote would indicate that the deal hasn’t been finalized, but is in the process of being finalized. When the board official says “it” has been finalized, he’s clearly referring to the BCCI’s choice being finalized. Yet, Cricinfo’s caption under their main leader, suggests that the BCCI’s deal with Kirsten has been finalized. This is often the genesis of the “unprofessional” BCCI comments so often presented by Cricinfo and other serious Cricket news organizations. Furthermore, Cricinfo’s interview with Gary Kirsten which appears next to this story clearly indicates that Kirsten has not yet accepted the job.

The rest of the article describes Kirsten’s coaching background and yet the authors disappointment that he knew nothing about the Kirsten appointment until he was able to write this story today is palpable. There is also a list of applicants for the job, which is interesting in the light of recent stories about a lack of a process. It appears that BCCI did infact invite applications for the job. They clearly learnt something from the Graham Ford situation.

BCCI for its part, while it seems to learn about dealing with the press in fits and starts, has steadfastly refuse to address the core issue – that of creating a Public Relations Office which can handle all these pronouncements professionally. They would rather let things trickle out from “unnamed BCCI officials” or “senior board officials” rather than hiring some guy who could stand in a press conference in a nice neat suit and read out a written statement which could say exactly what these anonymous honchos have leaked. A statement describing todays story would read. If they didn’t want to report the decision before Gary Kirsten had signed the paperwork, they could have gotten the same nice suit to stand in the same press conference and stalled.

I mean, its a multi-million dollar industry – conveying a message, stalling, talking a lot without actually saying anything. Its nearly impossible to switch on the television and not find some statement from some “spokesman” being reported to you. Why doesn’t BCCI do the same?

Because they don’t you get reporters who write two different things about the same issue in a story, and a third thing in the headline. Reporters are of course accountable to nobody, but shouldn’t the sources of the information – in this case the Cricket Board not worry that multiple messages are being sent? The Cricinfo story says:

1. Deal has been finalized
2. “It” has been finalized, but formalities remain
3. Kirsten is “almost certain” to get the job, but the cricket board wants to be certain about the terms and conditions before making the announcement.

This is a textbook case. Cricinfo starts off with a headline which claims that its a done deal, and as the story progresses reveals that its not yet a done deal, but the choice has been made, and then reveals that the choice is only almost certainly made, but the terms haven’t been agreed!

Further, Kirsten in his interview says that he didn’t actually apply for the job, but that BCCI approached him. So Chandrakant Pandit, the former Indian wicketkeeper and Maharashtra coach, Richard Done, former head of the Queensland Academy of Excellence, Leicestershire coach Tim Boon, Kepler Wessels, the former Australia and South Africa international, Terry Oliver, Queensland’s coach, Dave Nosworthy, coach of Canterbury, and former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe applied for the job but were not deemed to be acceptable candidates by BCCI. This in itself is fine. Both Wright and Chappell were hired based on the preliminary recommendations of Rahul Dravid (his Kent connection with Wright) and Sourav Ganguly (his Australia connection with Chappell) respectively. Kirsten was probably the choice of the senior Indian cricketers as well. This indicates a rather interesting “selection” process, which is probably not uncommon in high level job searches.

If they can do all this so well, why can’t they get the part about conveying their message clearly right? At this point im reminded of the myth about the BCCI website, but im not going to go there…..

Wanted: A Coach for Team India (and a PR official for BCCI!)

I just saw this on Rediff. It is a statement from Niranjan Shah. In keeping with the finest traditions of writing weblogs, i consider it my solemn blogistic (see journalistic) duty to reproduce it here and ensure that BCCI’s advertisement is read by as many potential India coaches as possible. Here goes:

I KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
a) Working closely with the Selection Committee and interacting periodically with the Review Committee to be set up by the Board.
b) Should have the ability to plan and manage programs for the elite cricketers
c) Should be capable of building positive relations with the public and media.
d) Should be capable of motivating players and thus helping them to optimize their performances at all times.
e) Should be familiar with the use of performance analysis software packages.
f) Should be available to conduct clinics and workshops for the local coaches
g) Should have excellent communicating skills as he is required to communicate at different levels like players, team management, selectors and the Board
h) Should be capable of providing the team with tactical expertise

II KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND EXPERTISE
a) Should be a qualified coach with minimum level III coaching accreditation from Cricket Australia, England or India
b) Should have played at least level of First Class cricket.
c) Extensive coaching experience and expertise in working with elite cricketers
d) Should possess basic IT skills to be able to operate the match analysis program
e) Should have been a coach of an international or national team or a coach at an elite Coaching Centre of international repute
f) Should have basic knowledge of Indian cricket, Indian player pathway and Indian culture and ethos
g) Should have basic knowledge of Sports Science and Sports Medicine
h) Should be capable of handling the team under high pressure situations
i) Should possess outstanding organizational skills
j) Should have knowledge of the international coaching trends
k) Should have experience in using the video technology.

III GENERAL INFORMATION
a) The appointment as coach shall be for a period of two years, starting from October 1, 2007.
b) The job requires a great deal of time away from home traveling with the Indian team both in India and Abroad
c) Terms and conditions are negotiable

Without reading too much into it, the sequence in which the “Key Responsibilities” are stated is quite telling. Of the 8 key responsibililties (III(c) effectively renders everything else redundant by stating that terms and conditions are negotiable lets not be pedantic here), cricket related responsibilities feature 2nd, 4th and 8th. Relations with the media and the cricket board figures in 3rd, 1st and 7th place. The 5th and 6th points are irrelevant in my view because software packages can be learnt (and in any case India employ a full time analyst for this very purpose. Besides, how can this be a key “responsibility”? For more see II(d)), while clinics for local coaches can be conducted by specially hired expert coaching instructor. Is it prudent to burden the national coach with this added responsibility?

But this aside, the Key Responsibilities section reveals little doubt that this is not an advertisement for a national team coach by a cricket board, but is an advertisement by a cricket board singed to the scalp by Chappellgate. Further more, it is a statement crafted by an amateur and hastily at that. What exactly is the difference between coaching a “international and national team”? There is well established time honored cricket specific terminology – the same might have easily be conveyed by saying that the candidate should have prior experience of coaching international or First Class cricket teams.

Seriously BCCI – please hire a Public Relations person. It is precisely to avoid things like these that firms and institutions employ people exclusively to convey well-framed, concise, clear messages to the right recipients at the right time. And if this is the work of a PR person – please dip into your formidable bank balance and enroll that person in a Public Relations course. If s/he refuses, fire that person! I make typos in my blog – lots of them, and this does weaken my advice to you, but it is well meant. There are worse things you could do than put Niranjan Shah or Sharad Pawar out in front of the hounds from the press. The press doesn’t deserve that kind of daily attention. Niranjan Shah or Sharad Pawar are always news stories – even if they just sneeze. If a PR spokesman faints, he might just get 2 lines somewhere deep inside the newspaper. The PR person will be the voice of the BCCI (and by that i do not suggest that s/he will frame the message). All this is elementary – how can an organization float million dollar tournaments on the one hand and not want to find the budget for a PR person? The PR person checks the English and checks for nuances which may reveal more than the message intends.

So please put out an advertisement for a public relations professional. Nothing elaborate – no image make overs or anything of the sort. Just someone who can convey a clear, articulate, concise message (BCCI’s message) in correct English/Hindi. It will make the new coach’s job much much easier too…..

Thought leadership…. Open Source Cricket……

G Rajaraman questions Sunil Gavaskar’s role in BCCI Office, and makes a fine point about conflict of interest. Sunil Gavaskar has in the past and even recently used information available to him due to his official position on BCCI committees in his newspaper columns. Yet, he seems to command tremendous respect at BCCI. Gavaskar is not alone. Most of our articulate cricketers – Gavaskar, Shastri, Manjrekar, Arun Lal, Bedi, Sidhu (articulate is the wrong word for him!) and many others make their living in the press, either by television contracts or by writing newspaper columns. The ability to articulate is important, indeed i would say it is a central and non-negotiable requirement for anyone seeking to study and then describe problems and solutions for our cricket. My intention here is not to deride any of our less articulate cricketers, but to point out, that when it comes to developing any system, communication is key – something they are not very good at.

BCCI as an organization, inspite of its enormous financial wealth is beholden to successful ex-India cricketers, because the involvement of these cricketers gives it legitimacy, apart from providing the best available source of cricketing know how in India. Yet, BCCI does not hire these individuals full time, because they can not and ought not to match ESPN and/or any other news organization when it comes to salaries. In today’s age, articulate ex-cricketers are worth their weight in gold, and they know it. A work around therefore is necessary, in order to harness the strengths of our time – plenty of ex-cricketers who have opinions and know how, articulate current cricketers, the internet, enormous amount of public interest and an upcoming BCCI website – to address the weaknesses of our time – lack of apparent initiative, name calling in the press, discussion about cricket being limited to the assignment of praise or blame, and BCCI’s poor public profile.

The best possible launching content for the BCCI website would be a wiki to be developed by the likes of Gavaskar et al. where they address (through columns, notes, questions, researched responses to questions) specific issues – such as the selection of the coach, the future of ranji trophy cricket, BCCI support for local cricket, upkeep of the maidans of Bombay and other cities, coaching, fitness etc. etc. etc. – this will enable communication of the best ideas, on a forum which the public can see – which won’t require wasteful committee meetings which use up a lot of each individuals time and do not allow very effective discussion.

The electoral process, which forms the basis of BCCI, is conducive to deal making, not collaborative work. Committees are instituted so that the resulting solution will be the better than one proposed by any single individual. These committees could work virtually, whats more, the work of the committee could be viewed by by others in a non-intrusive manner. This would enable constructive discussion – far more efficiently than meeting once every 5 months in a 5 star hotel can. What will happen then, is that there will be less scope for the press to speculate, and less blind name calling. Everything would be on the table.

It would also enable the most articulate minds in India to express themselves profitably, without clashing with their other more lucrative commitments. I would in fact go further and enable these individuals as well as members of the national team to write blogs….. but that is for the future…. . Transcripts of selection committee meetings could be posted online as well.

The BCCI’s problem is putting together information and communicating it effectively. This they can do very effectively by making it visible from the source. I suspect it might be their best hope when it comes to “tackling the media” as well. It might clips the press’s wings, because TV channels might get fewer “scoops”, but good journalism will still thrive. Loaded commentary (my pet hate – that note by Anand Vasu ) will be shown up for what it is (if his view is borne out, then that will be revealed as well).

Furthermore, this would be an originally Indian solution to the issue – and thus would be something where the BCCI would be a leader, rather than being a rich follower which it is at the moment. Gavaskar’s main wish, that we ought to do things our way (there is plenty of merit to this position in my view), will have been met.

England beat West Indies, Graham Ford stays at Kent…..

Inspite of Shivnaraine Chanderpaul’s terrific unbeaten hundred, England beat the West Indies by 60 runs to retain the Wisden Trophy at Old Trafford. On a wicket, which started out being a quick wicket (Alistair Cook suggested it was quicker than any of the wickets in Australia during the Ashes), and later, by all accounts eased out a little bit, the West Indies played terrific cricket in the third and fourth innings, and in the end were left ruing the shambolic collapse in the first innings. But for that loss of 6 wickets for 13 runs at the end of the second day, West Indies might have found themselves leveling the series. There is much comment about Darren Ganga being a fine find for the West Indies as a replacement for the luckless Sarwan, and one hopes that he is able to stay in the job for a while. The West Indies badly need some stable leadership at the moment, because they clearly do not lack talent.

England for their part seem to have become increasingly comfortable with using Panesar as an attacking spin bowling option. The preference for Giles seems to have gone with Duncan Fletcher and Monty Panesar has shown his worth. All that was needed for Panesar to be useful, was the opportunity to bowl. His Test average has dropped below 30 for the first time and he has now taken 59 Test wickets. By English standards, that makes him an established Test spin bowler. The return to form of Steve Harmison, promising an end to the “debilitating madness” that seemed to have engulfed this explosive pace man (a genuinely quick one at that) does not augur too well for India. Flintoff in all likely hood will miss the Tests against India, and Hoggard is in doubt. Harmison’s return to form is a much needed boost for England. If the West Indies batting effort is anything to go by, India should do quite well in England with the bat. Harmison and Panesar will be the biggest threats.

In other news, Graham Ford chose to stay with Kent, leaving the Indian quest for a national team coach high and dry – and without any candidates at that! Lets hope that Ford’s decision gets BCCI to sit up and take notice that they need to move away from this coach obsession, find suitable a candidate to replace Ravi Shastri and continue with the Cricket Manager idea. I think that the problem areas for this current Indian line up are well known in batting, bowling as well as fielding, and it is not rocket science to build a list of these areas, and then go about finding the best possible person to implement regimes to address these issues. It it means hiring 3 specialist coaches, then thats the way to go. For starters, the committee ought to meet with the “senior” players (a category which arises whenever there are no known authors of any idea allegedly emanating from the Indian Cricket team), and find out why they were keen on Graham Ford. If this cannot be articulated by Rahul Dravid (he definitely falls in the category of “senior” player), then it is clearly not worth pursuing the team for its opinion.

Contrary to what BCCI says, what they are looking for is a messiah – someone to hide behind – whether he is outspoken or less outspoken is merely a matter of window dressing. Graham Ford has rejected such a position.

Graham Ford – India Coach

Graham Ford has won the approval of the 7 member committee to select the Coach of the Indian Cricket Team. Ford, who formerly coached South Africa and Kent was chosen ahead of former England Captain John Emburey for the job.

And so, what Rahul Dravid wished for, has come to pass. The BCCI duly went through the motions of picking a coach – this also confirms that

a. There aren’t too many good options, even internationally, for the job.
b. There aren’t any option in India for the job
c. There is very little expertise in India about making a choice for the job outside the national team.
d. Nobody really knows what the job involves.

The only stipulation in the selection seems to have been that the coach would have to be a low profile, behind-the-scenes, back room bloke who will run the team like a bureaucrat rather than like a leader. This in itself is a good thing – but there is obviously no assessment of what a coach is supposed to do. Coaching, like selection seems to be a very difficult job – and in Cricket, there isn’t 100 years of know how to fall back on. Coaching as a job is only about 20 years old (if we consider that the role of the modern coach was first described by the appointment of Bobby Simpson as Australia’s coach).

Somewhere, off the field, someone needs to emerge as a leader for India – the way Simpson was for Australia. Until then, we will get decisions like Graham Ford – safe decisions, made by committee – decisions designed to retain the status quo, or at best achieve unintended incremental achievement. If simple questions are asked:

1. Why has the new coach being appointed?
2. What are the lessons from the Wright and Chappell appointments?
3. Why does the team have such a huge say in this matter?
4. Why are Sunil Gavaskar’s opinions considered “influential” inspite of the fact that he offers no coherent arguments to support his positions?
5. Why is there no attempt to build up expertise and have coaches taking up positions in domestic teams and building up reputations?
6. Why are coaches from Bombay, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Bengal, Baroda, Delhi, Railways etc. not in contention for the national job?

The whole “process” occurs in a vacuum if you will. The Indian Cricket Team is an accident which is incidentally run by the BCCI, which is constituted by regional cricket associations. Cricketers chosen for the national team do not emerge from Ranji Trophy Cricket. They emerge separately and pay mere lip service, much the same way that Ranji did to early attempts at building an Indian Test team. Therefore, there are no reasons or rationales to be found in anything that happens with reference to the national team. It is truly the product of various committees and little else.

Graham Ford and the national team will stay afloat, because there is enough competence and quality to be found in the team, in the coaching staff and the selection committee to keep the national team afloat and the money flowing in. Who is BCCI’s Cricket boss – the ostensible go to man for this apparatus? As far as i know, such an entity is mythical and resides in part in Sharad Pawar, Niranjan Shah, Lalit Modi and other apparatchiks of the Working Committee (the sum total of Cricketing acumen of the members of the working committee compares unfavorably with that of say Ali Bacher). Ultimately, there is nobody who runs Cricket in India. To tell you the truth though – there is no Cricket in India that needs “running”.

We need in India a high profile, rigorous, domestic competition. The national team needs to emerge from this. Right now, its a bit like the famous IIT’s in India – centrally instituted world class technology schools which have no relevance to the cities they reside in – contribute nothing to these cities, and recieve nothing from these cities. Yet they have neighbors in these cities who could use their help and who could in turn contribute plenty to these schools – the quality of both would benefit. In the case of IIT’s for that to be feasible, there need to be 50 IIT’s and not just 6 – and they need to teach not just technology but the liberal arts, the law, the fine arts are other disciplines and subjects.

Similarly, the Indian Cricket team needs to feed off the Ranji Trophy and the gulf between the national team and the Ranji Trophy needs to narrow. In Cricket, unlike in the case of the IIT’s (which had an effective governing agency within the Central Government), this gap will narrow, if not with the Ranji Trophy standards being raised, then with the national team standards dropping. Already – there is no sign of the successors to Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman – all of them are 34 years old – they will definitely retire within a year or so of each other. Unless other brilliant talent emerges and is tested (for which the testing ground needs to be of quality), they will leave behind a deep gaping hole in the inside, a breach which most other Test teams will exploit mercilessly. Graham Ford will be able to do nothing about it.

The appointment of Graham Ford is a little bit like the appointment of a new bureaucrat to a position by a government – the rationale as in the case of bureacratic appointments appears mysterious, and yet seems to work – but there are inherent limitations which narrow the scope of the appointment. All in all it is a very safe process – to be repeated every couple of years.

The search for Coachissimo….

Specifications for the perfect coach have been flying thick and fast. Here’s a sample from an unnamed source at BCCI – “The search was for somebody with a profile that could fit into India’s scheme of things. Somebody with a reputation and a little background and at the same time, one who would work from behind the scenes”. This alleged revelation rivalling many of George W Bush’s spectacular Bushisms was reported by Indian Express. Navjot Sidhu, not to be outdone, offered the following (also reported by the Indian Express): “We need an Indian mind for a better coordination with the players”.

Now it has been revealed that it is the very English John Emburey and not the feisty Arjuna Ranatunga who is the other “foreigner who has not been named” in the running for the role of coach. Emburey, for 24 years “a model professional” with “a modest Test record” has had a forgettable run as coach. The teams he coached never did better than they were doing before he took over. He was going to coach a Minor Counties side (not even a first class team), when he was asked to take over from Mike Gatting at Lord’s. Finally, in the time honoured tradition of getting rid of people by promoting them, he was sacked as coach (Middlesex were relegated in the county championship) and made Director of Cricket at Lord’s.

In the meanwhile, the players sought Graham Ford whose mild mannered style and unforgiving focus on fitness allegedly impressed the players. After Tom Moody, Ford is clearly the players choice, and if history may be referred to here, the players have invariably had it their way. All of which suggests that John Emburey is merely making up the numbers – a bit like the other guy on the ballot with Saddam Hussein in one of the many elections in Iraq during the dictator’s rule (where Hussein would get 100% of the vote!).

All of this – the bizarre expectations from a coach, the tendency to select the new coach in reaction to the experience with Greg Chappell (and with reference to the experience with Wright), rather than based on any forward looking vision from BCCI – tends to suggest that the new coach is expected to be a messiah. Dav Whatmore’s fatal flaw was that he couldn’t convince any of the experts on the select committee to select the coach that he could be an effective messiah. BCCI has yet to articulate a coherent vision of where it want’s the Indian side to be in say 2010 – the Test Team and the ODI team. Indeed, BCCI doesn’t even have a Cricket boss who could possibly articulate this vision. Mr. Modi has taken on Mr. Lele’s loud role and while the selection committee situation has definitely improved with Dilip Vengsarkar bringing more than 100 Test matches of experience to the chairmanship, no other changes are discernible.

What we have therefore is a fait accompli where Graham Ford will be appointed coach and everyone else – BCCI, the committee, John Emburey etc. will merely enable his selection. While Ford may ultimately prove to be a fine coach, the complete lack of support for the national side and the national coach means that Ford’s tenure, will be crippled from the start. The great debate – indeed the only real debate is about the suitability/unsuitability of an Indian to do the job. The fact of the matter is, that there is not a single Indian ex-cricketer today who can point to credible experience of having coached a professional first class cricket team – except possibly Paras Mhambrey and a few others, who noticeably are not the most loquacious of the India-firsters. Even Emburey is better, because he has atleast tried to coach a first class team and not done too well.

What if im wrong? What if Ford’s appointment is not a foregone conclusion? Well – then India will be saddled with a failed first class coach – John Emburey. What if im wrong again? Then the Indian coach will be selected on the eve of the England tour – and as the Indian openers walk out at Lord’s, the new coach will probably still be trying to figure out who is who in the Indian dressing room.

BCCI cannot exist only for the Indian Cricket team. Its major focus has to be first class cricket – more first class cricket, higher profile first class cricket – that will enable a credible pool of first class coaches to be built. That will actually amount to something.

Until then – good luck to the new coach – and to his minders…

What is the new Coach supposed to achieve?

If Captaincy is difficult to gauge, then Coaching is even more so. Captaincy takes place in the full glare of the playing field, coaching happens the in the dark confines of the dressing room and in the lonely arena of net practice. What does a coach do? How do you differentiate a good coach from a bad one? What can a coach contribute to a side, and more importantly what can’t he contribute? These are questions which have not been answered satisfactorily so far and indeed are probably not being asked, except rhetorically.

Harsha Bhogle suggests that a quiet achiever is what India needs, not a messiah. Sunil Gavaskar, a member of the committee which is charged with recommending a coach to the President of BCCI, apparently feels that an Indian should get the job this time around. The players feel exactly opposite. This in itself seems to be an unhappy situation – for one of the two parties is going to be aggrieved in the end. I see no mythological Narasimha-like being on the horizon who can be neither Indian, nor foreign, neither quiet achiever, nor messiah. What is also clear, is that whoever takes up the job next, is going to be human – even Dav Whatmore, the miracle worker from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is capable of a colossal yahoo like he did recently in the Mirpur Test – c0-authoring a decision to field first – which meant that his side spend two days in the field for 3 wickets. Does that become a black mark against Whatmore’s tactical acumen? Sure it does.

A good coach will not be selected, if his role and his goals are not clearly understood by all parties – the coach, the team and the BCCI. The selection of a new coach has to be part of a larger overhaul of the Domestic Cricket and the international calender. The BCCI has the means to do this – they do not lack money or clout. One wonders whether they realize that this is necessary. The problem with Chappell, and to a lesser extent with John Wright (and this extent was in my view a function of their individual personalities) was that their goals and their plans were not supported by BCCI. There was no coherent effort from BCCI to buy into and support Chappell’s plans for player development. When the going got tough, BCCI and the Vengsarkar Selection committee – for better or for worse, shrank from standing by their coach’s policy. Not only that, there was no significant communication between the BCCI, the selectors and the coach which ensured that they were all on the same page – indeed, there was no page to be on.

A Coach alone will not make India the best team in the world – if that is the expectation, then a quiet achiever or a big name – both will be viewed as messiahs. Make no mistake about it, Wright was viewed as much as a messiah as Chappell was – the difference was that Wright did not carry the baggage of having averaged 53 in Test Cricket and did not have his own website. The decisions about domestic cricket, the national coach, the selection committee make up, the selection committee tenure, the international calender – these are not independent decisions which have no bearing on each other. Taken together as part of one coherent strategy, they can and probably will make India the best team in the world within a reasonable period of time. Taken independently, they will merely prove to be fertile ground for endless parasitical speculation until they lose steam and wither away.

If the expectation is that any individual will come along and turn this group of players into the world’s best, then thats unrealistic. Bobby Simpson, the first high profile coach of an international cricket team began a process which came to fruition only 13 years later, and that too only because of the serendipitous accumulation of extraordinary talent in Waugh’s team of 2000-2003 and Ponting’s subsequent team. It would be a mistake to assume that Indian Cricket can some how perform a miracle in a year or so.

Whoever becomes coaches, whatever his personality may be, will fail unless the BCCI backs him to the hilt – and that means addressing the domestic format, the international calender and ensure that more domestic cricket is played with Indian players participating – more reasonable international cricket is played (detours to Scotland should really be scheduled better than between an important tour match between the second and third tests and the third test v England). Thats more important than the identity of the person who becomes coach.

An Annual Cricket Calender – Urgently needed…..

Every now and then, an Indian captain complains about “too much cricket” or “crammed schedules”. These are interchangeable complaints and the ensuing sparring between the board and the captain usually covers these two issues. Now it has happened with Rahul Dravid and the undaunted Mr. Modi of the Sharad Pawar BCCI. The following is a count of Test matches and ODI’s for each calender year in this decade.

The numbers for Pakistan ought to be viewed in the context of the impact of 9/11 on Pakistan as a venue. There is some truth to Mr. Modi’s contention that India have not played more cricket than Australia or England. Infact, England have played more Test Cricket than India have.

The BCCI is a rich, powerful board, but seems unable to use this power and influence to establish a definite Indian Cricket calender. I agree that it is difficult, given that India share their season with every test playing country except England. With a well defined season, with some amount of cyclic regularity, will ensure that there isn’t the adhoc bunching of series with 18 month “seasons”, followed by 6 month breaks, which are then filled with off shore games.

Clearly, this has to be the most pressing need of the board, in addition (and possibly allied to) the revamp of domestic cricket. This would be a worthy fight for Mr. Modi to wage. Without this, every captain (or in some cases, the same captain every few years), will continue to complain, with undeniable merit, that the cricket schedule is too cluttered.

BCCI – Playing to the gallery……

The BCCI’s response to the World Cup results has been elaborate. First the Working Committee worked to craft a statement, then apparently issued a directive to the selectors to drop Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly from the One Day team to Bangladesh. The Selectors have duly obliged. Indian Express has further figured out who authored the various selections – Ravi Shastri brought in Dinesh Mongia, while Rahul Dravid ensured that Sehwag didn’t join Ajit Agarkar, Irfan Pathan and Harbhajan Singh on the sidelines for “non-performance”. Let me correct that – the Chairman of Selectors mentioned only Irfan Pathan and Harbhajan Singh for “non-performance”. Ajit Agarkar being dropped is apparently unremarkable. The BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah had the last word – “We have taken some decisions and that is it. The matter is closed.”

That seems to be theme of the BCCI – “we have taken some decisions”. Now, every organisation must act in the face of adverse results. However, it is in the aftermath of the World Cup that we have seen the real weaknesses of the BCCI – they are unable to articulate a BCCI decision, as a BCCI decision. It is always a Selectors decision, or “bcci officials” or “ravi shastri” or “rahul dravid” taking piecemeal parts of decisions – which are revealed at the drop of a hat. Inside scoops have lost meaning, because everything is an inside scoop. This is how the BCCI communicates its decisions. Thankfully, with Dilip Vengsarkar at the helm of the selection committee, Tendulkar and Ganguly were atleast aware that they were going to be dropped before the team was declared.

We search for grand strategy, or even the merest inkling of a grand vision in every little move BCCI makes. It is however revealed to us (by us i refer to cricket fans) in such a piecemeal fashion, with all its innards on display, that it is hard to view it as anything but an exercise in playing to the gallery – there is never a BCCI opinion, there is always an agglomeration of the wishes of various individuals.

Most collective organisational decisions must surely involve aggregation – but intelligent well-synthesized aggregation of individual opinions almost always reveal themselves as one lucid plan. Nobody ever says “We have taken some decisions”. If thats the best Mr Shah can come up with, then he shouldn’t really be speaking for BCCI.

In much of politics, everything always seems to be reduced to good publicity and bad publicity – every problem is a PR problem. So it seems to be with BCCI. Their problem seems to be communication between the various parts of their own organisation – which manifests itself in the way their work is communicated to the outside world. I have no interest in whether or not it was the right decision to “rest” or simply rest Tendulkar and Ganguly for the Bangladesh ODI’s. Running BCCI well must surely be a matter of getting good communication between the various committees which comprise it – the selection committee, the working committee, the team management…. Instead, what we find revealed repeatedly are petty (and in most cases inconsequential) power struggles.

The point is not that there are power struggles (one would expect those to exist) – the point is that there seems to be no organizational structure to contain these struggles and ensure that a synthesized output is what is revealed – convincingly and honestly. Instead, all we find is various tentacles of the BCCI octopus tickling various elements of the press, who enjoy the tickling and pass it on.

So the gallery reports a captain pleading for his erstwhile vice-captain to be retained, Ravi Shastri bringing in Dinesh Mongia, the Working Committee ordering Tendulkar and Ganguly to be ignored for the Bangladesh ODI’s…. no mention whatsoever of what the Indian Cricket Team is looking to achieve during their next cricket tour.

The best they do is “take some decisions”……. Articulating them, putting them together…. seems to be beyond them.

Maybe the BCCI needs to install a Director of Cricket who will be the Cricket face of the BCCI. Someone who has actually played Cricket and can speak clear, correct English (this is not aimed at the BCCI’s secretary’s poor English….. but miscommunication, which must inevitably result from grammatically poor English is at the root of the BCCI’s troubles – they convey information in the wrong way, using incorrect grammar!) would be a good option.