Was Greg Chappell a good coach for Indian cricket?
After reading Sanjay Manjrekar's comments about Greg Chappell and his resignation from the Indian cricket scene (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/288811.html?view=transcript), one would feel that India has lost a very very good coach that would have guided India to some sort of glory in world cricket. However much I respect Sanjay Manjrekar as a good observer on cricketing issues in general, I respectfully disagree with his views that India missed out on a good coach. Sanjay points out that Greg Chappell did what John Wright could never do during his tenure as a coach - he showed us the black and white of Indian cricket. Excuse me, but that is never the job of a coach - that is more the job of selectors, of the administrative officers of BCCI. A coach's job is to get the best output from the team that is "given to him" and provide an environment where they will give their best. I don't care how he manages to do that, but as long as he can get the best out of his wards and helps them win games, he would have done a good job. Greg Chappell was not able to do either of those two. Instead, he wanted to hijack the team and make them perform to his whims and fancies. John Wright achieved both - during his tenure, we started winning abroad, people like Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, etc. were all at the peak of their powers (I do agree, that age has caught up with Ganguly and Tendulkar, however, that does not mean that they cannot perform) in short, giving them the kind of environment in which they were able to succeed. To top it - he did not have a say in the selection process, nor did he want to do that. He was quite content with the team that was given to him.
As far as Greg Chappell is concerned, I believe too much experimentation proved detrimental to a lot of people - Kaif, Pathan come to mind instantly. Sehwag could never feel comfortable in the setup and he was made to look like a deer caught in head lights every time he went out to bat. Same with Ganguly, when he was selected to make a comeback - all he wanted to do was score runs - regardless of the scoring rate at which he was scoring them - giving the feeling that he was intimidated by either the coach and/or the captain. In this case, we all know who he was intimidated by. As soon as people are afraid of their coach and/or captain, they cannot perform to their optimum. I think that is where Greg Chappell failed, he failed to make the team members realize what was good for the team and how they could collectively win and/or loose. He instilled fear in them. He was not a good people manager. Anyone can help the team practice taking slip catches; out field catches; help with their batting and bowling in general, it is the other peripheral things that make the most difference when you play for the country. Mental state, feeling of being one in a team are as important ingredients to winning matches as are cricketing skills. Greg Chappell failed the Indian team in that respect. He could not bring the peripheral things to the table. He may have had a great vision, but I believe that is where BCCI should have said, we like your vision, but we'll leave it at that - we don't think that is what a coach should be doing. He should be doing what John Wright did - nothing more nothing less. Everything else is for the selectors and the BCCI to do. Selectors should have a say in what sort of players to pick - what should be their physical fitness levels, their mental maturity levels, who should be playing where - of course that does not mean that the captain and coach cannot be flexible in terms of who plays at what position - but more or less, the job requirement should be fixed. Mind you, I am not even saying that we need a certain player for a particular position - if during a game, a certain situation demands a certain type of player, then such a player should be selected in the team, period.
As Manjrekar says, Greg Chappell leaving will not be a loss to Indian cricket - because at the end of the day, it is not the coach who goes and performs on the field. However, a coach does provide an environment for the players to perform at their best - that is where Greg Chappell failed. I am glad he's decided to leave Indian cricket - it is the best decision he's taken as the Indian cricket coach.
Dhaval Brahmbhatt
As far as Greg Chappell is concerned, I believe too much experimentation proved detrimental to a lot of people - Kaif, Pathan come to mind instantly. Sehwag could never feel comfortable in the setup and he was made to look like a deer caught in head lights every time he went out to bat. Same with Ganguly, when he was selected to make a comeback - all he wanted to do was score runs - regardless of the scoring rate at which he was scoring them - giving the feeling that he was intimidated by either the coach and/or the captain. In this case, we all know who he was intimidated by. As soon as people are afraid of their coach and/or captain, they cannot perform to their optimum. I think that is where Greg Chappell failed, he failed to make the team members realize what was good for the team and how they could collectively win and/or loose. He instilled fear in them. He was not a good people manager. Anyone can help the team practice taking slip catches; out field catches; help with their batting and bowling in general, it is the other peripheral things that make the most difference when you play for the country. Mental state, feeling of being one in a team are as important ingredients to winning matches as are cricketing skills. Greg Chappell failed the Indian team in that respect. He could not bring the peripheral things to the table. He may have had a great vision, but I believe that is where BCCI should have said, we like your vision, but we'll leave it at that - we don't think that is what a coach should be doing. He should be doing what John Wright did - nothing more nothing less. Everything else is for the selectors and the BCCI to do. Selectors should have a say in what sort of players to pick - what should be their physical fitness levels, their mental maturity levels, who should be playing where - of course that does not mean that the captain and coach cannot be flexible in terms of who plays at what position - but more or less, the job requirement should be fixed. Mind you, I am not even saying that we need a certain player for a particular position - if during a game, a certain situation demands a certain type of player, then such a player should be selected in the team, period.
As Manjrekar says, Greg Chappell leaving will not be a loss to Indian cricket - because at the end of the day, it is not the coach who goes and performs on the field. However, a coach does provide an environment for the players to perform at their best - that is where Greg Chappell failed. I am glad he's decided to leave Indian cricket - it is the best decision he's taken as the Indian cricket coach.
Dhaval Brahmbhatt
posted by dhaval brahmbhatt at 4/04/2007 12:38:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home