Do away with the term 'coach' in cricket please!

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Coaching in cricket is a redundant position - unlike American football, rugby or regular football.

Captaincy is where it is won or lost. Just look at successful captains from Border to Imran to Ganguly to Morgan, they are the one's who set the team up for success. All they need is a good support structure.

When has a coach ever turned a cricket team around?

Step 1: PCB should invest 90% of their time in finding/interviewing or grooming a very strong, capable, tactically and strategically sound captain, who can lead from the front. It may mean different captains for different formats.

Step 2: Once the captain is in place, give him powers. This includes squad and team selection powers.

Step 3: Set his objectives. Everything has to be tied to results.

Step 4: Put a support structure around him - led by a manager who reports to the captain. Chief scout (leading a team of scouts spread all over the country), fielding/bowling/batting coaches (yes coaches but with limited powers - just focus on giving players practice and take out kinks), video analysts, psychologists, physios etc - all report into the manager. Manager's job is to take the day to day management away from the captain but deliver him a team of his choice, ready to go.

Step 5: For a check on the captain/manager, have a director of sports a la Strauss.

Now the second problem, usually personnel dictate structure. Unfortunately in Pakistan, there is no player strong enough who can do all this and hold his day job as a batsman or a bowler.

Therefore my suggestion is to appoint new captains with fewer powers, but with a plan to gradually increase their scope as they achieve milestones - so they are ready in 12-18 months to do the complete job.

To summarize, the search for a coach is a red herring and a gross abdication of responsibility. They do nothing. Their job, if at all, is to be a cheerleader and a never-say-die spirit. Let the captain be king.

 

[MenInG]

Very good post - am wondering if such concepts can work in Pakistan?

 

[Pakhs]

I would like to see a football style manager in Pakistan cricket! where he chooses his team and is solely responsible for everything. If he fails he knows he will be sacked.

 

[The_Odd_One]

It won't work in Pakistan. Giving too much power to captain is not a good idea. We have seen how Inzy brought religion into Cricket, how Afridi favored his buddies, and recently how Sarfraz got complacent with his performance.

It should be the other way around. A team should have a director and a strategist. The director should handle all off-field issues. The strategist should make all on-field calls, from toss to final XI selection to implementing playing strategy (bowling changes, etc.). This will make the life of captain much easier and will let him focus on his individual performance first.

Someone like Miandad, Younis, etc. were poor man-managers but there is no doubt they were very sharp on the field and would have been perfect for the role of strategist. The director role can go to more level-headed person like Rameez, Misbah, etc.

 

[MenInG]

It won't work in Pakistan. Giving too much power to captain is not a good idea. We have seen how Inzy brought religion into Cricket, how Afridi favored his buddies, and recently how Sarfraz got complacent with his performance.

It should be the other way around. A team should have a director and a strategist. The director should handle all off-field issues. The strategist should make all on-field calls, from toss to final XI selection to implementing playing strategy (bowling changes, etc.). This will make the life of captain much easier and will let him focus on his individual performance first.

Someone like Miandad, Younis, etc. were poor man-managers but there is no doubt they were very sharp on the field and would have been perfect for the role of strategist. The director role can go to more level-headed person like Rameez, Misbah, etc.

But I feel that some out-of-the-box thinking is needed and this is a great idea

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

It won't work in Pakistan. Giving too much power to captain is not a good idea. We have seen how Inzy brought religion into Cricket, how Afridi favored his buddies, and recently how Sarfraz got complacent with his performance.

It should be the other way around. A team should have a director and a strategist. The director should handle all off-field issues. The strategist should make all on-field calls, from toss to final XI selection to implementing playing strategy (bowling changes, etc.). This will make the life of captain much easier and will let him focus on his individual performance first.

Someone like Miandad, Younis, etc. were poor man-managers but there is no doubt they were very sharp on the field and would have been perfect for the role of strategist. The director role can go to more level-headed person like Rameez, Misbah, etc.

Inzi was a very good captain actually, leading from the front. But he fell away and became what he was because there was no structure around him to keep him in line. Exactly my point.

Pakistan has had most success when their captains have had power, owned their place in the team and have had good support structure. It started with Kardar, Mushtaq and then Imran, Miandad, Akram (when he was 'on') and Misbah.

It has gone all wrong when captains have not deserved their place in the team or the authority lines are unclear (i.e. Sarfaraz.)

To your other point, I just cannot see plays being made outside the field in cricket. The game changes too much ball by ball and too many calls need to be taken on the field. (Worth experimenting in a side game though, why not.)

That is why the captain has to be absolutely in charge and be given all the support in the world to be successful.

Look at Morgan - he was the right choice, the right mindset, had a place in the team, was given full support and allowed to imprint his own ideas on and off the field.