RedwoodOriginal
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Runs
- 18,815
- Post of the Week
- 4
I've never fully understood the logic behind teams appointing players who didn't have particularly long or successful careers as batting/bowling coaches. You see this with India who have Sanjay Bangar and Bharat Arun in those respective roles. Pakistan who had Azhar Mahmood as bowling coach, New Zealand who have Shane Jurgensen. And England and Australia who had/have Mark Ramprakash and Graeme Hick as their batting coaches, perhaps two of the most perennial under-achievers.
I know observers/fans often place too much emphasis on these roles blaming batting coaches completely if a team gets bundled out cheaply or blaming the bowling coach if the bowlers bowl poorly and get hammered. I know that point-of-view is counter-productive because the role of coaches is only to devise the strategy which the players have to execute. But still these are important roles in today's modern context. What is the logic behind appointing under-achievers though? Is it that they have seen more failures to learn from or something else?
I know observers/fans often place too much emphasis on these roles blaming batting coaches completely if a team gets bundled out cheaply or blaming the bowling coach if the bowlers bowl poorly and get hammered. I know that point-of-view is counter-productive because the role of coaches is only to devise the strategy which the players have to execute. But still these are important roles in today's modern context. What is the logic behind appointing under-achievers though? Is it that they have seen more failures to learn from or something else?