The role of coaches in modern cricket

The Kevin Pietersen/Peter Moores scrap got me thinking about the role of the coach.

Ian Chappell and Shane Warne have been quoted as saying that a coach is something you travel in to get to and from a game. They believe the coach should be nothing more than a glorified trainer.

At the other end of the spectrum you have examples like Ray Illingworth in the 1990's who functioned as both an important strategic figure and sole selector.

I think the crux of the matter is that the captain is the true leader of the team. Decisions made by the coach in the various football codes are made (and have always been made) by the captain in cricket. No matter how much power you give a coach it is really the captain who calls the shots.

Full-time coaches never really took off at the top level in cricket until after Bob Simpson's time with Australia in the 1980's. That was a case where the captain wanted someone to help him instill discipline. Simpson and Border clearly worked as a team.

I think you should choose a captain first and then choose a coach who can work with him (ie. the captain has a right to veto the choice of coach). The coach should be stripped of selection duties but should still be consulted. A member of the selection panel should travel with the team on all tours to carry out this role. The role of co-ordinating schedules, team dinners etc. while travelling or in camp should fall to a manager who has no input whatsoever into on-field matters (the board can appoint anyone they want to this position).

It surely has to be a better way of doing things than the current ECB set up?

The captain has to be the man with the power in a coach/captain relationship imo - which is the part I totally back KP on. Why should he succeed or fail on the back of someone else deciding tactics etc?

The coach should be seen but not heard and there to bounce ideas off the captain.

from india's experience so far the best coaches are the ones who are in the background and letting the captain take charge (wadekar, wright, kirsten). the worst have been the ones who think they are football style managers and feel the need to run the show (chappell)

Hass,

You'll get no argument from me. I will mention again the Indian side which last toured England and had no coach. They functioned perfectly well.

Phil Neale already carries out the schedule co-ordination role for England. Steve Bernard ditto for Australia, although perhaps he has stood down from that role since the last tour? I seem to recall seeing something about that.

Another key figure in the 'coach as captain' progression has to be Bob Woolmer. He took all the research work of how to get the opposition batsmen out away from the players. Whilst this was undoubtedly a great use of his particular analytical skills, it seems dangerous to me that this has been seen as the normal way of going about things from now on for all teams. It was unusual, in the same way that the insistence by certain people that a wicket-keeper should be judged by Gilchrist's standards is barking, because Gilchrist was unusual.

the indian team didnt have a coach for a year and won two series (eng and pak) and had THAT tour of aus. but we did have a bowling coach (prasad), a fielding coach (robin) and a great core of senior players (srt, dravid, kumble, ganguly) who took on the role of mentoring the younger players. this might not be the case for all teams

TO,

England have specialist coaches coming out of their ears, so that's similar. Likewise Flintoff, Strauss, Harmison, etc., ought to be able to mentor the younger players (should players actually be selected from outside the MBE gang). How many teams get themselves into a position where there aren't any senior players? There's always some old lag hanging around.

as long as you are comfortable with the capabilities and desire of your senior players to be mentors thats fine. certainly worked for us

i do prefer a coach like kirsten or wright in the team though, esp when you have an aggressive captain. the yin to the yang so to say. a captain on the field may not always pick up everything in a game or series and a coach's input can be quite valuable

Like it or not, the captain has circumscribed powers these days.

As I put at the end of the "Mercenary Pietersen?" thread which taipan bumped.

You would probably have to take all the money back out of the game to return to skipper as supremo.

TO,

There seems to be a feeling amongst cricket boards that having a 'modern style' coach is essential and it just isn't, is it? You're exactly right that there are times when it is preferable, dependent on the composition of the team at any particular time.

PeterCS wrote:You would probably have to take all the money back out of the game to return to skipper as supremo.

That comment seems counter to logic, which would suggest that the captain should be getting on with the whole job of captaincy, as he is paid plenty of money to do just that. Otherwise why not just have a cohort of senior players all paid the same, with a randomly selected one of that group delegated to carry out the coach's orders on any given day?

International players don't need a head coach. Every player has their own people who they like to turn to if things aren't going well.

It may be counter-intuitive, but the point - not mine - is that there need to be a whole lot more managers, manipulators and manoeuvrers to ensure all aspects of the game, not least the sponsorship deals (see Vodaphone) are covered to optimally efficient satisfaction.

So, inevitably, the very best selection decisions can only be taken by a learned committee of experts, not on one man's whims and favouritisms.

it all really depends on what you are looking at from a coach. for me a coach is useful as a strategist and someone who picks up things on the field or the opposition's game which the players may not. the coach is not primarily there to make sure a batsman's batswing is right or to make sure that a bowler is not overstepping. the players usually have enough on their own mind about their own preparations for a match, so it helps to have someone who can analyse small boring bits of the opposition by going through videos or watching the other team

A coach is there to work on technical aspects of the game with individuals to improve them, and their performances, maybe work on a formula for batting against a certain player etc...

The problem is, is that with the Fletchers, Woolmers etc - they have taken out any sort of thought processes from bowlers and skippers to think for themselves, and therefore work out players.

Now if your used to relying on a Feltch, then when you get a donut like Moores, your bound to be farked when your used to your ideas coming from the balcony!!!

The role of the coach should be IMO as I described in the first paragraph, and no more.

holcs,

Agree entirely with all of that. Except I think you are being a little harsh on Moores.

I think in the modern day game the role of the captain perhaps does need to reduce. After all, whoever the captain is he's primarily a player who needs to perform well in terms of his own batting/bowling/keeping/fielding to justify his place in the side. If he's trying to take charge of everything then how does he find time to work on his own game?

Of course a cricket captain will always have to make decisions on the field such as choosing bowlers and field settings, which is why the role will always be more significant from that of a captain in other sports. But with the non-stop nature of the game these days the off the field decisions including picking the team, nets/training and the overall approach to the game surely should sit with a manager/coach as it does in football etc. We just need to find a good one!

Rachel wrote:holcs,

Agree entirely with all of that. Except I think you are being a little harsh on Moores.

Ta very much!

Rach - Unfortunately as harshly as I think he is being dealt with at the moment, with the selectors getting off scott free along with some underachievers, the problem with a coach like Moores in todays game is he seemed devoid of ideas, and such was able to offer up nothing on a tactical front to help the braindead that the 'coaches' role has created.

In baseball they get around this impasse by having a manager or "field manager".

He doesn't bat, he doesn't pitch (he doesn't even field), but he's right on the sideline and is responsible for tactics and strategy.

Cricket could well have evolved to include a fielding (but non-playing) captain.

In that situation you could appoint someone regardless of form with the bat or ball who could take on the role a field manager plays in baseball or a coach plays in football.

The only difference to baseball would be that this person must be a half-competent fielder (which rules out old codgers).

I can still see cricket going down this route one day, but not any time soon.