Are you a former cricketer? Then you might qualify!

Mohinder Amarnath. Ajit Wadekar. Madan Lal. Ashok Malhotra. Balwinder Singh Sandhu. What do these players have in common?

If you said they all once played cricket for India, you’d be correct. But that’s stating the obvious.

If you said they’d all like to be coach of the Indian national cricket team, bravo! You just won the grand prize!

That’s right, cricket fans. Former cricketers from across the nation are popping up to announce their desire for the Mother of All Coaching Assignments.

And here are their credentials:

Ashok Malhotra:
"I have coached the Indian 'A' team. I have also been coaching at the National Cricket Academy, but nobody from the BCCI seems to have noticed.”
"Nobody approached me, nobody approached Madan Lal. Both of us are doing coaching at some level in India, but the BCCI doesn't seem to care."
"Everybody says John Wright did a good job, but what exactly did he do? He could not rectify Sourav Ganguly's short-pitched delivery problem for five years."

Oh, sure. That’s definitely a sign of failure. 5 years as coach, and—get out the brick bats—he couldn’t even rectify Ganguly’s short-pitched delivery problem!

Two ICC Championship Cup finals, a World Cup final, a 4-4 record against arguably the greatest team in history (including an historic 2-1 home series win and a 1-1 tied series Down Under), a NatWest Trophy win—all these count for squat, because—heaven’s to Betsy—Wright couldn’t rectify Ganguly’s short-pitched delivery problem!

Ashok, you’re clearly the guy for the job!

Ajit Wadekar:
"Are they appointing a clerk?"

This is what Wadekar said about the candidates being asked to submit their CVs and come in for interviews.

He’s right. After all, I can get a job as President, CEO, or heck, even a middle level manager in any company without a CV and interview. Just look at my past accomplishments!

Oh wait a minute... That’s what a CV is supposed to communicate!

And calling me in for an interview is a waste of time, of course. Simply by knowing my name—Greg Chappell, Ajit Wadekar, Kapil Dev, Michael Jordan, Jim Carrey—you’d immediately be able to intuitively figure out my plans and vision for the team and Indian cricket in general. This is so obvious that it deserves a smack of the head.

Uh... Ajit... Maybe you’re not being considered, because (a) you don’t have the support of the current players, and (b) you coached India before, and while you made us tigers at home, you made us lambs outside—not exactly the stuff that’s going to take India to the number one spot.

Balwinder Singh Sandhu:
"I feel I should also be one of the contenders for the national job. If not as a regular coach, at least as a bowling coach.”
From Rediff.com: “Sandhu said he has the experience and qualifications and wants the BCCI to consider his candidature.”

Has he been in touch with international cricket? Is he the guy who will help India win the 2007 World Cup? Or help it to become the #1 Test team?

Bowling coach, eh? Hmm... Worth a thought. But if he’s been coaching at the National Cricket Academy, how come we’re not producing fast bowlers who can perform on a consistent basis?

Mohinder Amarnath:
He’s my favorite. Check out these quotes:
Amarnath was asked on NDTV Hindi about the trend of Asian teams appointing foreign coaches. His response: "Agar aap samajhte hain ke kisi ka rang gora hai aur chamdi alag kism kee hai to vo behtar hai, to mai bhee Fair and lovely lagana shuru kar deta hu ke mera rang bhee waisa ho jaaye." ("if you think that just because someone's color is white and his skin is different that makes him better then even I will begin using Fair and Lovely so I can make my color like that.")
His views on the use of technology: "I don¹t have laptop. I only have a lap."

Are you a former Indian cricketer? Feel free to throw your hat into the ring! You might just be what Indian cricket needs!

My vote: Make Amarnath coach. I doubt we can do much worse on the field, but at least we’ll have plenty of laughs!

An opportunity not to be wasted

Well, the circus that is the search for India's next coach has well and truly begin. As I've argued here, these few months of layoff from the regular grind of contemporary cricket provides the BCCI and the team a rare chance to reflext, re-group, strategize and prepare for the coming season. These are critical months, and some big decisions need to made—decision that may very well shape the future of Indian cricket for the coming years.

Will the Board take advantage of this opportunity?

In my heart, I know the answer... Not likely.

Sigh...

Sorry, but it really is time to move on

So now Wasim Akram and Arjuna Ranatunga have backed our embattled captain. "Sourav has been a great servant of Indian cricket and his contributions to the Indian cricket team in the last five years cannot be denied," Akram explained. "We have to realise that all the top batsmen pass through a period where the ball does not make any contact with the bat. It has happened to the best before and it will happen to the best in days to come. You see it is inevitable."

Ranatunga agreed. ''He is too good a player to be axed. He is a very positive captain. I feel that he is one of India's best captains I have played against.'' He goes on. "He is just having a bad run, a bad patch which most of the top cricketers have gone through... This is the time for the team, the board and the entire country, including the media, to support and back him. Give him some time to recover. I tell you he is a top cricketer and needs just one good innings."

This sort of reasoning for not dropping an established player is not new. And it is one of the reasons why subcontinental teams have been held back (they've held themselves back) from being a consistently top team. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, senior players were rarely dropped unless they had a fall out with the selectors or the Board. (Just ask Mohinder Amaernath.) Kapil Dev is probably the most glaring example, continuing way past his prime.

But as I've argued here, Ganguly does not have the form, the statistics, the performance, the results or the confidence to continue as the Indian captain. For India to progress to the next level, sad as it may seem, cruel as it may seem, India must look past Ganguly.

Men of substance

In his < href="http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com/full_column.php?content_id=69318" target="_blank">April 29th column, Harsha Bhogle weighs in with his thoughts on how the selectors themselves should be... er... selected. A typically insightful column from Mr. Bhogle.

India can turn things around

Once again, India has the benefit of a break. No cricket until August. This gives the team and the Board plenty of time to take corrective action and plan for the upcoming season.

India clearly wasn’t as hungry as Pakistan. India lost the battle as much in the mind as on the field. This has been a recurring theme in Indian cricket. It’s time the Board appointed a full-time sports psychologist (or at least kept one on retainer). Building this “mental toughness” must be high on the agenda of the new coach.

Also high on his agenda should be getting the players to focus on the “little things,” like taking singles to rotate the strike, bowling a disciplined line and length, cutting down on extras, catching, and running between wickets. At times we show we can do these things, but what’s lacking is the consistency.

To help the team, the Board needs to do two things immediately:

1. Finalize the schedule for the upcoming season
2. Overhaul the selection process.

By finalizing the schedule early, the team can properly plan and prepare, devise strategies, and train physically and mentally. And it’s vital that the captain, vice-captain and coach are involved in the scheduling process. Scheduling should be done in a way to give maximum opportunity for our players to perform at their best.

The current 5-member selection panel should be disbanded. Instead, the Board should appoint a new 5-member committee comprised of 3 full-time members, the captain and the coach. And the captain and coach should be given full voting rights. The other three members should be appointed for multi-year terms, like 3, 4 or 5 years. This will allow for long-term planning, and continuity and consistency in the selection process. The performance of the three members should be evaluated every 6 months or so to ensure accountability.

Finally, the Board should make sure that decent, competitive pitches are prepared. What is the use of having dead tracks that offer no assistance to the bowlers, and allow scores of 300+ in every game (for ODIs)? Or pitches that are under prepared, where the ball doesn’t bounce? These pitches are also graveyards for pace bowlers, and make average spinners look better than they really are. Most importantly, the captain and the coach should be involved in the pitch and ground preparations.

Of course, all this is predicated on the Board expeditiously choosing a new coach. It will take time for the new coach to build a rapport with the players, and get into groove. My fear is that a new coach may not be appointed until well into the summer, and none of the above changes will take place. And that’s a pity, because it means we’ll probably see more of the mediocrity that we saw this past season.

Nationality doesn't matter

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous.

Once again, we have a former cricketer claiming India doesn't need a foreign coach.

Rediff.com reports Ajit Wadekar as saying, "I don't understand why they are looking for a foreign coach when someone like Sandeep Patil is aspiring to be India's coach."

His reasons?

• "Sandeep has played almost at the same level, if not better, than [Bangladesh coach] Dav Whatmore or [former Australia captain] Greg Chappell."


• "..it makes no sense having a foreign coach when you have former players like Patil, Kapil Dev or Sunil Gavaskar, who were great players in their time."


• Rediff reports, "He said Patil deserves the job considering his exploits with Kenya, whom he took to the World Cup semi-finals in 2003."


• "He [Patil] has also performed when assigned with the India 'A' or the Under-19 teams. I can't understand why he is not being considered."

(What's this obsession with Patil?)

So according to Wadekar, the criteria for being a coach is to be a former great player. A great player would make a great coach, right?

Rubbish.

Whatmore, Duncan Fletcher, John Wright, Bob Woolmer, and even John Buchanan were never great players in their time, but all have been successful coaches.

If being a great player is the critera for being a good coach, then what about the records of Bedi, Gaekward, Kapil Dev, and even Wadekar himself? None could ever help India win a Test series abroad. Wright did that. None could instill a more professional, disciplined work ethic to the Indian team. Wright did. None could take India to the World Cup final. Wright did.

And here's my favorite reason from Wadekar:

"We have different cultures, which a foreign coach will find difficult to understand. We have different players coming from all over the country, speaking different types of languages, different religion; so it is very difficult. Only a past Indian cricketer can understand these things."

Really? So what exactly was Wright doing for four and a half years? Talking to the boys in sign language?

It's unfathomable and preposterous that these former "greats" continue to hold on to the belief that only an Indian coach is best for the Indian team. Have they learnt nothing in the past four and half years?

This is not to say that a foreign coach is the One Correct Answer. The next coach could be Indian or foreign. That's not necessarily as important. What is important is that India needs to select a coach who can help them progress beyond what it's already achieved. While performance with the India A and Kenya are admirable, does Patil have what it takes to get India to the next level?

Bob Woolmer has analyzed the Indian team in his column on Rediff.com. As I wrote in this article, Woolmer believes India has regressed since the 2003 World Cup. He points out many reasons for India's failure in the series against Pakistan, and says it wasn't lack of ability, but more "strategic areas that India were unable to put together."

When you get to the level of international cricket, very little separates one team from another in terms of skills and talent. What makes the difference is mental preparation prior to the game, mental performance during the game, and strategic thinking. This is where India failed, and where it has continued to fail since defeating Pakistan in its own backyard last year.

The Board needs to appoint that person as coach who can help India with these things. Nationality doesn't matter. Being able to mold and shape the team to take it to the next level is what matters most. Otherwise, we should all get used to underachievement.

It's time to move on

Here's my latest article. It's about... you guess it, Ganguly.

One of the biggest problems afflicting Indian cricket is this obsession with past records and statistics. Here's a familiar refrain: "He's scored <insert number of runs scored or wickets taken here>. How can he be dropped? He's got class, so he'll come through this bad patch." And so players clearly out of form continue to be carried along at great cost to the team. Forget long-term thinking—it's not good for the short-term either!

In the mean time, Australia has had the courage to drop the following "class" players:
Darren Lehmann
Michael Slater
Andrew Bichel
Michael Bevan
Dean Jones
David Boon
Mark Taylor
Allen Border
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh

Okay, so maybe some of them weren't actually dropped. But they were definitely showed the door and encouraged to go through it. If they didn't, the certainly got a nudge.

Last time I checked, Australia is still the champion.

One of the hallmarks of a great team is it's contiuous search for excellence; to want to reach the next level; to raise the bar further. In recent times, no team demonstrates this more effectively (and ruthlessly) than Australia.

In contrast, Indian cricket has often been held back due to an unhealthy attachment to records and individual achievements. Many Indian cricketers have been allowed to continue their careers well past their "Sell By" date, causing the team to suffer. Kapil Dev is probably the most glaring example of this.

Holding on to players who may have undoubtedly been great servants to Indian cricket, but whose glory days are well behind them forces us to look backwards. If Indian cricket is to advance, it needs to make some tough choices. It needs to continuously look forward. And if a particular player is currently not performing—no matter how many runs he may have scored or wickets he may have taken in the past—he needs to be let go. We need to move past him.

It is for this reason that we must move on past Sourav Ganguly. Yes, he was once a class player. Yes, he has brought great glory to Indian cricket. And yes, for that we should thank him profusely, fet him, honor him... And then bid him a respectful and dignified farewell.

We need to move on.

Read my article here, or here.

www.BCCI.tv

Uh oh! Watch out! The BCCI is considering launching its own 24-hour TV network to broadcast cricket matches.

Why?

Oh, some 3.65 billion reasons.

That's right. $3.65 billion is the figure the BCCI is throwing around as the potential revenue it could generate in 5 years from this endeavor.

Now, there is some precendent for this. The NFL in the US has its own network. I believe the NBA does too.

But here's where there could be a difference: Quality.

Exactly how good will the quality of coverage be? (One might be tempted to think it can't get worse than Doordarshan, but then the BCCI has shown itself quite adept at lowering the barrier in just about anything it does.)

This will mean no one will be able to bid on the telecast rights for domestic cricket matches anymore. With no competition, there will be no incentive for the BCCI to provide quality coverage.

The only silver lining is that the BCCI TV network will have to bid along with ESPN-Star, ZTV, and anyone else for the broadcast rights to cricket matches being played by India abroad. This may give them some incentive to provide good coverage.

Or will it? Then again, the BCCI can always simply decide not to bid on matches being played abroad, since it has a lock on broadcasting mathces played in India.

Is this some sort of anti-trust violation?

Even the NFL, NBA, etc. all give the rights for coverage of games in their respective sports to major TV and cable networks, like ABC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, etc.

Well, let's hope and pray that if the BCCI does go ahead with this, it will indeed use the money to "create the much needed infrastructure" and invest in the sport, as opposed to filling the coffers of the individual Boards members and their chelas.