Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Cover Point]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/278168.html

So all those people who keep saying that captain needs to run things in cricket, here is an example that Aus really are running their cricket team like an NFL game. Coach with earphone working with assistant coaches on the boundry and then probably relaying messages to the captain.

I actually like this idea, so this doesnt matter who the captain is and it really is the coaches responsibility to run the game... do all the thinking and let captain focus on his own batting and just implementing the coaches plan on the field.

Kban, LN , did i not say this is how cricket would go in next 5-6 years .... may happen sooner.

[feverpitch]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/278168.html

So all those people who keep saying that captain needs to run things in cricket, here is an example that Aus really are running their cricket team like an NFL game. Coach with earphone working with assistant coaches on the boundry and then probably relaying messages to the captain.

I actually like this idea, so this doesnt matter who the captain is and it really is the coaches responsibility to run the game... do all the thinking and let captain focus on his own batting and just implementing the coaches plan on the field.

Kban, LN , did i not say this is how cricket would go in next 5-6 years .... may happen sooner.

.... or mebbe u'll leave the gentleman's game for good and concentrate on retard cricket...

[Shukla]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/278168.html

So all those people who keep saying that captain needs to run things in cricket, here is an example that Aus really are running their cricket team like an NFL game. Coach with earphone working with assistant coaches on the boundry and then probably relaying messages to the captain.

I actually like this idea, so this doesnt matter who the captain is and it really is the coaches responsibility to run the game... do all the thinking and let captain focus on his own batting and just implementing the coaches plan on the field.

Kban, LN , did i not say this is how cricket would go in next 5-6 years .... may happen sooner.

.... or mebbe u'll leave the gentleman's game for good and concentrate on retard cricket...

and its the rainy season in the DG again

[Cover Point]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/278168.html

So all those people who keep saying that captain needs to run things in cricket, here is an example that Aus really are running their cricket team like an NFL game. Coach with earphone working with assistant coaches on the boundry and then probably relaying messages to the captain.

I actually like this idea, so this doesnt matter who the captain is and it really is the coaches responsibility to run the game... do all the thinking and let captain focus on his own batting and just implementing the coaches plan on the field.

Kban, LN , did i not say this is how cricket would go in next 5-6 years .... may happen sooner.

.... or mebbe u'll leave the gentleman's game for good and concentrate on retard cricket...

Hey thats not right. I have always supported mentally retarded people. If you were playing in my area I would definitely come to support and patronize you. Just because your brain doesnt work doesnt mean we wont show u pity.

[toney]

CP,
In response to your original post:
Other teams have also been using this tactic. I don't understand why the ICC disagreed with the Cronje-Woolmer incident. How does this actually make the game less "romantic"?
In any case, the umpires have assured us that they will continue to make the game as romantic and as traditional as possible witht heir retarded decisions.

[feverpitch]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/278168.html

So all those people who keep saying that captain needs to run things in cricket, here is an example that Aus really are running their cricket team like an NFL game. Coach with earphone working with assistant coaches on the boundry and then probably relaying messages to the captain.

I actually like this idea, so this doesnt matter who the captain is and it really is the coaches responsibility to run the game... do all the thinking and let captain focus on his own batting and just implementing the coaches plan on the field.

Kban, LN , did i not say this is how cricket would go in next 5-6 years .... may happen sooner.

.... or mebbe u'll leave the gentleman's game for good and concentrate on retard cricket...

Hey thats not right. I have always supported mentally retarded people. If you were playing in my area I would definitely come to support and patronize you. Just because your brain doesnt work doesnt mean we wont show u pity.

so how do u show this support of urs? by chomping chicken wings while watching neanderthals wield the club on tv?
... oh... i forgot... u were referring to retard football to start with... my bad...

[Cover Point]

CP,
In response to your original post:
Other teams have also been using this tactic. I don't understand why the ICC disagreed with the Cronje-Woolmer incident. How does this actually make the game less "romantic"?
In any case, the umpires have assured us that they will continue to make the game as romantic and as traditional as possible witht heir retarded decisions.

thanks for bring the thread back away from Fever's hate mongering.

I totally agree with this and was referring to a previous good debate with LN and Kban where I was suggesting we need to downgrade the expectations from the captain. I mean in modern cricket we have technology to analyse everything. We practice with Bowling machines and all that. We use Video to analyse batting. Use computers to view our batting in slow mo.

We have a coach who is integral to strategizing and infact is hired for that job. A player is rarely if ever hired for captaincy. Let people focus on their jobs.

We have seen often good players weighed down by captaincy (SRT, SG, RD etc etc) ... I just think it is logical for the Coach to do the strategizing and the captain to focus on his cricket and implementing the coaches plan.

[Shukla]

CP,
In response to your original post:
Other teams have also been using this tactic. I don't understand why the ICC disagreed with the Cronje-Woolmer incident. How does this actually make the game less "romantic"?
In any case, the umpires have assured us that they will continue to make the game as romantic and as traditional as possible witht heir retarded decisions.

thanks for bring the thread back away from Fever's hate mongering.

I totally agree with this and was referring to a previous good debate with LN and Kban where I was suggesting we need to downgrade the expectations from the captain. I mean in modern cricket we have technology to analyse everything. We practice with Bowling machines and all that. We use Video to analyse batting. Use computers to view our batting in slow mo.

We have a coach who is integral to strategizing and infact is hired for that job. A player is rarely if ever hired for captaincy. Let people focus on their jobs.

We have seen often good players weighed down by captaincy (SRT, SG, RD etc etc) ... I just think it is logical for the Coach to do the strategizing and the captain to focus on his cricket and implementing the coaches plan.

i would rather see the captain make decisions on-the-field. coach's test should be to prepare the team before the match. in the match, every team should have the right, through better preparation, to surprise the other team and have a reasonably good chance of reaping the benefits of that surprise.

[Cover Point]

CP,
In response to your original post:
Other teams have also been using this tactic. I don't understand why the ICC disagreed with the Cronje-Woolmer incident. How does this actually make the game less "romantic"?
In any case, the umpires have assured us that they will continue to make the game as romantic and as traditional as possible witht heir retarded decisions.

thanks for bring the thread back away from Fever's hate mongering.

I totally agree with this and was referring to a previous good debate with LN and Kban where I was suggesting we need to downgrade the expectations from the captain. I mean in modern cricket we have technology to analyse everything. We practice with Bowling machines and all that. We use Video to analyse batting. Use computers to view our batting in slow mo.

We have a coach who is integral to strategizing and infact is hired for that job. A player is rarely if ever hired for captaincy. Let people focus on their jobs.

We have seen often good players weighed down by captaincy (SRT, SG, RD etc etc) ... I just think it is logical for the Coach to do the strategizing and the captain to focus on his cricket and implementing the coaches plan.

i would rather see the captain make decisions on-the-field. coach's test should be to prepare the team before the match. in the match, every team should have the right, through better preparation, to surprise the other team and have a reasonably good chance of reaping the benefits of that surprise.

Help me understand why you would say that? In modern sports every team tries to maximize their efforts. In this case since we have a coach (earlier we never did and the captains job used to be to teach/groom the players too).

To me this sounds like in the good old days this is how we did it kind of argument. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

[toney]

Shukla,
What I prefer also is for the captain to make the decisions on the field. but thee is nothing wrong in having smebody from the outside give his view. In many cases, such people have clearer minds. And the coach could suggest rather than intrude and force a captain. Obviously, the coach and captain have to work well with each other for this to happen. But I think it can be done.

[dhruvdeepak]

grow up feverpitch. how about posting something useful instead of going after CP's posts

[sgusa]

Fever, I know people love pulling each other's legs here. But your posts seem to go beyond that. Atleast wait for CP to say soemthing retarded before calling him that. In this thread, all he did was post an interesting PoV and expectation for the future. HE didnt bait anyone, like he sometimes does do . So go to those threads in which CP is obv trying to piss off someone and call him names. Because there it would be fair game. Why do it here when we could be talking about interesting and very possible scenarios of where the game we all love is heading towards ?

[jaat69]

Fever, I know people love pulling each other's legs here. But your posts seem to go beyond that. Atleast wait for CP to say soemthing retarded before calling him that. In this thread, all he did was post an interesting PoV and expectation for the future. HE didnt bait anyone, like he sometimes does do . So go to those threads in which CP is obv trying to piss off someone and call him names. Because there it would be fair game. Why do it here when we could be talking about interesting and very possible scenarios of where the game we all love is heading towards ?

Do we need to wait till CP commits the nuisense? __Hah!

Why are we so obsessed with future anyway? Are we running out of present ideas?
btw, I think this whole idea of a coach trying to guide the captain on-field and trying to mould players is a bit outdated and retarded, frankly.
It happens in most sports since ages, like in American football, Rugby, Soccer, or even individualistic sports like tennis. Unfortunately, people are realizing in modern sports, teams do not need coaches. They need physio-therapists, psychologists, dieticians, ball-boys, media-manager, etc, but not a coach. And again, why do we want to Americanize a beautiful game like cricket?! Why don't we play baseball instead, if we love everything American? Why can't we leave alone cricket?
Next, we shall be questioning the shape of the bat itself! We may discover that the baseball bat actually helps your all-round game!
This attempt to 'maximise the teams' effort' may actually take the game away from us Indians. If we blindly ape the Americans and Aussies, we are done for sure! Look, whatever happened to our hockey! With all the changes, the game has become more physical and naturally we are out of it.
Cricket is a traditional game and I love it that way. It is graciously maturing into a better game every day with the utilization of non-intrusive technology. I only wish, this third umpire business could be avoided.
I believe, however technically correct, the 3rd umpire system is a blow to the spirit of the game itself. Any attempt to Americanize cricket will surely destroy this game in the future.

[RicePlateReddy]

CP, I totally agree with your leanings on this coach and captain issue.

It is antiquated that cricket hasn't grown up to allow a non playing entity (coach) to call the shots, a la all the 4 American pro sports.

It has been amply demonstrated in all the 4 widely watched Americn sports (Am Football, Basketball, Ice Hockey and Baseball) that a full-time in-play strategist ("coach" in American sports parlance) who can concentrate on strategies of play during the game and execute them causes the peformance levels and quality of play to reach a higher level. Why should a captain, himself a key player, be bogged down by the mental load of being responsible for the execution strategy of the entire team and individual fine tuning during play? Why should the team performance and in-play plan be relegated to the decision of one playing individual out there (who can't speak to people outside and confer) at the most critical moments?

I really liked the fact that Woolmer and Cronje communicated via a headpiece. While that was illegal per rules and they deserved to be reprimanded, I feel the incident should have led to a modification of rules to permit this all around and achieve a better level.

I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind that this will happen within the next decade. All this talk about a 'gentleman's game' is hogwash. When you put 11 gutter-mouth Australians in the field, any thought of gentlemanliness ought to be discarded out of the window. And the gutter-mouth 11 have been whupping everyone's rear-ends for a while now, setting the bar at an altogether higher level. Cricket Australia should push for such dynamic rule changes -- they are the only administrative body at the right frequency. We should invite one of their office bearers on this forum 

[jaat69]

CP, I totally agree with your leanings on this coach and captain issue.

It is antiquated that cricket hasn't grown up to allow a non playing entity (coach) to call the shots, a la all the 4 American pro sports.

It has been amply demonstrated in all the 4 widely watched Americn sports (Am Football, Basketball, Ice Hockey and Baseball) that a full-time in-play strategist ("coach" in American sports parlance) who can concentrate on strategies of play during the game and execute them causes the peformance levels and quality of play to reach a higher level. Why should a captain, himself a key player, be bogged down by the mental load of being responsible for the execution strategy of the entire team and individual fine tuning during play? Why should the team performance and in-play plan be relegated to the decision of one playing individual out there (who can't speak to people outside and confer) at the most critical moments?

I really liked the fact that Woolmer and Cronje communicated via a headpiece. While that was illegal per rules and they deserved to be reprimanded, I feel the incident should have led to a modification of rules to permit this all around and achieve a better level.

I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind that this will happen within the next decade. All this talk about a 'gentleman's game' is hogwash. When you put 11 gutter-mouth Australians in the field, any thought of gentlemanliness ought to be discarded out of the window. And the gutter-mouth 11 have been whupping everyone's rear-ends for a while now, setting the bar at an altogether higher level. Cricket Australia should push for such dynamic rule changes -- they are the only administrative body at the right frequency. We should invite one of their office bearers on this forum 

I don't agree. And why do an on-field player need to consult someone outside( who is either relaxing or prancing around) about what he needs to do?! That sounds horribly dim-witted!
But I agree that with a captain like RD, the team really needs to depend on a whole lot of support staff, starting with the coach himself and then the selectors, the media-persons, etc.
Yes, one can use any excuse, that 'it happens in USA' and all that.

[RicePlateReddy]

I don't agree. And why do an on-field player need to consult someone outside( who is either relaxing or prancing around) about what he needs to do?! That sounds horribly dim-witted!

Well, if the guy is 'relaxing and pracing around' then he ought not to be there in the first place!

Look, the idea of having someone with a full time job during the game to analyze every microsecond of it in real time and execute strategies and dictate the measures adopted will obviously be more effective than having a player on the field be fully responsible for it during play.

It has worked wonderfully well in American pro sports and we should learn from that, no? A welcome side effect is that the words emanating out of GC's mouth and the credits claimed will all be redundant, and we can ask him "Show me the Money!" In fact there wouldn't even be the need to ask him. People will survive and walk away based more directly on their actual performances.

[RicePlateReddy]

If a competent full time coach was planning the bowling rotation, we wouldn't have had Kapil Dev losing count and Chetan Sharma bowling the last ball to Javed Miandad. Truly.

[Cover Point]

KoP that was my whole point. This whole notion of Captain running the game (and you are limited in picking your captain from the 4-5 regulars of the team ... and he may or may not be a good strategist) is old fashioned and cricket just doesnt grow up as it should.

Then the coach's selection becomes a lot more critical and u start looking for Woolmer like strategists.

Again I would ignore the prancing around comment from agenda seekers. They are just looking for all opportunities to attack GC. If the role of the coach was an active one and you saw a coach relaxing he would have a ticket out of town the next day.

[suraj]

If a competent full time coach was planning the bowling rotation, we wouldn't have had Kapil Dev losing count and Chetan Sharma bowling the last ball to Javed Miandad. Truly.

Dard bhari yaadein

[keep-it-cool]

On this thread, I agree with all posters except Jaat, Fever and Shukla

[jaat69]

On this thread, I agree with all posters except Jaat, Fever and Shukla

Add a few smilies, to make it sound surprising.

[keep-it-cool]

On this thread, I agree with all posters except Jaat, Fever and Shukla

Add a few smilies, to make it sound surprising.

It was not meant to surprise anyone.

[sudzz]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

[keep-it-cool]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

[jaat69]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

Why deprive batsmen of valuable coaching advice, right at hand!
They too deserve to know whether they should block or pull, in a bid to 'maximize their runs'.
A timely input from GC, on the point of delivery of the ball may prove handy to the batsman. GC will yell "Chuck Akhtar out of the ground"! and the batsman will follow suit. He has to, you see, otherwise all those valuable coaching nuggets will go waste. And these nuggets don't come cheap.

[sudzz]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

KIC exactly my point a batsman can get advice clandestinely by sending water, gloves, underwear etc...the point is if we want to instituionalise something that happens in other sports for both sides then why in cricket should it be for only one side?

[jaat69]

and what if, sending in gloves, under-wear, water etc are banned?!

[keep-it-cool]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

KIC exactly my point a batsman can get advice clandestinely by sending water, gloves, underwear etc...the point is if we want to instituionalise something that happens in other sports for both sides then why in cricket should it be for only one side?

i dont understand the question ... which only one side?

lets make everything that is clandestine about messages being passed above board .. i dont see anything immoral about it and actually think that it will help things move up a notch.

[sudzz]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

KIC exactly my point a batsman can get advice clandestinely by sending water, gloves, underwear etc...the point is if we want to instituionalise something that happens in other sports for both sides then why in cricket should it be for only one side?

i dont understand the question ... which only one side?

lets make everything that is clandestine about messages being passed above board .. i dont see anything immoral about it and actually think that it will help things move up a notch.

See if the assistant coaches can hover near the boundary then only the fielding side benefits so why should we not allow the same privilege for the batting side let them also have a microphone etc because a batsman cannot walk up to the boundary at the end of each over.

[keep-it-cool]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

KIC exactly my point a batsman can get advice clandestinely by sending water, gloves, underwear etc...the point is if we want to instituionalise something that happens in other sports for both sides then why in cricket should it be for only one side?

i dont understand the question ... which only one side?

lets make everything that is clandestine about messages being passed above board .. i dont see anything immoral about it and actually think that it will help things move up a notch.

See if the assistant coaches can hover near the boundary then only the fielding side benefits so why should we not allow the same privilege for the batting side let them also have a microphone etc because a batsman cannot walk up to the boundary at the end of each over.

maybe you can work around that by providing microphones or such.

anyways, i dont think it will really help too much at the individual level .. batting is largely an individual thing ... so is bowling.

but in terms of field placements and which bowler to bring on when and take off when etc ... these could make a big difference

[LosingNow]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Sending signals to batsmen is a problem that has been solved in baseball.. there is a hand sign language that is used to communicate what to do next.
It will be fun to see this implemented in cricket (BTW, wasnt Miandad instructing Moin Khan to hit a six from the coaching box during one of the Ind-Pak ODIs!!).

[jaat69]

CP nice thread and an interesting POV.

I agree with your POV in parts but not in total. I still feel that as a boss of what happens on the field a captain is critical to the game.

In your scheme of doing things the cricket captain becomes like what a football (soccerr for you guys) captain who just wears the arm band and lifts the trophy, the game plan, substitution etc is all the coaches doing.

Cricket unfortunately cannot be run that way because very simply there are not enough opportunities to communicate with the middle easily. you can very well have a assistant coach hovering around the boundary and yelling out instructions only for everyone including the batsmen and opposition captain to hear it.

And what of batting do you propose that the batters as well get instructions on whats the exact nature of the field change thats happening or which way will the ball swing or spin from the assitant coach between overs etc.

So if this innovation comes to pass then it makes batting more difficult, because imagine this the batters are two againt 11 men of the opposition and in addition you will now have a coach yelling stuff etc so why should the batter be deprived.

Not necessary. Batting is an individual job. The batsman does not have to think about anything other than how he is doing his job ... so he can handle things. But he would need input on what the team needs from him at different times .. this happens now too .. by sending out people with gloves or water.

KIC exactly my point a batsman can get advice clandestinely by sending water, gloves, underwear etc...the point is if we want to instituionalise something that happens in other sports for both sides then why in cricket should it be for only one side?

i dont understand the question ... which only one side?

lets make everything that is clandestine about messages being passed above board .. i dont see anything immoral about it and actually think that it will help things move up a notch.

See if the assistant coaches can hover near the boundary then only the fielding side benefits so why should we not allow the same privilege for the batting side let them also have a microphone etc because a batsman cannot walk up to the boundary at the end of each over.

maybe you can work around that by providing microphones or such.

anyways, i dont think it will really help too much at the individual level .. batting is largely an individual thing ... so is bowling.

but in terms of field placements and which bowler to bring on when and take off when etc ... these could make a big difference

why do you need a professional coach for that? the spectators can do the job and that too free of cost!
the captain will get a selection of bright ideas. he can decide accordingly.

[LosingNow]

On this thread, I agree with all posters except Jaat, Fever and Shukla

I agree with you and those you agree with.
--
One more  intra-clique agreement post!! Long live the clique!

[WicketView]

There is nothing apriori wrong in allowing coaches to communicate with the players, and it should allow the team (if they have a good coach), to maximize their potential, with the captain free to concentrate on his play.

However, from a personal viewpoint of like and dislike; I would not like to see it. I find the games which have these to be more  mechanical, and one of the things I enjoy about cricket is that players have to apply their minds too, apart from having skill.This gives it a totally different charm absent in the other games. Clearly, different people will have different tastes, so I am not surprised to find a few of us feeling differently.

[achutank]

enlighten me here -

in nba and nfl are there any captains?

[Cover Point]

enlighten me here -

in nba and nfl are there any captains?

Not sure of NBA but in NFL there are ... some time like 6-7 captains on each side. They show up at the coin toss and yell inane things like "we are going to score" etc etc and promptly go around and throw an interception.

In anycase the point (despite Jaat's constant annoyance on this thread) was that providing players help from the coach to me seems the right thing. Basically no one ever finds the best captain in the country and then puts them in the team and says now lets see how you bat or bowl. No one is a designated captain. So obviously the captaincy skill is always going to be low in the team.

Also, once you remove the romantic notion of cricket being "different" (as someone rightly said .. once they allowed 11 foulmouthed buffoons to lift the trophy three times in a row the romance just left) we realize that cricket requires as much strategy as say baseball (would not call it at the level of football.. american ofcourse).

So now lets address the fielding vs batting difference. First I am all for allowing microphones. I mean whats with the coach yelling from the boundry. If something is legal just do it the whole way.

So obviously the fielding side has to make most of the decisions on the field. When to change the bowler. What types of felds to set to a particular batsman. How to bowl to each batsman. etc etc

The batsman for the most part needs to make adjustments after every 5-10 or so overs depending on the situation. So the batsman would need less feedback as opposed to the fielding side.

Not that there is anything wrong with providing feedback to the batsman via a microphone but that is less feasible since batting requires more concentration and this can be more of an interruption or distraction rather than help. Batsmen can get the feedback at end of overs or block of overs.

[jaat69]

Building on the premises of the original idea, what I would suggest is the 'pay as you use' option in this case. the batsman may or may not need the feedback-capsules(encoded). the same goes for the fielding side captain. in that scenario, the coach need not yell/ holler( think abt the poor coach's throat), whatever from the arena itself. That may not be physically safe for him, depending on his popularity.

He can just ftp his capsule( in a suitable audio-video format) from a safe location, similar to the 3rd umpire's chamber or the hotel itself. The encoded capsule is then 'accepted'( provided the player has asked for it in the first place) by the batsman/ fielding captain. A predetermined amount of money is then debited online from the BCCI account thru a secure transaction( Verisign).
That way the BCCI saves a lot of money, in the form of appearance money, and maintenence of the foreign coach. It is good for the foreign coach also, as he may not need to be present in India itself. He can as well coach from his drawing room in Adelaide itself, if he chooses to. Its a win-win situetion for all.

[keep-it-cool]

Think about the famous third test draw in the 2005 Ashes .. where Mcgrath batted outside the crease in the last over ... but the Englishmen did not realise at all. Imagine, had Fletcher been able to get a message across ...

Ditto for the other side .. Buchanan would have been able to alert Mcgrath of the danger ....

[Blwe_torch]

Think about the famous third test draw in the 2005 Ashes .. where Mcgrath batted outside the crease in the last over ... but the Englishmen did not realise at all. Imagine, had Fletcher been able to get a message across ...

Ditto for the other side .. Buchanan would have been able to alert Mcgrath of the danger ....

Why didn't the concerned coaches take aid of the standard modus-operandi.........that is sending in water or towel or gloves?

[Cover Point]

Think about the famous third test draw in the 2005 Ashes .. where Mcgrath batted outside the crease in the last over ... but the Englishmen did not realise at all. Imagine, had Fletcher been able to get a message across ...

Ditto for the other side .. Buchanan would have been able to alert Mcgrath of the danger ....

Why didn't the concerned coaches take aid of the standard modus-operandi.........that is sending in water or towel or gloves?

It requires a mentality change. Right now the coach is passive.. an observer if you may. They too need to change their attitude (So the famous dozing off of GC isnt an issue). They need to start taking charge of the game.

Also midway through an over it is rare to send instructions.