Print

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

[fineleg]

I am assuming GC will go after WC (will deserve to after our perf there).


I'd like to see BCCI try for JB (John Buch) or JL (Justin Langer).
Other choices can be listed in this thread.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

Robin Singh

[LosingNow]

Robin Singh

Yes.. cuba is the right prep school

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

Robin Singh

Yes.. cuba is the right prep school

look at our bench strength wait Uthappa isn't bench strength, plays like a baseballer plonks the front foot and bats like he is using a jhadu

[inoc]

I am assuming GC will go after WC (will deserve to after our perf there).


I'd like to see BCCI try for JB (John Buch) or JL (Justin Langer).
Other choices can be listed in this thread.

sandip patil

he is a sensible guy (his recent media excursions notwithstanding)

read this interview here

he has been involved with the junior team recently and seen these guys close up to have an opinion. he was the first to say that pathan had a great future (remains to be seen following the recent debacle but certainly started well).

we have had a two foreigners with mixed results. the physical fitness side and mental toughness side should be now in the awareness spectrum of the core of our team.

i think it is time to revert back to a indian coach (less hype hopefully) and reassess matters.

[fineleg]

We dont have to rule out a bowler as the main coach. What abt an aggressive bowler coach like Dennis Lillee who is familiar with coaching in India via MRF.

Get an addl specialist batting coach if our bats need it?

[Cover Point]

Irrespective of what Gangulians say, the nationality of the coach should not be an issue. They need to pick the best candidate for the job based on qualifications.

But the bummer is after clipping GC's wings no other coach would want to take bold steps and thus we are bound for continued mediocrity

[fineleg]

I need to see a coach who is
1. Competent in skills/coaching
2. Be able to whip a bunch of folks from inaction to action
(if our players need to be *motivated* - then whip them...if doesnt work, drop them...if they are not motivated by being part of an elite, elite 11, sorry i dont see anything addl needed to motivate them)

3. Be able to handle the glare of public and media from behind the scenes like JW did

Nationality does not matter - but above are required esp #1 and #2
Once we are assured this is the right coach - he needs to be given freedom and some time to implement diff strategies, take hard decisions etc.

[pieterSAN]

I need to see a coach who is
1. Competent in skills/coaching
2. Be able to whip a bunch of folks from inaction to action
(if our players need to be *motivated* - then whip them...if doesnt work, drop them...if they are not motivated by being part of an elite, elite 11, sorry i dont see anything addl needed to motivate them)

3. Be able to handle the glare of public and media from behind the scenes like JW did

Nationality does not matter - but above are required esp #1 and #2
Once we are assured this is the right coach - he needs to be given freedom and some time to implement diff strategies, take hard decisions etc.

Fineleg has it narrowed down to dominatrices...

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

It might sound crazy but how about Wasim Akram? He understands Indian sensibilities much better than a Greg Chappell.
Also, I'd like the coach to take active changes in the domestic set up. Perhaps, ask for a few different pitches among other revamps.

[fineleg]

It might sound crazy but how about Wasim Akram? He understands Indian sensibilities much better than a Greg Chappell.
Also, I'd like the coach to take active changes in the domestic set up. Perhaps, ask for a few different pitches among other revamps.

The problem is this whole Ind-Pak tensions will not allow for that. Pure cricket reasons there may merit to looking into it, though it has to be analyzed more in cricket perspective as well.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

It might sound crazy but how about Wasim Akram? He understands Indian sensibilities much better than a Greg Chappell.
Also, I'd like the coach to take active changes in the domestic set up. Perhaps, ask for a few different pitches among other revamps.

The problem is this whole Ind-Pak tensions will not allow for that. Pure cricket reasons there may merit to looking into it, though it has to be analyzed more in cricket perspective as well.

Well we had a Pakistan coach Punjab, but yes India-Pakistan will not allow. How about Ranatunga who had emancipated an ordinary team into world cup winners?

[LosingNow]

Before thinking of a specific coach, I think we need to think of creating a better coaching system.

The objective of the system should be to always have 30 international players ready to play for the country. It will take 4-6 years of selection, coaching, rotation and experimentation for us to get there.

I think a system with the following (among other things) is needed (I am borrowing heavily from the professional leagues here in US):
1. Head Coach of the National team supported by specialized assistant coaches for bowling, fielding and batting.
2. A group of zonal coaches and talent scouts reporting to the national head coach - who are continously working with the national coaching team to synchronize coaching and development plans for specific players.
3. Working in parallel with coaching team, should be a set of national and zonal fitness instructors/coaches..that follow a standardized and synchronized approach to fitness and training.

I think the next coach has to be given the remit of creating and developing this system .. which, IMO, eliminates any Indian ex-player who is currently coaching or is a potential candidate..one has to have lived in or seen such system in action before one can create/implement it elsewhere. I think 6-8 years from now, an Indian ex-player could be considered as they would have been part of the functioning of the system.

Also, the national coach (given the unique circumstances surrounding cricket in India - obsessive fans and media, instant superstardom/villainy of hyper-paid players, obsession with records etc) besides being good in coaching also must possess an impeccable cricket record (our guys are good at saying - oye, what do you know about playing cricket!)..in other words, a John Buchanan will not fly!!

Frankly, GC would have been ideal for this role..but he has too much baggage and any positive he or the board tries to create will be held back by this baggage. Under the circumstances, a clean cut from the past will best serve the Indian team.

Given what I have seen of Moody, he may not be a bad choice.

[sudzz]

Before thinking of a specific coach, I think we need to think of creating a better coaching system.

The objective of the system should be to always have 30 international players ready to play for the country. It will take 4-6 years of selection, coaching, rotation and experimentation for us to get there.

I think a system with the following (among other things) is needed (I am borrowing heavily from the professional leagues here in US):
1. Head Coach of the National team supported by specialized assistant coaches for bowling, fielding and batting. - This is a brilliant suggestions-get the new coach have a team of talent spotters with him and the contract should clearly specify his role as far as domestics are concerned
2. A group of zonal coaches and talent scouts reporting to the national head coach - who are continously working with the national coaching team to synchronize coaching and development plans for specific players.
Not too sure how it would work in our system where players are not the epitome of professionalism, they will have many a new shoulders to cry on..get these guys on a need based basis for clinics etc to ensure that there is a small dose of external experts
3. Working in parallel with coaching team, should be a set of national and zonal fitness instructors/coaches..that follow a standardized and synchronized approach to fitness and training.
Again a great one the national coach should mandate and monitor implementation.In addition the new coach should be given a carte blanche in terms of developing coaching skills of domestic coaches etc.I think the next coach has to be given the remit of creating and developing this system .. which, IMO, eliminates any Indian ex-player who is currently coaching or is a potential candidate..one has to have lived in or seen such system in action before one can create/implement it elsewhere. I think 6-8 years from now, an Indian ex-player could be considered as they would have been part of the functioning of the system.

Also, the national coach (given the unique circumstances surrounding cricket in India - obsessive fans and media, instant superstardom/villainy of hyper-paid players, obsession with records etc) besides being good in coaching also must possess an impeccable cricket record (our guys are good at saying - oye, what do you know about playing cricket!)..in other words, a John Buchanan will not fly!!

Frankly, GC would have been ideal for this role..but he has too much baggage and any positive he or the board tries to create will be held back by this baggage. Under the circumstances, a clean cut from the past will best serve the Indian team.

Given what I have seen of Moody, he may not be a bad choice.

Moody might be good but I doubt if he would come given that at SL he has pretty much complete authority now and has a great working relationship with the board and senior players. i would not be surprised if he gets an extension. I dont think it would be so bad to have a technically sound coach who is not such a high profile individual.

[LosingNow]

Sudzz:
I would prefer a non high profile coach too.. but apne sar-chade bande kisi ki nahin sunenge. If a VS can blow-off GC, imagine what hope a Buchanan type has?.. usko to ghas bhi nahin dalenge apne maharathi.

[sudzz]

Sudzz:
I would prefer a non high profile coach too.. but apne sar-chade bande kisi ki nahin sunenge. If a VS can blow-off GC, imagine what hope a Buchanan type has?.. usko to ghas bhi nahin dalenge apne maharathi.

LN bhai low profile ka matlab weak aadmi nahi hai...if we know Buchanan he kicked ass after a while jitna bhi Warne awaz kiya lekin he also did all that which was asked for...

We need a coach who wont attract media attention but wont be afraid to kick some butt and kick it hard....

[CLR James]

Irrespective of what Gangulians say, the nationality of the coach should not be an issue. They need to pick the best candidate for the job based on qualifications.

But the bummer is after clipping GC's wings no other coach would want to take bold steps and thus we are bound for continued mediocrity

Dear CP,

You are right. The nationality of the coach should not matter, qualifications should. So let me ask you now, what exactly were the coaching qualifications of Greg Chappel before we hired him? That he coached South Australia? I am sure the South Australians remember what the results were. It was an undertaking that resulted in dismal failure.

So what next? That he was a great cricketer? If that is the sole criterion, then I propose the following names -- Sunil Manohar Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Bishen Singh Bedi. Would any of the three work?

And then about clipping GC's wings. Were we really flying before the wings were clipped? If we were, why exactly were they clipped? Pray, what revolution did GC bring about, in terms of results, man management, player confidence, team spirit, player form, and most important, team results, that we should lament the alleged clipping of wings? What did his experiments yield? Which great new player did he produce (Raina? VRV? JW did give us a Sehwag at least till...Dave Whatmore invented the Jayasurya we know today...Duncan Fletcher flowered Flintoff)? If SS is an example, by all means, appoint GC as bowling coach! Which senior player with form problems did he heal (Sehwag and SRT should have something so say about that)? Why has he left us with such a lot of bad faith and acrimony? Why has he been so divisive? Why have atleast four major current cricketers spoken against him, in different times, in a manner unprecedented in Indian cricket? How can we understand that he is a good technical guide and a good nurse of player psychology? Has there been a technical revolution in anyone's batting? Why are even players he backed, like Kaif, talking about being let down? Has there been a perceptible difference in any of the three cricketing departments in the Indian team? Why, even the fielding or fitness levels has not looked remarkably better overall; even before the oldies came back.

So why is GC to be understood as a great coach rather than a cheap rabble rouser? Do not take the last expression to be a pejorative. I think the best thing that GC has done for Indian cricket has been through this role of a sensationalist supremo. He has destroyed a sense of inbuilt complacency in Indian cricket, and by virtue of that has indirectly helped cricketers like SG and ZK to improve as cricketers. But that is just about it. That was done through his power mongering abilities, not his coaching ones. As a matter of fact, it seems to be the rule that cricketers improve when they stay away from Chappell. Why is that the case?

So please do not paint GC as a martyr to the Indian system. If anything, the Indian system for a considerable period, fawned over him and gave him everything on a platter. The messiah failed to deliver the redemption that he himself promised. Perhaps he should have just kept his mouth shut, buckled down, and tried to learn the basics of international coaching itself instead of making tall promises.

[CLR James]

Irrespective of what Gangulians say, the nationality of the coach should not be an issue. They need to pick the best candidate for the job based on qualifications.

But the bummer is after clipping GC's wings no other coach would want to take bold steps and thus we are bound for continued mediocrity

Secondly, why should only 'Gangulians' (and not any sane cricket follower) question GC's abilities as coach? And then, are so called 'bold' steps essentially good? Does attitude define the correctness of method and the philosophy behind it? Remember Hitler was 'bold' too. He took very very 'bold' steps. Were they essentially right simply because they were 'bold'?

[LosingNow]

Remember Hitler was 'bold' too. He took very very 'bold' steps. Were they essentially right simply because they were 'bold'?

[CLR James]

Before you explode LN, I am not comparing GC to Hitler. I am merely pointing out that a 'bold' action isn't necessarily the correct one. CP seems to think that just because GC took some 'bold' steps, and conducted brave experiments, they were essentially markers of a good coach.

[pieterSAN]

LN:

First of all, I liked your idea since it addresses the issue from a more holistic perspective.

I think the next coach has to be given the remit of creating and developing this system .. which, IMO, eliminates any Indian ex-player who is currently coaching or is a potential candidate..one has to have lived in or seen such system in action before one can create/implement it elsewhere. I think 6-8 years from now, an Indian ex-player could be considered as they would have been part of the functioning of the system.

The alternative to this would be to hire perhaps 2-3 consultants and have them draw out a plan to overhaul the domestic system with the help of former Indian cricketers and the head coach. I reckon this would the most efficient use of both the foreign consultants and domestic experts. The trick is to find a group of people who can work together.

However, I fear that the BCCI lags behind in professionalism far more than our players or any other individual connected to the Indian team. As long as it continues to function in the present manner, no messiah, Jesus Christ or not, can "save" Indian Cricket. 

My candidate by the way would have been Bobby Simpson, but I think he has given up coaching.

[LosingNow]

CLR:
Boom...I just exploded. 

No I did not think that you were comparing GC to Hitler.

I just thought the example (while intended to create a dramatic effect) was irrelevant. I am sure for every Hitler who took bold bad steps..there is a Churchill who took bold good steps.

Irrespective of what CP says about GC or what GC did or didnt do.. I think the coach's job (along with team management & selectors) is to sometimes make bold (hopefully, good) and tough decisions which may hurt an individual but may help the team. I think CP's statement is spot-on in stating that given the experience that GC has had (right or wrong, imo, doesnt matter..and I really dont have the energy to rehash that discussion here..as it will serve no useful purpose), a new coach will think many times (and hence limit his effectiveness) before making or influencing such decisions. That is a travesty!

[MockTurtle]

Boom...I just exploded. 

No I did not think that you were comparing GC to Hitler.

I just thought the example (while intended to create a dramatic effect) was irrelevant. I am sure for every Hitler who took bold bad steps..there is a Churchill who took bold good steps.

Irrespective of what CP says about GC or what GC did or didnt do.. I think the coach's job (along with team management & selectors) is to sometimes make bold (hopefully, good) and tough decisions which may hurt an individual but may help the team. I think CP's statement is spot-on in stating that given the experience that GC has had (right or wrong, imo, doesnt matter..and I really dont have the energy to rehash that discussion here..as it will serve no useful purpose), a new coach will think many times (and hence limit his effectiveness) before making or influencing such decisions. That is a travesty!

i certainly hope the new coach will do that before slandering a person viciously.

[LosingNow]

Boom...I just exploded. 

No I did not think that you were comparing GC to Hitler.

I just thought the example (while intended to create a dramatic effect) was irrelevant. I am sure for every Hitler who took bold bad steps..there is a Churchill who took bold good steps.

Irrespective of what CP says about GC or what GC did or didnt do.. I think the coach's job (along with team management & selectors) is to sometimes make bold (hopefully, good) and tough decisions which may hurt an individual but may help the team. I think CP's statement is spot-on in stating that given the experience that GC has had (right or wrong, imo, doesnt matter..and I really dont have the energy to rehash that discussion here..as it will serve no useful purpose), a new coach will think many times (and hence limit his effectiveness) before making or influencing such decisions. That is a travesty!

i certainly hope the new coach will do that before slandering a person viciously.

Agree, slandering has no place in human interactions.

[Libran]

Irrespective of who Coaches us...one thing looks reasonably certain....there is going to be one Australian who will be jobless and not necessarily because he has retired but because no one wants him around....

[LosingNow]

Irrespective of who Coaches us...one thing looks reasonably certain....there is going to be one Australian who will be jobless and not necessarily because he has retired but because no one wants him around....

John Howard has a friend in India (thinking about Australia's unemployment rate)!

[Libran]

And should I say BCCI has a job consultant ...because u started this thread....

It can't sound any preposterous , can it ??

[sudzz]

I dont think we in India have treated GC in anymore a worse fashion than say in SL or SAF or Pak or even Aus.

When Moody came on board and dropped a few there were the same cries of not knowing the culture etc etc, we have heard of the same against Woolmer, Micky Arthur has gone through that and so have his predecessors and finally even Buchanan had to endure constant criticism of his methods despite winning almost everything important.

Therefore many a people on this thread have alluded to the shoddy treatment to GC being a discouraging factor...as the saying goes "If you cant take the heat....."

Having had said that, the point is if people finally see a plan and a method they will invariably allow for personal idiosyncracies for example in SL Moody was initially in the dog house after defeats etc and their board chief backed him even though Arjuna was anti him then now he is mellowed in his criticism. Why because they saw results and a steady improvement. I guess most will agree that SL is a better team now than it was say three to four years back and more importantly they have gone and corrected their feeder systems.

Similarly look at the others that I have named, for all the fights and slappings etc Pak as a team is a better outfit under Woolmer than it was ever before.

The point Iam trying to make is that we Indian's are not the only ones to criticise coaches and at the same time its not always and only about results in the short run (remember we accepted GC's statement that the eventual goal is World Cup etc etc...) even now if he was man enough to admit he went wrong in some of his assements and took some wrong calls based on flawed information etc one can condone him to an extent. But how do you condone a guy who went after players to get rid of them (rightly mind you at that time but the method was underhanded and irrational) and yet today has got nothing more to prove than what it was when he took over.

[sudzz]

I was just thinking Woolmer's term in Pak is coming to an end as well and he is also jobless, knows the sub co, has worked with probably the most acrimonious yet talented bunch of players has over come language barriers, has over come slaps and kicks (unlike our man who only got stood up) so why not him?

[Cover Point]

Irrespective of what Gangulians say, the nationality of the coach should not be an issue. They need to pick the best candidate for the job based on qualifications.

But the bummer is after clipping GC's wings no other coach would want to take bold steps and thus we are bound for continued mediocrity

Dear CP,

You are right. The nationality of the coach should not matter, qualifications should. So let me ask you now, what exactly were the coaching qualifications of Greg Chappel before we hired him? That he coached South Australia? I am sure the South Australians remember what the results were. It was an undertaking that resulted in dismal failure.



So what next? That he was a great cricketer? If that is the sole criterion, then I propose the following names -- Sunil Manohar Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Bishen Singh Bedi. Would any of the three work?

I think GC was picked on his potential. The difference between him and a SMG or the IDIOT Bedi is that GC had professional coaching experience. the key word is professional .... not necessarily successful. So he was hired based on qualification and potential (as opposed to results).

And then about clipping GC's wings. Were we really flying before the wings were clipped? If we were, why exactly were they clipped? Pray, what revolution did GC bring about, in terms of results, man management, player confidence, team spirit, player form, and most important, team results, that we should lament the alleged clipping of wings? What did his experiments yield? Which great new player did he produce (Raina? VRV? JW did give us a Sehwag at least till...Dave Whatmore invented the Jayasurya we know today...Duncan Fletcher flowered Flintoff)? If SS is an example, by all means, appoint GC as bowling coach! Which senior player with form problems did he heal (Sehwag and SRT should have something so say about that)? Why has he left us with such a lot of bad faith and acrimony? Why has he been so divisive? Why have atleast four major current cricketers spoken against him, in different times, in a manner unprecedented in Indian cricket? How can we understand that he is a good technical guide and a good nurse of player psychology? Has there been a technical revolution in anyone's batting? Why are even players he backed, like Kaif, talking about being let down? Has there been a perceptible difference in any of the three cricketing departments in the Indian team? Why, even the fielding or fitness levels has not looked remarkably better overall; even before the oldies came back.

So why is GC to be understood as a great coach rather than a cheap rabble rouser? Do not take the last expression to be a pejorative. I think the best thing that GC has done for Indian cricket has been through this role of a sensationalist supremo. He has destroyed a sense of inbuilt complacency in Indian cricket, and by virtue of that has indirectly helped cricketers like SG and ZK to improve as cricketers. But that is just about it. That was done through his power mongering abilities, not his coaching ones. As a matter of fact, it seems to be the rule that cricketers improve when they stay away from Chappell. Why is that the case?

So please do not paint GC as a martyr to the Indian system. If anything, the Indian system for a considerable period, fawned over him and gave him everything on a platter. The messiah failed to deliver the redemption that he himself promised. Perhaps he should have just kept his mouth shut, buckled down, and tried to learn the basics of international coaching itself instead of making tall promises.

We can keep arguing here and I really have nothing 'new' to say. Ofcourse I see that his results have been less than optimal. I thought he has had mixed results (good period, followed by poor now). We have had some good foreign wins in tests but we are still as inconsistent as before. Lets not forget that even our dream team in SG era failed to even beat Zim in Zim.

In anycase what I have repeatedly said is that the things TRIED by GC was what I appreciated him for. His boldness was in taking on an entrenched ganguly and shaking up the system. Thats bold since he really took a huge risk by taking on a very very popular captain who was like the God child of the BCCI boss at the time.

Now the fact that all the replacements failed doesnt necessarily make the try a bad one. And am glad that you atleast give him credit for ateast tangentially affecting SG and ZK's improvement.

Again, his theories were correct. He wanted a younger, better fielding side. Exact samething we are lamenting today. How pathetic our fielding is. He did (briefly) make us one of the best fielding outfits (see our fielding during our winning streak). The fact that players like Raina just failed. And YS got injured and Kaif just never took off from where was at is what made him fail. So yes I will shout from the rooftops with you that GC has failed but the path he took was correct. Ofcourse people are measured on the results and so should GC.

But I still stand by the steps that he took. SG needed to be kicked out. We HAD TO try to get younger and better. He (correctly) realized that the team AS IS would NOT win the WC (as his early statement of the better fielding side to win ). He tried to change that and failed!

Now we are back to an old and aging team full of stars who are larger than life. By clipping GC's wings the old attitude problems (Yes the same one we saw in JW's last year) example being VS.

Finally to your Hitler comment. Since your rest of the post was a fair one, I will ignore that. I think we had talked about this before that all discussions go on and on in circles until someone brings up the Hitler reference (and now saddam and OBL I guess). Once that reference is made the discussion ends as there is nothing else to be said.

[achutank]

lalchand rajput and even praveen amre after mumbai's recent back-from-the-back victory.

ideally the next coach should be assisting the current coach, and the ozz have made the right decision. but we must begin with a proper coach. maybe somebody who has Cricket Academy experience. (not the GC kind clearly).

we should put Lalchand or Pravin Amre under such a coach for 3-4 years groom him for the job.

[suraj]

Irrespective of what Gangulians say, the nationality of the coach should not be an issue. They need to pick the best candidate for the job based on qualifications.

But the bummer is after clipping GC's wings no other coach would want to take bold steps and thus we are bound for continued mediocrity

Dear CP,

You are right. The nationality of the coach should not matter, qualifications should. So let me ask you now, what exactly were the coaching qualifications of Greg Chappel before we hired him? That he coached South Australia? I am sure the South Australians remember what the results were. It was an undertaking that resulted in dismal failure.



So what next? That he was a great cricketer? If that is the sole criterion, then I propose the following names -- Sunil Manohar Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Bishen Singh Bedi. Would any of the three work?

I think GC was picked on his potential. The difference between him and a SMG or the IDIOT Bedi is that GC had professional coaching experience. the key word is professional .... not necessarily successful. So he was hired based on qualification and potential (as opposed to results).

And then about clipping GC's wings. Were we really flying before the wings were clipped? If we were, why exactly were they clipped? Pray, what revolution did GC bring about, in terms of results, man management, player confidence, team spirit, player form, and most important, team results, that we should lament the alleged clipping of wings? What did his experiments yield? Which great new player did he produce (Raina? VRV? JW did give us a Sehwag at least till...Dave Whatmore invented the Jayasurya we know today...Duncan Fletcher flowered Flintoff)? If SS is an example, by all means, appoint GC as bowling coach! Which senior player with form problems did he heal (Sehwag and SRT should have something so say about that)? Why has he left us with such a lot of bad faith and acrimony? Why has he been so divisive? Why have atleast four major current cricketers spoken against him, in different times, in a manner unprecedented in Indian cricket? How can we understand that he is a good technical guide and a good nurse of player psychology? Has there been a technical revolution in anyone's batting? Why are even players he backed, like Kaif, talking about being let down? Has there been a perceptible difference in any of the three cricketing departments in the Indian team? Why, even the fielding or fitness levels has not looked remarkably better overall; even before the oldies came back.

So why is GC to be understood as a great coach rather than a cheap rabble rouser? Do not take the last expression to be a pejorative. I think the best thing that GC has done for Indian cricket has been through this role of a sensationalist supremo. He has destroyed a sense of inbuilt complacency in Indian cricket, and by virtue of that has indirectly helped cricketers like SG and ZK to improve as cricketers. But that is just about it. That was done through his power mongering abilities, not his coaching ones. As a matter of fact, it seems to be the rule that cricketers improve when they stay away from Chappell. Why is that the case?

So please do not paint GC as a martyr to the Indian system. If anything, the Indian system for a considerable period, fawned over him and gave him everything on a platter. The messiah failed to deliver the redemption that he himself promised. Perhaps he should have just kept his mouth shut, buckled down, and tried to learn the basics of international coaching itself instead of making tall promises.

We can keep arguing here and I really have nothing 'new' to say. Ofcourse I see that his results have been less than optimal. I thought he has had mixed results (good period, followed by poor now). We have had some good foreign wins in tests but we are still as inconsistent as before. Lets not forget that even our dream team in SG era failed to even beat Zim in Zim.

In anycase what I have repeatedly said is that the things TRIED by GC was what I appreciated him for. His boldness was in taking on an entrenched ganguly and shaking up the system. Thats bold since he really took a huge risk by taking on a very very popular captain who was like the God child of the BCCI boss at the time.

Now the fact that all the replacements failed doesnt necessarily make the try a bad one. And am glad that you atleast give him credit for ateast tangentially affecting SG and ZK's improvement.

Again, his theories were correct. He wanted a younger, better fielding side. Exact samething we are lamenting today. How pathetic our fielding is. He did (briefly) make us one of the best fielding outfits (see our fielding during our winning streak). The fact that players like Raina just failed. And YS got injured and Kaif just never took off from where was at is what made him fail. So yes I will shout from the rooftops with you that GC has failed but the path he took was correct. Ofcourse people are measured on the results and so should GC.

But I still stand by the steps that he took. SG needed to be kicked out. We HAD TO try to get younger and better. He (correctly) realized that the team AS IS would NOT win the WC (as his early statement of the better fielding side to win ). He tried to change that and failed!

Now we are back to an old and aging team full of stars who are larger than life. By clipping GC's wings the old attitude problems (Yes the same one we saw in JW's last year) example being VS.

Finally to your Hitler comment. Since your rest of the post was a fair one, I will ignore that. I think we had talked about this before that all discussions go on and on in circles until someone brings up the Hitler reference (and now saddam and OBL I guess). Once that reference is made the discussion ends as there is nothing else to be said.

Greta post CP!!!! Very valid points- even though GC turned out no better than an average coach (even bad) your points are absolutely valid

Applause karoon ki smite??

[Cover Point]

Greta post CP!!!! Very valid points- even though GC turned out no better than an average coach (even bad) your points are absolutely valid

Applause karoon ki smite??

Thanks.

Applause ya smite .. lekin kuch to karo. You just forced me to check and seems like both applauds (470's) and smites (670's) seem to be stuck. Lagta hai my posts arent controvercial enough anymore or people are getting used to me.

[Vick]

People are gonna be amused i am sure but here is my choice : Venky Prasad

Reasons:
1. He has decent record as coach. Two teams he has coached did quite well during his short stay with them. India U19 was finalist in the WC and Karnatka was a semifinalist this year in Ranji. Karnataka doesnt really have any big names but their aggressive play this year has been the difference.
2. He was a bowler and our bowlers need more help than batsman. He was a telented bowler minus the pace.
3. he has worked with not only seniors but also with youngeters in the team in different capacities. 

[CLR James]

Dear CP,

A very good, thoughtful post. However, I have applauded you just to piss you off.

I do agree with the core area of your argument. Things needed to be shaken up; the culture of blind idolatory and self satisfaction had to be questioned. This is what GC tried to do, but unfortunately in the worst manner possible. What was essentially a good strategy was marred by bad man management and complete lack of people skills. One needs tact to implement an idea. One also needs to understand the culture and the situation to implement an idea. Else one might open a burger restaurant in a town with a 1000 year tradition of vegetarianism.

1. SG could have been made to sit out for a few series without the e-mail leak, or without the tremendous acrimony that was involved. Now do not tell me that it would be impossible to do so during JD's time. SG was dropped during the SL series during JD's time. Also do not tell me that e-mail was the best way to do this, rather than plainly issuing a tough statement in front of the camera, like "Sourav needs to..."

2. To win a battle does not mean to lose a war. That is, destroying complascent attitudes should not go to the extent of creating an overall atmosphere of pressure and insecurity among ALL players. This might work in Australia, but not so fast in India. If Indian cricketers have been pampered Maharajas, it is just to stop pampering them and treating them as such. But it is not pragmatic to expect that they will change their mindsets and attitudes overnight. That is, unfortunately, as we have seen, when one talks too loudly about 'young players', it seems to dent the confidence of a VVS just a little. He, like the others, is simply not used to the status of established players being questioned all the time, as a matter of principle. You simply don't say things like "Tendulkar will not be the same batsman ever again" or "Irfan is suffering from lack of confidence" to the media. This is not just bad PR, it is bad coaching, because you do not just work with cricketers; you work with their minds too.

3. Experimentation and rotation were not handled properly. It has dented the confidence of players and not allowed them to settle down. Just take stock of the sheer number of positions youngsters like Kaif, Raina, Dhoni, or Pathan have batted in. Even a Tendulkar is now a little pissed with his batting position (not for good reasons perhaps). Kaif has gone on record saying that this being in and out of the team (often for reasons other than his batting), up and down the order has affected his performance. Even a gentlemen like VVS has stated that sometimes he does not know what the coach really wants.

4. Finally of course's GC's overall failure to improve performances other than Pathan's batting and Sreesanth's bowling. Apart from the South Australia fiasco, GC was fired by the Pak Board as batting consultant. I do not know whether he has a formal degree in coaching. Even if he does, I suspect many others do too. I think finally it was GC's aura as a great cricketer and SG's strong recommendations ( ) that got him this job. So without noted success at even the first class level, it is difficult to say that GC's 'qualifications' for the job were beyond question for what is the most lucrative and demanding post in world cricket.