Are coaches becoming too powerful in cricket?

It is the captaincy fiasco in New Zealand and Pete's post on the SA NZ series that have inspired me to put up this for debate.
Cricket, unlike football, has been a captain oriented game. International coaches are a modern day phenomenon, with Bob Simpson being the first modern international coach. When coaches came, they replaced team managers or tour managers. They were expected to carry out the backroom work, get the team ready for the captain.
But over the last few years, coaches have become more powerful in the 3 high profile cricketing fiascos of recent times involving big players, the coaches played a less than ideal role.
Ottis Gibson, Andy Flower and Mike Hesson had major roles the way the sagas around Chris Gayle, Kevin Pietersen and Ross Taylor have shaped up. Of the lot, Hesson's role has been the most disgraceful. He came with an agenda, that of pushing Taylor out and getting his man McCullum installed. McCullum is said to have been involved in a revolt against a previous coach. Taylor was someone who handled things with a lot more dignity. That was one reason he and not McCullum was made captain. Taylor led NZ to a win over Australia in a test match in Australia, did the same in Lanka. Averaged close to 50 in tests as captin. He led the side only in 8 completed ODI matches. His record hasn't been good, but then NZ wasn't winning everything till then were they?
At the end of the day its Dhoni's team, Cooks's team, Smith's team, Clarke's team.
Captains and players are held accountable. Are coaches enjoying too much power without accountability

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10852687

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10852718

Another interesting read on the disgraceful use of coach power.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10852697

An interesting topic. I don't think it is unreasonable for a newly appointed coach to select the captain he wants to work with - I think the relationship between captain and coach is arguably THE dynamic which sets a team up: really good captain-coach relationships in the recent past include Fletcher-Hussain, Fletcher-Vaughan and above all Kirsten-Dhoni; on the other hand, Fletcher-Flintoff didn't work out well, and Chappel-Ganguly was an unmitigated disaster. IN the first instance I think most of the failing belongs to the captain, and in the second to the coach. But really this just illustrates my point. I'm not sure I blame Hesson so much for wanting his own captain - but whoever appointed Hesson should have either given him the authority to appoint his captain, or not appointed Hesson if (as is clear) he doesn't get on with Taylor.

However I'm sorry but right now I really don't have enough time to do this topic justice. I have some coaching to do tomorrow myself (purely technical/tactical so it should be ok and controversy free) and should go and do some preparation.

PS: I don't think extensive quoting of the NZ Herald strengthens any case TBH...

I'm not willing to talk too much about the details of the NZ fiasco, because I don't know what the exact situation is apart from what is coming out in the media (which will only be a version of the truth).

As a coach, my main pre-requisite is to have a captain I can work with. He will be responsible for some things (I insist that he has final say on team selection - it is after all him who'll be out there on the field with them; we don't have selection committees at our level), I for others (batting order for example). Crucially we need to complement and at times oppose each-other (debate and disagreement is not only ok, it is necessary). If either one feels strongly about something then usually they'll get their way; if both feel strongly about the same thing but we disagree, I'm not sure what would happen.

Other teams will have their way of functioning, which is partly why I'm not willing to comment on this specific case - I have no idea how things work in New Zealand.

At the end of the day though, I AM accountable. I have to (sometimes metaphorically) stand up and defend our record and my decisions, and am always willing to do so.

Mike Selig wrote:

At the end of the day though, I AM accountable. I have to (sometimes metaphorically) stand up and defend our record and my decisions, and am always willing to do so.

Linking this to the other thread, this is one of the major issues I highlight with Fletcher and India. He never talks to the press, and so never either defends his decisions or takes some responsibility for failings.

If I can give my tuppence worth, coaches of international cricket teams are ten a penny. Barely more than glorified tour managers. If the players technique isn't up to scratch they shouldn't be there in the first place.

The captain, and in New Zealand's case, one of the best players is far more important. There is very little whoever is New Zealand's coach can do to influence results whereas a player the calibre of Ross Taylor can do much.

Similarities with KP having to fall on his sword to get rid of Moores. My support is completely with Ross Taylor.

As far as I can see the SA team is lead by the captain and a few senior players, was like that in Cronje's time and has been like that in Greame Smith's time.

I think because of the amount of time these players spend together on tours can easily become problematic if not managed well.

From the coach's perspective I think the more successful coaches gets buy in from the captain and his senior players rather than the orher way around.

SA have been fortunate with the personalities of the coaches they have had over the years. Bob Woolmer, Mickey Arthur and presently Gary Kirsten were and are all the type of manager that will work in the background andcallow the players to shine.

I think that is very important.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

At the end of the day though, I AM accountable. I have to (sometimes metaphorically) stand up and defend our record and my decisions, and am always willing to do so.

Linking this to the other thread, this is one of the major issues I highlight with Fletcher and India. He never talks to the press, and so never either defends his decisions or takes some responsibility for failings.

He really doesn't take any decisions though. Dhoni is the one who has the final say.

On a different note, www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/595848.html?CMP=outlook_news … Is split coaching the way forward?

A very interesting question, and one I'll spend a little while addressing. Thanks for setting up this thread msp - it really links together our Hall of Fame discussions on Woolmer, our discussions on the NZ omnishambles, and my article and our discussions about Fletcher and India.

I'd argue that the ideal role of the coach in modern cricket is exactly as England's job title is - 'Team Director'.

This means that they should ultimately be accountable for cricketing matters which take place outside of the match itself: appointments and sackings of captains, a significant say in selection, organising training schedules, appointing and co-ordinating backroom staff etc.

During the match the captain should have the final say - if it comes down to a 50/50 he should get his way on selection, and should have the final say on all tactics used during the match. The coach, however, should be working closely with the captain. How close really depends on who the captain is: you feel a Clarke probably doesn't work too closely with Arthur, whilst a Cook probably does take a lot of advice from Flower.

The coach must also therefore have a degree of accountability: he takes credit when the team succeeds, and so should often take some responsibility (even if it isn't his fault) in failure.

Currently, I think England have it just about spot on. Flower is on the more powerful side, but on the field it is ultimately the 11 men who have to deliver. South Africa are slightly different - Kirsten has perhaps a slightly more technical role. But that is probably a result of the fact that guys like Smith and Kallis are natural leaders, and probably don't need the same sort of guidance outside of matches.

Think we underestimate Cook. Had Flower got his way, Kevin Pietersen would have not made a rather swift return to the side. Had Andrew Strauss remained the captain, think Flower would have got his way. KP's return to England colours, particularly this early, I would say is very much down to Cook. And now Flower won't be directing the ODI team too much, so yes England have got it very nearly spot on I'd say, perhaps for different reasons to those of shelsey.

Following England, South Africa also have appointed a separate coach for T-20is. I'd say this is an interesting experiment, would help the coaches manage their workload, and also prevent a situation of too much centralization of power.
I'd any day take the SA/India situation under Kirsten. Although he left the last say to the captain, he managed to remain absolutely relevant for the players, the team and support staff. He has left his mark as a coach, without becoming authoritarian.

msp83 wrote:Think we underestimate Cook. Had Flower got his way, Kevin Pietersen would have not made a rather swift return to the side. Had Andrew Strauss remained the captain, think Flower would have got his way. KP's return to England colours, particularly this early, I would say is very much down to Cook. And now Flower won't be directing the ODI team too much, so yes England have got it very nearly spot on I'd say, perhaps for different reasons to those of shelsey.

I'm pretty certain that Pietersen would be back whoever the captain. The differences were never irrevocable and all parties would have recognised that you need your best players on the field.

Biltong wrote:As far as I can see the SA team is lead by the captain and a few senior players, was like that in Cronje's time and has been like that in Greame Smith's time.

I think because of the amount of time these players spend together on tours can easily become problematic if not managed well.

From the coach's perspective I think the more successful coaches gets buy in from the captain and his senior players rather than the orher way around.

SA have been fortunate with the personalities of the coaches they have had over the years. Bob Woolmer, Mickey Arthur and presently Gary Kirsten were and are all the type of manager that will work in the background andcallow the players to shine.
I think that is very important.

Bang on - Whether through luck or design and despite Cronjes failings - South africa have always had reasonable people at the helm and reasonable people in command at the back. When SA are in transition they are still bloody good and when they arent they are awesome. Look across at pakistan, india. Verging on the pathetic everytime theres a bad patch.

Coach Hesson has so far been an utter disaster for NZ cricket, yet he gets his way.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/current/story/596579.html

I think people underestimate the role of a coach. Coaches are responsible for a lot more than just technique.

First of all minor technical adjustments have major effects (e.g. Cook, Morgan). A very good coach will identify technical glitches very quickly, find a solution which won't mess up the player's entire game (boy did Australia muck that up with Hughes), and make the player buy into the changes and the work required to achieve them. Terry Jenner for example told Warne after the first two tests of the 94/95 ashes (Warne took 20 wickets in 2 tests) that he wasn't spinning his leg-break as much as he could be; Warne laughed it off (well, 20 wickets in two tests...) but Jenner was right and Warne struggled for the rest of the series.

Other aspects a coach has a responsibility in:

- tactics. By which I don't just mean the obvious (field setting, who bats where, objectives - 80/1 at lunch etc.). I mean things like gameplans for each individual batsman and bowler: where are you going to score against x? What are your get-out-of-jail shots against y? How can you make sure those shots give you boundaries and not just singles? Where are we going to bowl to z, how are we going to construct our overs against t, etc.?

All these are things which the players could reasonably do on their own, but the role of the coach is to simplify, gather the pertinent information and (again) make sure the players buy into the gameplan.

- mental: most of high-performance sport is mental. At this level, players are all very very good, mostly very very fit. The difference is so often a question of hunger and dealing with pressure. The coach has a huge role in ensuring the players are mentally in the right shape, and again this is often done (partly) by simplifying info (you don't want the players thinking about their game too much) and taking external pressures (media, supporters) on themselves (Flower and Alex Ferguson are masters at this).

- mentor: very good coaches are naturally mentors to their players, who come to them with all sorts of problems. Someone who the players can trust and confide in.

I think you also have to separate the role of the coach from the role of the manager. Andy Flower does a bit of both: he managed his coaches, but he also sets tactics, works with players on a 1-1 basis etc. However most of the "coaching" (or what laymen would think of as coaching) is done by his batting/bowling/fielding coaches.

I do think it's easy to underestimate the role of the coach in preparing a team in the best environment for a match. Mainly because we don't see most of what they do. But I think you see with India's differing fortunes under Kirsten, Chappel and Fletcher that having the right coach does make a huge difference.

Of course coaches perform a very important role. The question though is where to draw the line? Who is more important, the coach or the captain? In a senior national side in particular, I would say the latter. Coaches like Kirsten earned respect from his players through his workethic, not through a show of power.

It is not really "of course" when we have Hibbz saying that they are "barely more than glorified tour managers" and yourself saying on the HoF thread "All that a coach can do in terms of technique for an established team player is to look for any bit of rust coming in and also minor changes here and there." I am merely saying that in my opinion it is much much more than that.

As to who is more important? The most important thing is that the coach and captain have a good working relationship. If you appoint a new coach, you should make sure he is either prepared to work with the current captain, or give him free reign to appoint the captain of his choice. Likewise if the selectors decide to drop the captain then they should make sure the the next captain is prepared to work with the coach.

I don't see Flower and Gibbson's issues with KP and Gayle as them trying to show their power - I see it as them genuinely doing what they thought was best for the team. England picking KP again (albeit on a probation period) is a good example of a coach-captain relationship: Cook felt strongly about something, Flower was quite willing to let him have his way.

Well in terms of technique, I don't see coaches making a hell of a lot of difference for a senior player. Don't think there could be major technical changes at a senior stage, those have to happen in the formative stages. Remember Anderson's struggles after the coaching system messed up his action in his early years in international cricket?
We have had our fair share of debates on the Gayle/Pietersen situations. As I said both the coaches played less than ideal roles in my view. They could have done a lot of things differently and better, particularly Andy Flower But anyways, Flower at least didn't remain intransigent for long and acknowledged the significance of supporting the captain unlike coach Hesson who came to the job with the single point agenda of getting rid of Taylor. This despite the poor guy doing a great deal with the bat to try and lead from the front with a pretty average side. Where is the accountability?

msp83 wrote:Well in terms of technique, I don't see coaches making a hell of a lot of difference for a senior player.

Cook, Morgan? On the flip side Anderson, Hughes? You don't think coaches played a major role in these, and that when they get it right it's quite a major achievement? I refer you to the first paragraph of my earlier post. What you call minor adjustments are actually a major business and have a massive effect.

msp83 wrote:coach Hesson who came to the job with the single point agenda of getting rid of Taylor.

Oh come on, you can't seriously believe someone came to an international coaching appointment with as his only objective to get rid of the current captain?

msp83 wrote:Where is the accountability?

He hasn't even had a single match since getting his way. How can he be made accountable before you see the results of his actions? If NewZealand start winning without Taylor does that make him right?

Remember Cook nearly getting dropped ahead of the Ashes?


Id rather have a coach dominating the team than corrupt nepotistic selectors and board members.

Or lets look at India where the senior players hold sway and hold the development of the team back. Remeber Sangakarras speach about Sri Lankan politics in selection?
Or the West Indies where the team is picked to appease the various boards and ensure everyone has a look in at the free lunch trolley.

The sorts of clashes with guys like KP and Gayle are nothing new to cricket. Nor is it solely coaches whos egos may have gotten out of control from time to time, history is littered with captains who have backed their favourites or excluded others to the detriment of the team.

The coach or team manager is payed to do a job, run the team and the support staff to a single plan and common purpose. Some do it better than others, that doesnt mean its an inherently bad system to have someone in charge who is given that job because they are deemed to be good at it.

Great couple of last posts.

Cook himself has gone on record suggesting that his stint with his county after being dropped from the ODI squad has played a significant part in figuring his game out better. Now that can happen to any player, adaptability at the highest level is the hallmark of a good international batsman or bowler. Zaheer Khan's well documented county stint in 2006 made him a different bowler, Sachin Tendulkar showed remarkable mental strength in Sydney in 2004 to cut out on certain shots to score a double ton having figured out some of those shots were getting him into trouble....... Ricky Ponting after South Africa last year is again a case where the player figured out which aspect of his basic technique had gone down, resulting in him getting out LBW many times.
In some of these cases coaches may have played their part. In the Cook situation Gooch rather than Flower has played more of a part. My point is more on the lines that major technical changes cannot be made at a senior stage, the basic technique is something formed at the formative stage of a player and there is a limited role for the coach in terms of technique.
Think we have to agree to disagree on this.

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

My point is that players have to often make minor technical adjustments without changing their overall technique (which messes a player up). See Cook and Morgan for good examples of this being done successfully, and Anderson and Hughes where the changes messed up the technique.

The coach (usually not the head coach, but the relevant batting/bowling coach) plays a pivotal role in this process, and should do it in such a way so as to make the player buy into the changes, and how to achieve them. Something Jenner couldn't do with Warne in 1994, but which Gooch obviously did with Cook. A lot of it is player-driven (I often have players come up to me and say "how's my driving? I feel like I'm falling over slightly on impact" or similar) but the coach plays a vital role.

Unless we agree on the proposition that the coach playes a limited rather than a substantial role in terms of player technique at a senior level, we have to agree to disagree.
On a more general note, I'd say the coach has to be willing and able to work with the captain, so long as the captain retains his place in the side through performance and enjoys the backing and support of his team.

Then we get into the argument of should a head coach/captain also have the role of team manager or is that a seperate job?

Whether or not a player can be taught how to suck eggs is irrellevant to the Taylor situation.
Thats about who hires and fires and who is the, what George Bush jnr would call, "Decideifier"

Hence PSW, my original question.

Well let me say Id rather have Andy Flower decideifying for me than Salman Butt or GWBush Jnr

Nzc's latest take on the Taylor saga.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/current/story/596831.html

Latest take on Dhoni saga
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2012/content/story/596796.html

There wre reports that Jimmy Amarnath was removed from the selection committee because he wanted Dhoni out.KPF should be able to tell us more about it!.
While Amarnath's criticism of Dhoni is fair enough, I don't think his alternative of putting Gautam Gambhir in charge is a sound. If anything, Gambhir has struggled a lot more than Dhoni did in recent times. First he has to get back to the habit of scoring test hundreds, like test openers are expected to.
Anyways, the coach isn't really involved in any of these.

Right my point being that you can get the same issues regardless of who is in charge, coach, chairman of the board or a tin of custard.

Don't think the 2 situations are similar. Amarnath is speaking out well after his tenure was ended, and there could be larger politics involved. And MS Dhoni wasn't after all removed in ignominious circumstances.

Its similar in that you have one person claiming absolute power to overide those who thought they had a made a selection, leading to someone losing their job (and someone who shouldve been sacked keeping theirs)

The point is wherever you put the power to hire and fire there is the potential for bad decisions to be made and for people to get narked by it.

If it were left to the players then Ganguly would still be captain

This isnt to defend what has ahppened to Taylor, but rather then get bogged down in the specifics of one case somehow making all coaches evil dictators.

I guess the title should be" Are their too many idiots with power in cricket?"

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its similar in that you have one person claiming absolute power to overide those who thought they had a made a selection, leading to someone losing their job (and someone who shouldve been sacked keeping theirs)

The point is wherever you put the power to hire and fire there is the potential for bad decisions to be made and for people to get narked by it.

If it were left to the players then Ganguly would still be captain

This isnt to defend what has ahppened to Taylor, but rather then get bogged down in the specifics of one case somehow making all coaches evil dictators.

I guess the title should be" Are their too many idiots with power in cricket?"

Well, in Dhoni's case, not even the entire selection committee wasn in agreement on whether he should be sacked. So it was not just the one person who took the call.

Can I just point out that I wasn't having a pop at coaches per se, it was more the supposed importance of the lead international coach of each team.

I fully except Gooch's role in Cook's career but was he not also his county coach?

Morgan has also been quoted as someone who's benefited from the wisdom of an international coach but as far as I'm concerned Morgan got into the team due to his ability, then received coaching and is now no longer in the team. Not a great selling point for me. Hopefully he'll decide, like Anderson, to go back to doing it "his" way.

Then you have the case of New Zealand whereby the head coach has in part, if not whole, caused the best player to stop playing. Now that's mental coaching alright.

I had started this thread following Ross Taylor's senseless sacking as New Zealand captain.
Further news have now emerged as to how the coach Mike Hesson was dishonest and personal agenda driven even to the detriment of the team interests.
Such coaches are a disgrace to the game, and they should never be vested with too much power.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-new-zealand-2012/content/current/story/601196.html

I wonder if Mike is still gonna blame Taylor

Yes, I am still going to blame Taylor. The difference is, I don't see Hesson as free of faults, whereas msp seems to think that Taylor was somehow forced out - he wasn't. At the end of the day, he had a clear choice: to tour or not to tour. He chose the latter. Personally I can't understand it, no matter how humiliated/unloved/aw diddums he felt.

Hesson has of course managed the whole situation dreadfully, mainly because of a lack of honesty. He should have said from the outset that he wanted McCullum in charge - as a coach I believe that's his perogative.

Brian Lara believes that Rohan Kanhai as the best coach he ever had. Kanhai as a coach didn't speak too much and wasn't a control freek.
No coach should be allowed to pick and chooose captains at the highest level, as unlike in football, the captain's role on field is a lot more important, and usually blame first goes to the captain rather than the coach. And when we have dishonest crookes like Hesson in charge, the unaccounted power could be abused.
Players are firstly humans, they are not robots so that they needn't think and take everything that comes their way like machines would do. Ask Trescothik, Yardy or even Fredye Flintoff.

Not much point me arguing on this thread anymore as clearly no one has any idea how important a coach is to a cricket side and more importantly not prepared to listen. However to reiterate:
- technical stuff: minor changes coach-driven with massive impact.
- mental stuff: coach plays a huge role in taking pressure off the team.
- tactical stuff: coach and coaching staff responsible for basic plans, coach and captain together with general strategies and plans B (and onwards), coach and captain can both come up with intuitive ideas on the spot, but less than 5% of the tactics (when you see an interesting bowling change, it is often an idea of the coach passed on).

I am not surprised Lara rates Kanhai highly, although I suspect at least part of the reason doesn't reflect well on either as a human being.

To compare Taylor's situation with Trescothick or Yardy is insulting (unless Taylor has depression, in which case I take back most of what I've said).

I don't think most here have rejected the role of a coach in the game of cricket. But the point is that relatively speaking, its the captain who is more important, and a cricket captain's position is very different and in fact superior to that of say a football captain, where the coach is the person of authority, and as such is held accountable. Coach in cricket has a supportive role. Mike says the coach has an important role in keeping up the mental side of things. If we look it the NZ situation, it is pretty clear that the NZ coach has totally failed to meet his responsibilities in this regard, and his hubris and dishonesty in fact resulted in serious damage to the team and a particular player.
To argue that Taylor had to take the backstabbing like a robot because he is playing for his country doesn't make much sense.

msp83 wrote:I don't think most here have rejected the role of a coach in the game of cricket. But the point is that relatively speaking, its the captain who is more important, and a cricket captain's position is very different and in fact superior to that of say a football captain, where the coach is the person of authority, and as such is held accountable. Coach in cricket has a supportive role. Mike says the coach has an important role in keeping up the mental side of things. If we look it the NZ situation, it is pretty clear that the NZ coach has totally failed to meet his responsibilities in this regard, and his hubris and dishonesty in fact resulted in serious damage to the team and a particular player.
To argue that Taylor had to take the backstabbing like a robot because he is playing for his country doesn't make much sense.

Up to a point. But sitting at home sulking and not even turning out for Central Districts was throwing his toys a bit too far out of the cot. IMO he'd have done the team a lot of favours if he'd at least put his hand up for the SA ODI series - there've been enough injuries to the original selection that having him as a replacement call up would have made sense.

That said, I have serious doubts about Hesson's coaching ability given his clear communication failures over the Taylor fiasco - communication being a pretty important part of a coach's role.

This is getting very yawnsome,. We are using the dodgy decisions and poor coverup of one individual to slaughter the concept of a head coach/team amanger then extrapolate this to all coaches should shut up and let the players do as they please.

Flintoff is an especially poor example. He was fat and lazy, and only got to a state where he could play international cricket by having a kick from the coaches. He then continued to do his level best to chuck his career away like crickets Paul Gascoigne, the coaches took firm action and reigned him in a bit. hes even said himself that his development as a T20 player was limited by his reluctance to learn new skills, and that he was over reliant on a small number of stock deliveries. Less innately capable bowlers like Broad came in, learnt from the coaches, and bought by a world cup using innovative bowling.

Coaches when acting as team managers do need good people skills of course, but equally Captains cricket boards and professional managers do too. Someone needs to have leadership, responsibility and keep the players in some form of good order. Too many fingers in the pie and a lack of clear direction can be equally as damaging with different people pulling in different directions.

Yes the Taylor situation is a balls up, I think everyone agrees on that

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:This is getting very yawnsome,. We are using the dodgy decisions and poor coverup of one individual to slaughter the concept of a head coach/team amanger then extrapolate this to all coaches should shut up and let the players do as they please.

Flintoff is an especially poor example. He was fat and lazy, and only got to a state where he could play international cricket by having a kick from the coaches. He then continued to do his level best to chuck his career away like crickets Paul Gascoigne, the coaches took firm action and reigned him in a bit. hes even said himself that his development as a T20 player was limited by his reluctance to learn new skills, and that he was over reliant on a small number of stock deliveries. Less innately capable bowlers like Broad came in, learnt from the coaches, and bought by a world cup using innovative bowling.

Coaches when acting as team managers do need good people skills of course, but equally Captains cricket boards and professional managers do too. Someone needs to have leadership, responsibility and keep the players in some form of good order. Too many fingers in the pie and a lack of clear direction can be equally as damaging with different people pulling in different directions.

Yes the Taylor situation is a balls up, I think everyone agrees on that

Now PSW, that is an interesting take and I agree to quite a bit of that.
But again, the point is that coaches should be able to do their job in the background without getting too much attention towards themselves. Garry Kirsten did that, Andy Flower did that quite successfully for quite some time. Flecher, while doing a superb job earlier with England mostly remained in the background, and now, disappointingly, continues to do so, but unlike in the England situation, does no real work either. Coaches are like umpires and wicketkeepers, the less noticed they are, the better they are doing a job.
The captain should be the led man, a good coach should be able to form a good partnership with the captain and should be a good man manager. A senario like what happened in New Zealand shouldn't be the norm, the coach has the power, the captain is held accountable. The problem is with that, not with the institution of the coach. its about institutional overreach.

msp83 wrote:
Coaches are like umpires and wicketkeepers, the less noticed they are, the better they are doing a job.

I certainly agree with that sentiment as to umpires. It probably goes some way to explaining my contempt for the ever attention seeking Billy Bowden.

Ross got taken out, and decided to take some time off to re-assess. Why is he in the wroñg? Judging by hes Twitter account he will be back vs England, so he didnt throw his toys around and retire! At the top level, coaches are pretty redundant, if the team is functioning.

kingraf wrote:At the top level, coaches are pretty redundant, if the team is functioning.

Rubbish.

Mike Selig wrote:

kingraf wrote:At the top level, coaches are pretty redundant, if the team is functioning.

Rubbish.

Yes, just because we cannot see what goes on behind the scenes to bring success, we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. As my immediate boss said to me many years ago: ''When the managing director is away, nobody notices. It is only when the teaboy is away that everyone notices.''