Are coaches becoming too powerful in cricket?

First topic message reminder :

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

Let me paraphrase Gary Kirsten here- `What can I teach Sachin Tendulkar about batting?`

kingraf wrote:Let me paraphrase Gary Kirsten here- `What can I teach Sachin Tendulkar about batting?`

Yes but I'm not convinced that was the right question to ask. I feel a longer term one would have been more appropriate - how will we eventually replace Sachin Tendulkar and who with? Even when things are going well, a coach needs to have an eye to the future if opponents are not to eventually catch up. Perhaps that is being seen in the consequences of Tendulkar's current struggles ....

kingraf wrote:Let me paraphrase Gary Kirsten here- `What can I teach Sachin Tendulkar about batting?`

"At the moment quite a bit, and had I noticed signs earlier, perhaps things wouldn't have got to the stage they are now" would perhaps be a reasonable argument.

Tendulkar has credited Garry so often for the good run he had with the bat during Guru Garry's term as India coach. No doubt he was the best coach India had, and he's doing a superb job as South Africa's coach.
The best thing about him as a coach is that he doesn't try to sit on the captain's head, and in fact always give the players their fair due rather than imposing his views and will on them. He doesn't muddle too much in selection dramas and tries to give his best with the selected players and appointed captain. So there is no question of power without accountability, and as a coach he's able to look after different aspects of the team. Mental conditioning of players is an important part of his strategy.
Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh, and Sachin himself, all had their more than fair share of problems with the control freak Greg Chappell, they all rate Kirsten so very highly. Suresh Raina, Virat Kohli and skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni too share similar feelings on Kirsten.
Graeme Smith gave up the limited overs captaincy after GK took up the SA job, but he hasn't had much of an issue working with both Smith and AB.
The role of the coach even at the top level is an important one, but they have to know their limits and role. The coach has to be the head of the support system, not the unaccountable commander of the show.