Greg Chappel- Coach Indian Cricket Team

Instead of me writing something about the appointment of the new coach for the Indian Cricket Team...(btw.. i think greg is one fine strategist.. lets keep our fingures crossed!!!)
I think i will jus post Harsha Bogle's article, who doesn't mince any words:

Somewhere, in this relentless obsession with unearthing India's new coach, it might have slipped the minds of some that coaches don't win matches. Players do and they always have. Coaches might tinker or straighten their game, play a benevolent uncle or a stern elder brother, show a little window of opportunity maybe even open a door, but they cannot win matches. And so while it is important to get a good man, we cannot look upon him as a messiah.
Any cricketer who believes so is diverting his responsibility elsewhere. That is why I love John Buchanan's theory of having a coach but trying to make him redundant. Australia’s players are not encouraged to come to the coach with a problem unless they have worked out their own solution. It suggests that a player is capable of analysing his own game, his own weaknesses and has a clear path, or at least a dusty lane, towards finding an answer. His solution is then debated and between coach and player, they figure out what to do.

Otherwise it is no different from a rich parent appointing an expensive tutor and believing that both his and his child's responsibility is over.

People have played without a coach before. Viv Richards didn't have one, neither did Sunil Gavaskar or Ian Botham. Even Sachin Tendulkar, in his formative years, found that his coaches were changing faster than the calendar on his wall. They got by because they thought about their own game and found solutions within. They might have used a bouncing board but they were capable of independent thought. All good players today are as well and that is why we need to be careful in not equating the arrival of a new coach with say, an ambulance or a fire-engine.

The identity of India's next captain is far more critical. We need to have a clear policy on whether Rahul Dravid is going to take India’s team to more places than just Sri Lanka, whether there is a continuing role for Sourav Ganguly at the top and indeed, what the plan for the World Cup of 2007 is. Finding a coach is an important part of the larger plan, if there is one, but it is not the most important.


Yes, the BCCI is late but then it has always been; yes it seems confused but that too is not new; yes, the statements emanating from different arms of its body are disappointing but we have seen that before and yes, if you poll state representatives randomly today, you will find that the September election is of greater importance than the appointment of a national coach.


In such a situation the appointment of a national coach in isolation is a bit like appointing an interior decorator to work on a flat that has a dodgy foundation. Most of the players the new India coach will work with will be so far down the road with their technique and attitude that he can do little more than fine-tune them. The best place for a progressive coach is at the national academy and that is why I believe we need not one, but two appointments.


Along with the national coach we need a head coach at the national academy; someone who will double up as the under 19 and the 'A' team coach as well and work very closely with the national selectors and the national coach. That is the only way we can get a supply chain going where players can make a smooth transition from one level to another. So we have two coaches in charge of 35 players which makes it a smaller, more workable pool.


It has long been my conviction that it is the best administered, rather than the best coached, team that wins matches. True, administrators don’t win matches, players do, but they create the systems that allow players to do well. The two best teams in world cricket at the moment are Australia and England and the team that makes the most of its potential is New Zealand. They are the three most professionally administered.


The most wasteful teams in world cricket are India and Pakistan and there are huge problems in the West Indies, in Sri Lanka and in Zimbabwe. These are also the most poorly managed cricket boards. When India and Pakistan enjoy stability at the top, they make the right choices and that leads to good performances on a cricket field. The appointment of a coach is merely a good choice that comes out of a stable administration. In the absence of that it would be hoping for too much to expect a hero to ride in from nowhere and take Indian cricket to the top. Those messiahs exist only in the movies.