Aug 28 2009
Coach versus Captain Is It Even a Raging Battle?
It is hard to imagine that a man hailed as a hero was dismissed from his post less than a month later. It was not planned that way though and that was certainly not the way teams would plan three weeks prior to an important tour overseas. Is ego between a coach and captain really so consuming that it stops a team dead in its tracks? It certainly did for England and for Kevin Pietersen and it has certainly left scope for endless debate on where and who gets to draw the line.
A ‘series’ of unfortunate events
When the England team decided to come back to India after much haranguing in the aftermath of the terror seizing Mumbai episode, Kevin Pietersen was hailed for his role in convincing the players, especially those in senior most positions who appeared reluctant for the tour, namely, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison (though they may have a different story to tell now), to rethink their decision. England did end up losing the Test series but it was after they gave themselves the best chance for victory in Chennai, only to have India chase down a historic total for a dramatic win that would eventually seal the series in the favour of the hosts.
But what happened thereafter threatened to obliterate all the respect that the England team had earned for their decision and their performance as well as the applause accorded to Pietersen himself. Christmas and new year holidays were the reason why the England team was keen to arrange the itinerary such that the team could spend time with their families back home. However, one family was on the verge of a split with the relationship breaking down to beyond repair. But as with most divorces, there are many angles to the situation and many relationships that suffer a shake up as a result of it.
That differences were going to crop up was obvious even before Pietersen assumed the leadership position within the England dressing room. It was the precise reason why Pietersen and coach Peter Moores had a sit down before the former officially took on the mantle of the captain of England. However, as the saga unfolded, it became clear that not all matters were trashed out, and they continued to operate in a chalk and cheese method that never allowed the England team with a single minded, cohesive agenda to take forward in the short period of the five month association.
Was Pietersen’s dismissal only a disciplinary act?
If one were fighting the case on a technicality, the real reason behind Pietersen’s resignation (which was effectively akin to dismissal) would have to be questioned. In a case of convenient interpretation, the ECB chose to view Pietersen’s statement that he could not continue under present circumstances not as a demand that the team management in the dressing room be necessarily tinkered with but rather that he would relinquish his role and make the job of the higher authority at the ECB easier.
The word on the street was that Pietersen was facing the axe for putting his matters with Moores in the public, though technically he did not and expressed as much in the statement that carried his resignation from the captaincy. Why then was it decided that Pietersen must go? Was Pietersen forced to resign because he leaked the information to the public (which technically he did not) or because he was, in the ECB’s opinion in hindsight, too big a player with an ego to match to become a captain capable of running the show while maintaining a cohesive dressing room and a harmonious one with the management?
It even brought out some cold assumptions like that of former England captain Mike Atherton stating that Pietersen would always find it tough finding yes men simply because he was a ‘foreigner’. As shocking as it may sound, that there are still prejudices that govern decisions is something that is being witnessed the world over, even in this day and age and alarmingly so. But whether it applied in this case, is still a matter that has not even been looked at. What has also come into the open is the opinion of many in England and in South Africa amongst cricketing circles that believe that Pietersen fails to operate when the stature of the coach does not match up on the international scale, with some even going to the extent of alleging that he has a problem with any one who is non South African, as hard as that is to believe. But were they the grounds for encouraging him to quit?
It would be a safer bet to assume that it was perhaps Pietersen’s aggressive assault on authority and demands for sweeping changes that would suit his agenda for England while still settling into his new role are what did him in. Trashing out grievances behind close doors would have perhaps salvaged one or both men’s jobs rather than issuing an ultimatum and then disappearing into the wilderness, which never allowed Pietersen back into the game.
Was Moores really to blame?
Dissensions began in the immediate aftermath of the Chennai Test which England should have won after setting such a mammoth, history seeking target. It was believed that Pietersen was frustrated at the lack of technical input from the coach as England failed to check Virender Sehwag early and allowed India to get to the target.
What really blew the discord into the public glare was the fact that upon returning to England, Peter Moores had apparently vetoed Pietersen’s demand for Michael Vaughan on the tour to the West Indies when meeting with the selectors. Pietersen deemed this as a case of betrayal and sent forth a letter stating in clear terms, that he could not work while Moores continued on as England’s coach.
Moores were also apparently not too keen for the England team to return to India because in his opinion, after the one day trashing and what happened in Mumbai, England would not be mentally up for it. There were also insinuations that Pietersen had done himself a huge favour keeping the IPL’s second season in mind, although it is hard to imagine that deciding against would have affected Pietersen’s market price in any way.
It is hard for an outsider to decide whether Moores was overworking the boys in training and not providing enough back up input to make up for Pietersen’s inexperience. But the excuse, as valid as it may be, sounds hollow coming from the captain who has been dynamic enough to have the switch hit associated with him like a patented shot. Tactics apart, critics of Pietersen’s move are also of the opinion that Pietersen’s grouse should have been with the selectors who made the final decision to leave Vaughan out and not Moores.
Whether Moores was good for England can be debated only upon knowing the reasons for which the ECB decided to appoint him coach in the first place. That he was given a two year contract just days before he was dismissed, knowing fully well that a storm was brewing between the captain and coach was perhaps a clearer indication that the ECB was more interested in what Moores had to offer than what Pietersen was complaining about. But as the representatives of the ECB themselves stated, after the public fall out, there was no way the man could have held his respect in the England dressing room and therefore, had become dispensable. So, could it be said that in this case, the coach came out stronger though he was dismissed and was the captain who resigned more disgraced by the episode?
Where does the coach stand?
In football, the manager takes the final call. The captain’s badge will change from one arm onto another if the manager so decides. The coach’s job in cricket, on the other hand, is vastly different. Though tactically he will still assist the skipper, technically it is the captain that calls the final shots on the field. The coach is also required to be adept at man management skills which basically translates into identifying the strong and weak areas not only of the team but also of individuals, working with them through correcting those errors and generally being the captain’s right hand man when resources are needed in decision making.
That coaching is not for every man is now obvious. There cannot be too many egos in the same dressing room, especially those between a skipper and coach. It would also explain why Greg Chappell could never resign himself to take the role in a background position while Sourav Ganguly himself thrived on being the cynosure of all eyes. Recently Chappell blamed his exit from all matters Indian because of ‘unkind’ comments made by Virender Sehwag that stated Gary Kirsten had a more player centric attitude as opposed to being media centric, in direct reference to Chappell. While Chappell may have had other even more pertinent reasons that called for disassociating himself with India, inadvertently he has proven those who deride him right by once again choosing to use the media to express obviously unfinished emotions.
There have been coaches like John Buchanan whose meticulousness and fastidiousness did not go down well with experienced pros like Shane Warne who used words like “verbal diarhhoea” to describe Buchanan’s coaching methods. Then there were coaches like the late Bob Woolmer who synergized well with the late Hansie Cronje who was not shy in showing that he relied heavily on his coach’s laptop data in masterminding South Africa’s hey days.
Currently two coaching jobs are working well – the one between Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Gary Kirsten and on a lengthier basis, between Graeme Smith and Mickey Arthur. In both cases, there is always only one strong voice talking and more often than not, it is that of the skipper, even though there is collusion they are forming back door in strategizing who takes over the voice as well. It is not like the no-nonsense Gary Kirsten would fall for every move from the more impulsive, thinking-on-his-feet Dhoni. And Arthur would have his own designs for the team which would clash with Smith who likes to run a tight unit hands-on. However, the reasons these partnerships appear to be working well is because each is aware of his own powers and the limitations of authority that the roles pose.
Are captains right in taking their demands too far?
The discussion then throws up the next question- if captains are right in taking too much into their hands. Clearly not, if Pietersen’s dismissal in effect is anything to go by. Captains, when hung up on the idea that the coach is a backstage person by personality, can often delude themselves into thinking they are the reincarnated messiahs and everything they say will be tabled down in gold. But there is a reason why cricket has resisted any matter of change for over more than a century long history.
Captains may well be right in thinking the way they do on certain decisions and certainly no one can denounce them without evidence. But the manner in making a point can perhaps say a lot about the style of captaincy as it does about the person himself. When Dhoni reportedly threatened to resign when the selectors decided to drop R.P. Singh for Irfan Pathan during the one day series against England, even for a forward thinking captain who had his heart and his head in the right place, it was still not the way to go because one would only have to look at Pietersen’s case to understand the disastrous effect it would have had on the team and planning.
Pietersen also made the cardinal mistake of assuming too soon that his team would back his every word. Even in the most harmonious of dressing rooms, the captain may see eye-to-eye on most matters and yet have a contentious issue or two that does not go down well with all players. Pietersen assumed the team that stood behind him in the interest of England’s goals which would also support his move for an overhaul that involved getting rid of the entire coaching staff. The captain must command sufficient respect and trust of his team mates before he embarks on such a deep impacting decision, and Pietersen’s fault may have been to have miscalculated in gauging how much his team was convinced about his own role in the first place. The division lines were drawn; seeds about motives were sown; and the recipe for disaster set to timer to cook.
How far should their demands go?
Another perpendicular question to this paradigm that if the captain is the ultimate authority on the field, should the captain then have a say in choosing the coach of the team as well?
While some people are of the opinion that it was better to nip the relationship in the bud before it became increasingly acrimonious, one wonders if every disagreement can be avoided by such splits or because a captain automatically becomes a part of the decision making process to appoint a coach. It must be remembered that in the natural scheme of things, the captain is selected from among the final eleven. But that norm is often broken when appointing a captain in a player willing to lead the team that becomes more essential than his past qualifications, as has been in the case of Johan Botha who led a successful South African one day unit in Australia, but not without the initial hiccups. And it still does not guarantee him a place in the team when Smith assumes the premier leadership position.
For a team to be successful, either the captain must earn and enjoy the support of the think tank in backing his decisions on the field or enjoy the support of his team mates who rely upon his instinct and believe in him. Very few captains have tasted success of both. Former captains like Sourav Ganguly were heavily criticized for trusting their instincts and backing vociferously for the men in their team. In the moment of crisis as Greg Chappell built forth a plan to show why Ganguly was no longer good for Indian cricket, his Indian team mates continued to back him one hundred per cent.
In such situations, most boards would see the captain choosing who should coach the team as putting more power into his hands only for the team to run amok. Perhaps the appointments of coach and skipper are better made taking into consideration the qualifications as well as the personalities that are likely to gel despite disagreements and those that are likely to combust at the first hint of trouble. That delicate maneuvering of designations with personnel should not possibly be left to either man to ensure the best interests of the team and let them both know they are in check and being held accountable.
Captains are always walking a tightrope on the decisions they take in a moment of instinct when throwing the ball to a particular bowler and they are standing on thin ice when they make the demands on the scale on which Pietersen demanded. Now there are many in the dressing room to whom he will be a vulnerable, transparent individual whose thoughts are too clear to work with. There is a burning desire within him that has been left without reaching realization. And there are men he thought he could trust with his life only to feel let down in a critical moment.
A captain must swallow his pride when his tactics have not worked on the field. It will perhaps be harder now for a former captain to do so in a dressing room that will be more wary of him. Dangerously now it has perhaps inadvertently positioned a precedent for making a case for captain’s empowerment in the future when it comes to choosing coaches or in the short run, a reason for sidelining a man who wants to change the world to change his team’s fortunes.
