THE LEADERSHIP CONUNDRUM
The late Wg Cdr VM
Muddiah, former India player once said that a genuine cricket captain must
retire from the game as a captain. There was a time when cricket captains around
the world were chosen for their leadership ability. There can’t be a better
example than Tony Lewis, who on his Test debut, led England on the 1972-73
tour of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Not only did he prove to be a fine
leader, but also one of the best performers for England.
Today, the ‘rags to riches’
world of cricket is governed by commerce. It places a premium on the price tag
of a player above all else, often above leadership ability and training. Rightly
therefore, the cricket team needs a coach, sometimes called
the Team Director. The coach should
ideally be mature and not new to the world of big money. Most importantly, he should
not be in competition with fellow cricketers.
The reality in Indian
cricket today is that despite the presence of an experienced coach, the
captain’s writ continues to run large. “The captain's policy of changing the
playing XI for every Test seems to have done more bad than good”, commented a
reporter after the disastrous result of the 37th Test match played
under Virat Kohli. Today, on the day of the first 50-over match with the West
Indies, the Indian team doesn't have a middle order and everyone else but the
captain has to look for an answer! What then is Shastri's role? One wonders why
he isn't a commander out there and fears if a veteran like him is only an
administrative manager on the ground.
In the longer format of
the game, unless one is a genuine opening batsman, the best of the best are
more comfortable coming in to bat at number four or five. These are the best
positions since one can hide behind the openers and still get enough time left
on the field to bat. In the limited overs format, with no close-in fielders and
initial outfield restrictions, opening the batting is the most favourable
position for any batsman. Those who wielded power have regularly chosen these opportunities
as per their convenience. Tendulkar was the master exploiter of the most
favourable batting positions guided mainly by his individual ambition. His
privilege was often camouflaged under his virtuosity in the game,
That trend has now become
a norm. We see it readily done by likes of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma. Both
having left their favourite positions in the longer format have grabbed
favourable positions in limited over games. In doing so, they have left gaps in
the middle order at no. 4 and no. 5. This is why India doesn't have a middle
order.
Why can’t KL Rahul or
Rishabh Pant open the innings with Shikhar Dhawan? With Rahul, Pant or Rahane
batting at no. 3, the team will have Kohli and Sharma to make up the middle
order.
In the past, aging
players first retired from white ball cricket before finishing their careers
with an extended Test stint. Today's
game is subject to an individual’s commercial interests. Players choose to
retire from time consuming Tests and continue with 50 or 20 overs cricket. This
keeps up their price in the IPL.
This brings us to the
question - if the team has found a wicket keeper-batsman in Rishabh Pant, why
does it need to continue with a declining Dhoni? Can’t he make way for a Karun
Nair? There must be something special about Karun - there have been few in the
history of the game to go past the 300 mark!
It all comes back to
role of the coach. If a Coach can command the team over and above the Captain,
then decisions may be taken in the best interest of the team. Of course, the
BCCI must ensure that the Coach has impeccable ethics and integrity. That would
be the simplest answer to the leadership conundrum.
