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.
https://plus.google.com/+sunilbanerjee/posts/5vVxDGMvXVd
ReplyDeleteDear Pramod,
ReplyDeleteAs usual you have very successfully brought out the problems of todays cricket in India but really have not offered much of solutions as it is so difficult to do in this commercialized world. Let me address all the issues brought forward by you point by point
1-Selection of the Captain- todays selection of the captain is done based on his performance, ability to lead, cricketing mind, acceptability as a captain and a sure place in the team. Kohli, Dhoni, saurabh, Dravid, Tendulkar,gavaskar, kapil dev etc. each one when selected did a wonderful job but as they grew into a stature they became Don and performed badly due to politicking, favoritism etc to secure their place leading to India doing badly for long before they were asked to go. Australia removes their captain ruthlessly but India is too scared to touch the Don and also the public and the media.
2-Team selection committee- Ideally team needs to be selected based on the where the team is touring and the condition of the pitches and environmental conditions. Just because a person is good on dead pitches he should not be good for seaming pitches and hence we should identify people based on their ability to play in different conditions. Also have matches played at the domestic pitches for selecting the team before any tours to abroad countries
3-Coach- Today coaches job is to mentor the player and the captain and not get into politicking but acceptability of mentee is very essential and a tough guy as a coach is never very popular and acceptable. each player is an adult and he thinks he knows all just because he is selected to represent india. Ravi Shastri is there because his acceptability and Kumble moved out because of his non acceptability. Besides this, coach has to help the captain decide on strategy, team selection and motivating each and every member of the team and the staff. For us sitting outside would be very difficult how effective each coach has been other than the team performance.
4-Test vs Short format games- I fully agree with you that the top guys decide their slot but it is still governed by their performance. If they have done well it is ok. The quality of the players for test and short format is different and hence the team also must be different and that is happening so I have no such complaints. but criteria as explained in point 2 is important.
5-Commercialization has had a huge impact on the indian cricket because of so much of money, match fixing, favoritism and media and its role. all factors have large influence and it is very difficult to keep it away from corruption which is very strong in India and hence I have no solution to this problem.
I hope I have done some justice to your blog.
regds.
Pkkapse
Pramod your blog is very interesting and equally interesting are the comments of Pradeep on your blog. Being a cricket enthusiast, couldn't resist to put my comments.
ReplyDeleteOn captaincy, you are right that earlier leadership qualities were considered utmost important for selecting a captain. Tony Lewis must have been the last captain who was asked to lead purely on the merit of leadership qualities though he was not a good batsman , perhaps we can include Graeme Smith of South Africa in this category when he succeeded Pollock in 2003, even though Smith had not played a single Test before captaining his team. But eventually he proved to be good batsman.Today , we have moved on and you have very rightly pointed out that commerce plays a big rolel in everything, besides the game has become so competitive that each and every player has to be multiskilled to find a place in team. You may recall that earlier when Prasanna and Bedi were part of team , it was purely on the basis of their bowling skills and they were a big embarrassment in batting as well as fielding. I remember Manjrekar Sr was a regular in Test team and he was horrible fielder probably the worst ever.
Virat Kohli today is in the form of his life and he is the fittest player amongst the team members and that is why he has been allowed to call the shots. He along with coach Shastri are now too powerful in decision making process.Kumble who was coach prior to Shastri was such a nice and upright person but he was his eased out by Kohli because in certain matters Kumble did not agree with Kohli. MSK Prasad who is the chief selector today has hardly any say in team selection. Prasad probably played only 6-7 tests and therefore he is a small fry in presence of Shastri Kohli dou. In England it was so obvious that Karun Nair is not in the scheme of things of Shastri Kohli , that is why he was repeatedly ignored, even Vihari was played ahead of him in the last test and now Nair is dropped in home series against West Indies. There is no explanation as to why triple centurion is dropped.In England these two messed up badly in team selection. Knowing fully well that in England in seaming conditions , the batting will be a challenge, they continued to go with only 5 batsmen and failed miserably. They picked Kuldeep in Lords where there was so much rains prior to test. Persistence of Pandya was also questionable because even the pure batsmen were struggling. They should have gone in with 6 batsmen in all tests there. I have a suspicion that Kohli does not want a strong batsman to challenge him and succeed him as a captain in next 2 to 3 years. Look at Rahane where he is now today, he was a solid regular middle order batsman but today he is also struggling because the team management does not have enough confidence in him. He was dropped in England in couple of matches. Presently Kohli is not a very good Captain and he is still in the learning process ,but he gets lot of support from Dhoni in the Limited overs that is why he is supporting Dhoni. Dhoni is doing all field placements and advising bowling changes.Dhoni is evidently struggling as a batsman and he should make way for younger Pant.
Presently BCCI is also very weak due to Lodha committee's directions and unfortunately Selectors' status is far below than our superstars. Only when players like Dravid, Gavaskar, Ganguli , Kapil are at helm of affairs , Shastri and Kohli will fall in line.
Vikas
Response PART 1 of 2
DeleteDear Pradeep and Vikas,
Thanks for reading with great interest - you always do. And, thanks for coming out with long comments. It would however be great if you guys made comments on the blog itself – those would stay on.
Any writing can’t say all issues explicitly – it would otherwise become a research paper. Solutions are hinted at for the intelligent ones to catch, as you yourself have. However, it now requires me to further explain a few things.
And, I address all Cricketers now!
Both of you seem to have missed the main point – perhaps I didn’t make it bold. I propose a change in thinking compared to the olden days. The commander of the outfit called the TEAM India has to be the Coach, Director, Cricket Manager, whatever you may like to call him. Amidst the commercial rivalry, the captain doesn’t qualify to call all shots.
And Vikas, when I mentioned Tony Lewis as an example of a leader and captain, I didn’t mean one who didn’t deserve a place in the side. The guy was a well-known cricketer (some 20,500 first class cricket runs scored by him) and his batting on tours here has been top class. Here is a Wikipedia extract for you:-
He led England on a gruelling five-month tour in 1972/73 to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Despite having no Test match experience, Lewis scored 70 not out in his debut Test in Delhi which guided England to their first victory on the Indian subcontinent for more than two decades. England lost the next two Tests, but Lewis went on to score his maiden Test hundred (125) in Kanpur. He was nominated Man of the Match in the Bombay Test and also in his fourth Test, in Kanpur. In the light of his achievements, Lewis was picked as vice captain to Ray Illingworth, when the latter returned from his self-imposed hiatus the following summer.Lewis was asked by the selectors to make himself available to lead the 1973–74 tour of West Indies but declined in order to take up opportunities in writing and broadcasting.
Till Roorkee, our experiences were limited to great ethics among the staff that controlled cricket. They were really the leaders for us – we too inherited the value system from them. In true sense, we were well isolated from politics – no bickering about who were selected to play or even captain the side. Later, I have seen how the Services team captain and manager (immature and self-centred) scratching each other’s back could mar the whole atmosphere consequently nose diving the performances of the team and especially those who are not among the coterie.
Shastry- Kohli combine is most likely ruling that way. You said about Kumble not being acceptable. The reason is simple – he followed better ethics than acceptable to the captain!
Therefore, the main question – who is the boss? In today’s cricket world, the Coach has to be the boss. He would be someone clearly above the rest in experience and stature and not in competition. He can be picked up for his ethics and leadership ability.
Today’s captain under the circumstances of his own auction price at stake does not qualify for that role.
Continued… PART 2 of 2 Response
ReplyDeleteThe captain should be able to sacrifice for the other players instead of being in competition. When I was the captain of the Air Force Team for two years, I had two other younger guys who wouldn’t like to bat at any position lower than 1 or 2. Me too! But, I let them open the innings, to compromise myself to bat at no. 3, purely because I was not in competition with them.
Here the case is reverse – I will bat at the best position I can – rest have to adjust.
And, you talked about exceptional individual ability and form. That’s the biggest problem – no one can then talk! Have you heard of a saying that “Individual brilliance can sometimes be dangerous to team goals”. At the cost of exaggeration, let me tell you an opinion I held for long – If you gave any team six Robin Singhs, they would be world beaters, but, the same couldn’t have been said for a team with six Tendulkars.
So, if they (Kohli and Rohit) are so great, why don’t they take responsibility to bat at no. 4 and 5? When they bat well, the others don’t get time to play and when they don’t, for the new comers, it is testing time because if they fail, they won’t last long in the team. And, finally we keep looking for Dhoni to bat at no. 4 and 5. The likes of Yuvraj, Dhoni and Pandya that played at no. 4, 5 & 6 for India won’t even be good for a team like Mumbai. That’s ridiculous – the day you get seaming wickets, Rohit, Shikhar etc will depart soon and later on Dhoni and company won’t be equipped to play the seaming ball anyway. Can’t we think of letting the promising guys like Rishabh open and Rayadu (or anyone else for that matter) bat at no. 3 in a few easy games to be followed by Kohli and Rohit? But, then they will cement their places unlike Rahane and co who were never permitted to settle down. The smarter guys, besides having to make greater efforts to win games, will then not have the same opportunities to score runs to keep up their auction value.
White ball cricket performances overwhelming the Tests, is well known to all. Rohits and Dhawans have come back to take the place of Pujaras. The same happened to VVS Laxman when as batsmen Yuvraj and Dhoni were preferred over him even in Tests. How demoralising that would be for the classics?
Here I will give you a totally reverse view. Even in 50 overs games, it all looks great till the going is good against weak oppositions and on placid wickets. But, the day we come across seaming wickets and world class bowling, we don’t have anyone to stay and anchor (50 overs is a long time) like Mark Waugh – we killed a batsman like that of our own, VVS Laxman in 50 overs game in preference to glamour (my) boys! Kohli is the only batsman today with a class who can take any bowling in the world. Anybody else is not permitted to settle down – and that is the down side of individual brilliance!
Finally, let me say again. Pick one man with unquestioned ethics and one who has a standing in the game and make him the boss! The captain should follow his orders, except for leading the side on the field. Let’s not say that we don’t have such guys - Kumble, Dravid, Laxman would all qualify.
The big question is can we do that?
Or do we need a Modi to do that also for us?
Warm regards to all cricketers,
Pramod
Sunil Banerjee's comments repeated PART 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteKohli - L’Enfant-terrible?
After a week since the post the teams for the ongoing WI and forthcoming Australia series have been announced. With the benefit of this announcement the swipe that the author has at all that is not quite cricket in the three worlds – Test, One day and the slam-bang Twenty-Twenty seems a trifle hurried. He dwells on some well known problem areas and boldly suggests solutions, enough to stir a fan-war, almost. Well, to some I do agree with and to some I don’t.Even as I add, to this rather spicy and tempting menu on offer. That said I am grateful personally, however, for having some inchoate and disparate thoughts reduced to writing.
I would imagine over the last three odd decades there has been a radical shift in the erstwhile conservative ethos of cricket. Without going into the details it would be suffice to say that rules, style and types of play, are constantly being changed or re-calibrated with a clear purpose of attracting people to watch the game, fill empty stadiums and principally to make money-at-any-cost among other things. The sportsman-administrator-contractor-corporate-politician nexus have synergized a latent monetary need into an unequal mutually serving ideology template to deliver rich dividends to each according to his need and greed. Increasingly we get to see the primal gladiatorial fetish for gore, the amoral scheming and strategizing to fashion victories or losses with “play for sport” marginalized to a mere slogan. Thus strange bedfellows like commerce and sport have succeeded in spawning a pernicious counter-culture of acquisitive, self-seeking, utterly insecure but individualistic winner-take-all professionals and not sportsmen. That this is natural in a neo-liberal world is well, quite another matter.
A combination of experience, raw and youthful skills with rare self belief had been stitched together by Ganguly to change and uproot the erstwhile shibboleths of awe and despair born out of a chronic post-colonial sense of inferiority and self- defeating complex. He eyeballed the whites in their comfort zones, while Dravid and Kumble consolidated on the gains.Later, the super-cool Dhoni bested them all to bring a rare self assurance to the team.Kohli, as a strapping U-19 Indian captain surely would have been bemused while taking notes on this transformational history. And in my understanding, it is to this no-holds-barred attitude and all conquering vision that the present “leadership conundrum” can be ascribed to and should be foregrounded.
Kohli brought his own fare of delights and devils to this steaming platter. Blooded young, he dared the Gods both with his bat and “gob”. Blessed with genius and the frightening ability to score the fastest ten thousands of runs, to stand up and fight gallantly alone when all is down with an incredible consistency Kohli seemed to pursue a death wish for the heat and risks of battle to settle for all or nothing. Always. He calls out the best, including coach Kumble for being nosy or interfering and reinstates Sashtri thumbing the sensitivities of former stalwarts. He chooses to make a team in which anyone from any part of India could be a part of. You should have only scored runs, taken wickets and be fielding crazy at first class levels. Scaringly though they could be out of it as easily for not having met expectations. Totally instinctive, chop and change on a gut feeling were logic enough. As many as over thirty players were tried. Some retained. Most dismissed.
Continued…
Sunil Banerjee
Sunil Banerjee's comments PART 2
ReplyDeleteSoccer-like the introduction of the Coach seems to have raised some hopes and controversies. The Chappell episode had made the skipper-coach relationship a serious bone of contention and for a while the discreet mentoring by the coach was the settled modus vivendi.Until the summary reinstatement of Sashtri and removal of Kumble once again resurrected the temporarily buried issues .While the manner in which it was undertaken was typical of Kohli’s authoritarian and indiscreet ways it was conceded by most that the Skipper in cricket was the final arbiter as it is he and he alone who wears the crown of thorns and roses. Ganguly smartly agreed to this primacy and was not amnesic of his own problems in the past. Sashtri was happy to be the spokesman of Kohli’s and had a more than friendly understanding with the latter to run the ship with an iron hand. Sashtri on his part has played the ardent gate-keeper to Kohli with his cricketing senses being equally aggressive and aligned to the latter’s ambitious goals. It can be argued, Sashtri’s education as against Kohli’s lack of it does not seem to have helped.Meanwhile, most of the stalwarts including Gavaskar were kept busy correcting their portfolios for conflict of interest”- what with the ominous Supreme Court arbitration.BCCI attracted public opprobrium for unseemly financial deals and the Selection Committee looked toothless with a rather inexperienced crew and leader in MSK Prasad. All of this kept the Kohli-Sashtri duo afloat by default and design: powerful when overseas and cautious I’d imagine at home..In the shorter formats Kohli had an elder brother in Dhoni who helped him to think while on the field while in Tests Kohli seemed to be on his own, stranded and making mistakes as his instincts simply were not good enough most often..Choosing a pacer more instead of a spinner, not another batsman instead of a bowler,underbowling spinners when the tracks and the game so demanded, chasing the ball rather than inventing creative field settings seemed to expose the rather mono-maniacal pre-planned strategies. The suicidal aggression, demanding outputs and overwhelming sense of dominance and self-belief mis-matched by dreadful instincts also look to have frightened and diminished talented batsman: the likes of Rahane,Pujara,Murali Vijay,Karun Nair. Smart one-liners, something like - win the toss or lose you got to win the game by playing good cricket and many such were trite at best. However, the bowlers seem to have kept the date with their captain to emerge as one of the best combinations in a long time. Also to Kohli’s credit the purposeful boot camps; the fancy Yo-Yo tests have converted India into a spirited and top class fielding unit.
Mike Brearley was unequivocal in his support for the captain as supreme leader. Coaches were for soccer or rugby.Cricket was a different ball game. Yet, he would have to concede the ghosts of Packer have come to stay and seduce the old world to include One-dayers and 20/20 as legit which have their own rationale. In that and a rapidly changing world his seminal work on “The Art of Leadership” might be found wanting when called upon to explain some or most of the vagaries or discontinuities.
As the fresh reports by the Selection Committee are trickling in of the changes and additions made to the different types of the game it is clear that there is concern and debate at appropriate levels on some or most of the issues that the author of the blog calls into question. Dhoni seems to have been found out and dropped instead of rested. Several new players are still in contention while the worried old can pause to take a welcome sigh of relief.
Sunil Banerjee's comment PART 3
ReplyDeleteIt is surely a tempestuous world where the men and not boys shall be left standing. It may be also time for the selectors to pick up the gauntlet and select different captains for the different types of the game. By doing so they would have shrewdly upstaged the authoritarian duo, brought in new thinking and fresh players at the very top and untethered bottled personalities to deserved expression of their respective talents in an open, freer, team oriented environment. And finally,Kohli does not have to go down all guns blazing ever so often and live to fight another day.
No one is bigger than the game.
Banjo,
DeleteYou cover the subject wonderfully and in great details! It’s enough to give you just a few points and the whole essay emerges out of your comments.
My main point was to highlight that the captain needs to have more than just individual brilliance. And, if he repeatedly leaves the whole team behind, we need to find a solution. An off-the-field non-playing captain is readily laughed at today. But, a day will come when there will have to be Team Director to sit outside and control young cricketers on the field.
We’ve lost a match to West Indies today despite individual brilliance of the captain. Isn’t it that we aren’t permitting no. 4, 5, 6 batsmen to flourish? The least we can do is to rotate batting order in routine games so that each one of the six batsmen gets an opportunity to have big scores behind. Your suggestion of forcing different captains for different formats is worth consideration.
We need to make amends fast, for 2019 World Cup isn’t too far away.
Is anyone listening?