Lovely round-table : Role of coaches in modern cricket.

[gator]

It is very interesting to read from a current player who is extremely articulate like Sangakara and a former coach - David lloyd.... Sanjay has been doing a good job with these round-table discussions.... a nice read.... ______________________________________________________________ Sanjay Manjrekar: Post World Cup 2007 and it's the cricket coaches who have been in the news - Greg Chappell, John Buchanan, Tom Moody, Duncan Fletcher and Dav Whatmore have all announced their intentions to take on different challenges. Countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all hunting for a new coach, so perhaps it is the perfect time to discuss the role of the cricket coach in today's scenario. Over the years, what people look for in a coach and what a team looks for in a coach has become different - it has become a more specialised role © Cricinfo Ltd. Personally, I do believe that a cricket coach's role especially in the result of the game is vastly exaggerated today. But to get some thoughts, and maybe evencontrary thoughts on the issue, I have two distinguished gentlemen with me - David Lloyd, who coached England from 1996 to 1999, and Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara, one of the leading wicketkeeper-batsmen in the world. Gentlemen, what are your thoughts on the role of a cricket coach in today's cricket. David, if we can start with you? David Lloyd: Well, I think it has got far too much importance over the years - I think there is too much emphasis being placed on the coach. I will talk about it from an England perspective - England's coach doesn't actually pick the team, he doesn't set the field and he doesn't change the bowling; but there is so much pressure put on that guy as if he is number one - like an Alex Ferguson, in Premier League, or an Arsene Wenger - which isn't the case in cricket. SM: I am in perfect harmony with David Lloyd on that, but let's get the views of contemporary modern-day cricketer on that. Kumar? Kumar Sangakkara: I think there is a difference between what the public and the media see as the role of the coach and what players perceive . The modern-day coach is not as involved as David says - in selecting the teams or anything like that - but that's what the media and the public portray it as. I think the team is more aware of the role of the coach - in man-management, in forming basic strategies and in [establishing] processes that lead to, maybe, a better performance by the team. But finally, the end result always lies in the ability and the performance of the team on that particular day. SM: Kumar, do you think that in the last ten years the role of coaches and their contribution to the team has increased, or, there hasn't been much change but it's just the perception that has changed. KM: I think, over the years, what people look for in a coach and what a team looks for in a coach has become different - it has become a more specialised role . And when you [are referring to the] coach of a national side, he doesn't actually come out there and coach you in batting, fielding or bowling because for that you have specialised coaches. Basically, what the main head coach does is to get a system going for the benefit of the team. So I would say, that even if the best coach can make a five percent difference to the team, maybe that five percent, in the long run, could mean the difference between winning and losing. DL: The captain, for me, is in charge of the team. And in this day of technology you can feed the the captain a lot of information -we can now pick on any individual and look at the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. Now while the captain may not be able to do all that [on the field]; the coach and his staff can say, 'Hey this guy gets out at cover point so many times - he gets out in that area, in that region.' So the coach can give that information and I am absolutely with Kumar there, in that you are looking for that extra five percent [ value addition]. SM: David, during your tenure as England's coach, where did you think you really contributed? Give us a very honest answer as to where you felt that you made a difference. DL: Well, I supported the captain. The captain was first Michael Atherton and then it was Alec Stewart. My belief was very firm - I was there to assist them. They were the bosses, they were in charge of the team and we [the coaching staff] could look at the individual players in the opposition and also organise our own team in things like fielding drills - all this sounds basic now, but at that time [when I was coach] England didn't have these systems in place. So we had to organise the team - get them out of county cricket into international cricket and get the team together. If the coach can make a five percent difference to the team, maybe that five percent, in the long run, could mean the difference between winning and losing However, since then, things have changed so much - certainly in England. Central contracts have come in and it is the coach and the manager who manage the players now. In the past and certainly in my time it was the players who managed me. They would say,'Oh no I can't do that, I'm not doing that.' In fact one of them and an international cricketer at that, said ,'I can't come for practice, I am going to buy a new car.' SM: (laughs) Right, gentlemen, there are two very famous Australian cricketers, Shane Warne and Ian Chappell, who have gone on record saying that there is absolutely no need for a coach - the team can do fine without one. Would that seem outdated today? Kumar do you believe that any team would think that they didn't require the services of a coach and that the captain and the players could take care of themselves with just a manager looking over them? KS: It depends on what you call that manager. You can call that manager a 'coach', you can call him a 'manager', you can call him the 'Director of Cricket'. You can give whatever name you want to that particular person who oversees the team, who are on their own without a so-called coach and he could probably play the same role that modern-day cricket looks for in a coach. He identifies processes, facilitates practice and organises certain things for the team that sets in motion their path towards better performances and victories. I think, in modern-day cricket you can sometimes get tunnel-visioned. You are out in the middle, surrounded by the crowd and you are under pressure to perform and win. And sometimes what you see out there in the middle - your perceptions - are totally different from what someone looking in from the outside can have. So maybe that little percentage that is contributed by that particular person sitting on the sidelines - who has been involved with the team in making strategies, in the make-up of the winning process - might make a worthy contribution towards the result of the game. So whatever name you want to give to that person, it's basically referring to the role of the modern-day coach. It [the role of the modern day coach] is not going to be as exaggerated as it was in the past - it might be a completely different role, or different name that the person is identified with - but he will essentially perform a similar role.

[gator]

contd........ SM: Do you gentlemen believe in giving more powers to the coach? If he is going to get so much importance - there is so much of talk about who is going to be the next coach - it makes him a very important member of the team. So do you think he could be given more powers? In India the coach doesn't have much of a say in the selection committee meetings - basically the players know that when it comes to picking players he has absolutely no power. So his contribution is limited because of the limited powers that he possess. David do you think that there should be more authority given to the coach? DL: I'll be very radical here and I'm interested to hear what Kumar thinks on what I have to say. I think that the selection process should be similar to that of an English Premier League soccer team's. A manager picks the team and he has the coaching staff who work under him. I mentioned Ferguson, Wenger and [Jose] Mourinho - they pick the team. Everybody in Sri Lanka, India and England know that it is that man is responsible for the selection of the players, and undern him is the coaching staff who works with the players and I am talking about elite international players here. I have had the privilege, at the county level, to work with one of the greatest we have seen- - Wasim Akram. I did not show him how to bat or ball but I created an environment in which he could play to the best of his ability, and I think that is what the coach's role should be. From an English perspective there meetings involving the main selector and the selectors under him. I [as a coach] have sat in meetings where there are five people around the table [talking about a particular player] and it comes to split decision - three want him in and two don't. I think that is absolute nonsense. There should be one person who selects the team, but the team itself should be governed and run by the captain. SM: Kumar, your thoughts on this? KS: I am very much with David on that point. I think the role of the selection committee should be to put down the best names available based on performance for the perusal of the coach and the captain who should ultimately have full authority to select the final playing squad. I don't think the selection committee, as David said, should sit around discussing this and that and then finally passing the buck to the coach and the captain, who ultimately take full responsibility for the performance of the team. I think they [the selection committee] should facilitate better approaches by which the coach and the captain can finally select the 15-man squad or the playing XI. SM: Australia, in fact, has deliberately stayed away from this process [wherein the coach is a selector] because they believe that this creates a certain amount of distrust or fear of the coach [ amongst the players]. So he stays out of the selection meetings and just tries to get the best out of the 14 that is given to him. So do you think that it is the better way forward? DL: Sanjay, they [Australia] also have one of their selectors with the team all the time. And what I gather is that it is that man - the main selector - who is the boss. I went to a lot of press conferences last winter during the Ashes series when Shane Watson did not play and Australia brought Andrew Symonds in. All our press - and you know what our press is like; they are like a pack of animals at times - got into Ricky Ponting asking him what he thought about the selection of Andrew Symonds and he just caught them dead by saying, 'You're talking to the wrong guy. I am the captain. You need to speak to the chairman of selectors.' So I think Australia is on the right path- their selector is a very important man and he gives the team to the captain and the coach, as Kumar said. The role of the selection committee should be to put down the best names available based on performance for the perusal of the coach and the captain who should ultimately have full authority to select the final playing squad SM: Gentlemen, here's another thought. You have players like Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne or Kumar Sangakkara, who come up to a certain level because of the kind of ability that they have. How much can they be coached by a coach? For example, Tendulkar has been batting in a certain fashion which has not really got the best out of him in the last three or four years, but no coach has been able to come in and change that or make a difference. Kumar, in the last five or six years you have transformed into this world-class player - do you think a coach has really helped you to get to the next level? Or has all the hard work been done by that poor guy at the grassroots level who has made Kumar Sangakkara what he is today ? KS: (Laughs) I think it's a continuous process. You graduate from level to level and finally come to the international level. And I think, David hit the nail on the head when he said that he created the right environment for each player to give his best, or atleast gave him the opportunity to be the best that he could be. And I think that is exactly what the modern-day coach should do. I found that my game really improved in the two years that Tom [Moody] and Trevor Penny were with us [sri Lanka] because of the way they facilitated things by giving me everything I needed to perform at my best. And also, I think little pointers that the coach can give - maybe an individual game plan, maybe an individual game strategy and maybe spending a bit more time at the wicket - things that you do not think about when you are concentrating only on having the right shape on the drive and hitting 200 shots a day and getting the right feel in the nets - can make a difference. As a player you tend to miss out certain aspects of your game which should ideally become a habit when you go out and bat. Over the years, these little things can take a back seat in your mind because you are concentrating on just hitting the ball and you tend to ignore certain aspects of the game that are vital to you. The coach can identify these things very quickly and point it out to you - tiny things that perhaps can make you a much much better player. DL: It is important to create an environment that the players are happy in, and I have no doubt that under Tom and Trevor Penny the Sri Lankans were a happy team. They have got great players and you are lucky as a coach to have such a team. I am sure that all the coaches that I known understand that if they can give the team five percent, it could be that five percent gets them better than the opposition. I think it is as simple as that. SM: This brings us to the end of the first part of the Cricinfo Round Table. In the second part we will get into the specifics of coaching of coaches with David Lloyd and Kumar Sangakkara. Till then it's goodbye. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/296930.html?view=transcript

[gator]

i will have to agree with Sanga here... a coach makes a difference of more or less 5%... if u split the remaining 95% among the 11 players, it is around 8.5% per player... which is not true, but not bad for calculation... so in essence, the value of a coach is less than the value of even one player in the team..... this is why, selection is so important.... whether u hire a chappell, wright or whatmore, if u have a retard like Vengsarkar as the selection chairman, indian cricket can go only one way, which is backwards....

[dial_100]

haha..:hysterical::hysterical:

[Predator_05]

Yep, the coach is only one cog in the machine. If the other cogs aren't functioning, then the coach won't make any noticeable difference. In India's case, the useless cogs are definitely the panel of selectors (among others...). That position should become a paid one, and the selection by zone system needs to be scrapped ASAP. A coach like Chappell didn't even want the team he was given at the World Cup, and what does that do for the atmosphere within the camp ? Coaches are meant to create an environment for players to succeed, but if their hands are tied behind their backs and they lack input when it comes to pivotal decisions than they will fail to do that job to the best of their ability.