Are we too arrogant to ever revert to foreign coaches now ?

[rangeelaraja]

John Wright and Kirsten did well for Indian cricket. Duncan Fletcher was alright.

 

Ravi Shastri did exceptionally well in test matches. He had a ruthless approach to winning everything.

 

Dravid seems lacks that ruthless desire to win everything at all costs - and he was an average ODI player.  Good for his era, but not great. 

 

Are we too arrogant to now revert to foreign coaches ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by rangeelaraja

[bsriharsha]

We don't need a foreign coach. We can have someone who takes influences from bazball etc and then goes about it. 

 

Not that we need to imitate bazball totally. There will be cases when England come down crashing with a heavy defeat. But inculculating a bit of positiveness and taking learnings isn't a bad thing to do as a coach. McCullum wasn't a coach of renown before he got the England job. 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

.... or too arrogant to hire good Indian coaches just because they were not superstar cricketers.  Someone like Chandrakant Pandit comes to mind.  Until there is a change of mindset and they learn to decouple high-level cricketing success from coaching acumen, this will go on. 

 

On a related note, what is the over/under on the number of replies before someone brings up the supposed genius of the great Greg Chappell?

 

 

[Lord]

not arrogance, its about scratching each other's backs now.

 

 

Performances and fans don't matter to BCCI anymore. 

[wanted_desi]

I wonder what Greg Chappell would have done to Pujara, KL and Kohli. They would be having therapy sessions. 

[rangeelaraja]

51 minutes ago, bsriharsha said:

We don't need a foreign coach. We can have someone who takes influences from bazball etc and then goes about it. 

 

Not that we need to imitate bazball totally. There will be cases when England come down crashing with a heavy defeat. But inculculating a bit of positiveness and taking learnings isn't a bad thing to do as a coach. McCullum wasn't a coach of renown before he got the England job. 

 

 

 

Bazball  will work till Anderson and Broad are playing. They have found a player like Harry Brooks in form, so it is looking all good.

 

Let me ask you, would Bazball work for England if their top order was out of form ? 

 

Our top order has been out of form for over 2 years - and here we are in the finals of WTC and kicking ass.

 

We don't need foreign coaches for things like Baz ball.  We need them to develop and condition players to bring out peak level performances that are sustainable  and deliver in clutch situations.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by rangeelaraja

[bsriharsha]

8 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

Let me ask you, would Bazball work for England if their top order was out of form ? 

 

Bazball is a sort of a majboori for them because they have realised that they don't have batsmen to defend the good balls and play traditional route test cricket. 

[sandeep]

I think this thread is a classic example of how much a coach's influence on a team is overrated.  

 

A coach has value to a cricket team to the extent that if there are specific type of issues that the team needs to address and move past, and if that particular coach has a style and a skillset to address those, then it will show results.  Whether its a John Wright or a Gary Kirsten bringing in a steady focused discipline to the team, or a Ravi Shastri leading a young test unit to play attacking test cricket with the ball, giving the team the confidence and positivity it needs.  

 

So coach selection is more about matching the team's current state, desired future state, with the coach's personal leadership style and 'philosophy' of the sport - not to forget the importance of the working relationship with the captain.  Because in cricket, a coach doesn't 'own' the team - he shares it with the captain. For all the brilliant early success of 'bazball' that England is enjoying under McCullum - I do not believe that these results would have come if Coach BMac was running the team with Skipper Joe Root.  And the BMac example is a very good instance of a team (England) playing under a certain straitjacket for almost decades, needing to evolve past its methods, trying to leverage the available talent in an optimal way.   

 

On the question of "foreign" coaches, call me 'nationalistic' or whatever, but I firmly believe that Indian cricket is mature enough to supply enough options for hiring coaches with enough variety of skillsets, to find the right fit.  You go beyond the borders if you can't find what is deemed necessary.  There may be a time and a place for it, but I don't think its a pure meritocracy thing - I don't want a future competitor to have 24/7 access to the elite talent of Indian cricket for a few years, so that they have that intel going forward.  And no, a 6 or 8 week stint at an IPL team is not the same.  Its a trade off and giveaway at the end of the day, howsoever minor.  Not that I'm not open to paying that cost, if in return the team is gaining something tangible.  

 

But in my view, there really isn't some freakish outlier of a coach out there, Indian or non-Indian, who can wave a magic wand and make this Indian team better.  Majority of the challenges and shortcomings of this Indian cricket unit are systemic, structural, and largely self-inflicted.  And the possible solutions for these issues, are well within reach of execution by coaches from within Indian cricket's deep and varied well of talent.  Both on and off the field.  There's no reason for a 'white knight' to come riding in from across the seas - and I use that term not in a color sense, but strictly in its metaphorical meaning.

[sandeep]

14 minutes ago, wanted_desi said:

I wonder what Greg Chappell would have done to Pujara, KL and Kohli. They would be having therapy sessions. 

That asshole played favorites and politics on a order of magnitude worse than BCCI babus - he did have cricket knowledge at a high level, but it was his political focus that ruined his tenure and led to sub-optimal outcomes for 'guru greg' and the Indian team.

[BacktoCricaddict]

15 minutes ago, wanted_desi said:

They Chappell would be having therapy much-needed anger management sessions. 

 

[sandeep]

56 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

.... or too arrogant to hire good Indian coaches just because they were not superstar cricketers.  Someone like Chandrakant Pandit comes to mind.  Until there is a change of mindset and they learn to decouple high-level cricketing success from coaching acumen, this will go on. 

 

On a related note, what is the over/under on the number of replies before someone brings up the supposed genius of the great Greg Chappell?

 

 

I don't believe someone like Pandit would fit the needs of the Indian national team - he's a taskmaster style of coach - a desi Justin Langer if you will - this style will yield results in Ranji but not in top shelf cricket.  

 

India doesn't need Justin Langers - it needs more of the Gary Kirstens and John Wrights - dedicated focused individuals who can stay above the fray, keep the discipline, and iteratively address the minor issues that crop up.  The biggest challenge for Indian coaches on this front is to not get sucked into the fray - that's one thing that is potentially "easier" to execute for non-Indian coaches.  But then again, they come with their own set of cons as well. 

[sandeep]

@rangeelaraja a polite request for you - Please try to limit thread titles to fewer words, not too difficult if you just attempt it.  

[rangeelaraja]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

So coach selection is more about matching the team's current state, desired future state, with the coach's personal leadership style and 'philosophy' of the sport - not to forget the importance of the working relationship with the captain.  Because in cricket, a coach doesn't 'own' the team - he shares it with the captain. For all the brilliant early success of 'bazball' that England is enjoying under McCullum - I do not believe that these results would have come if Coach BMac was running the team with Skipper Joe Root.  And the BMac example is a very good instance of a team (England) playing under a certain straitjacket for almost decades, needing to evolve past its methods, trying to leverage the available talent in an optimal way.   

 

On the question of "foreign" coaches, call me 'nationalistic' or whatever, but I firmly believe that Indian cricket is mature enough to supply enough options for hiring coaches with enough variety of skillsets, to find the right fit.  You go beyond the borders if you can't find what is deemed necessary.  There may be a time and a place for it, but I don't think its a pure meritocracy thing - I don't want a future competitor to have 24/7 access to the elite talent of Indian cricket for a few years, so that they have that intel going forward.  And no, a 6 or 8 week stint at an IPL team is not the same.  Its a trade off and giveaway at the end of the day, howsoever minor.  Not that I'm not open to paying that cost, if in return the team is gaining something tangible.  

 

 

 

 

Good points, and I might contradicting my chosen title for this thread - but I think the problem is not our maturity but our complex.

 

If a talented & dynamic Indian coach came up with something like " Bazball " ,  unless that coach was a big name, it would be difficult to get acceptance.

 

But if a " foreign " coach advocated the same thing - it would likely be lapped up and lauded.

 

On one end, we feel we are " mature " enough to provide the requisite coaching staff through our home resources, at the same time, we would not respect out of the box ideas from them that may help drive Indian cricket forward.

 

 

 

 

[Vijy]

there are potentially good coaches, for various kinds. pandit for batting; arun for bowling; head coach needs to be more of man-manager. pandit is known to slap people around (figuratively), and that's not a good approach for int'ls

[Lord]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

I think this thread is a classic example of how much a coach's influence on a team is overrated.  

 

A coach has value to a cricket team to the extent that if there are specific type of issues that the team needs to address and move past, and if that particular coach has a style and a skillset to address those, then it will show results.  Whether its a John Wright or a Gary Kirsten bringing in a steady focused discipline to the team, or a Ravi Shastri leading a young test unit to play attacking test cricket with the ball, giving the team the confidence and positivity it needs.  

 

So coach selection is more about matching the team's current state, desired future state, with the coach's personal leadership style and 'philosophy' of the sport - not to forget the importance of the working relationship with the captain.  Because in cricket, a coach doesn't 'own' the team - he shares it with the captain. For all the brilliant early success of 'bazball' that England is enjoying under McCullum - I do not believe that these results would have come if Coach BMac was running the team with Skipper Joe Root.  And the BMac example is a very good instance of a team (England) playing under a certain straitjacket for almost decades, needing to evolve past its methods, trying to leverage the available talent in an optimal way.   

 

On the question of "foreign" coaches, call me 'nationalistic' or whatever, but I firmly believe that Indian cricket is mature enough to supply enough options for hiring coaches with enough variety of skillsets, to find the right fit.  You go beyond the borders if you can't find what is deemed necessary.  There may be a time and a place for it, but I don't think its a pure meritocracy thing - I don't want a future competitor to have 24/7 access to the elite talent of Indian cricket for a few years, so that they have that intel going forward.  And no, a 6 or 8 week stint at an IPL team is not the same.  Its a trade off and giveaway at the end of the day, howsoever minor.  Not that I'm not open to paying that cost, if in return the team is gaining something tangible.  

 

But in my view, there really isn't some freakish outlier of a coach out there, Indian or non-Indian, who can wave a magic wand and make this Indian team better.  Majority of the challenges and shortcomings of this Indian cricket unit are systemic, structural, and largely self-inflicted.  And the possible solutions for these issues, are well within reach of execution by coaches from within Indian cricket's deep and varied well of talent.  Both on and off the field.  There's no reason for a 'white knight' to come riding in from across the seas - and I use that term not in a color sense, but strictly in its metaphorical meaning.

 

Good posts.

 

Expanding on that, Dravid's main role perhaps is to facilitate the transition and he's done some of that in Tests already. 

 

Foreign coach perhaps will care less about stardom of players but that comes with its own consequences.

[tapandrun]

Donot think any foreign /domestic coach can do anything at this point. The problem runs deeps.

 

Domestic batters and team are still playing cricket of 90s, there is no innovation, not a single team is playing modern cricket. 

And to top it up is weird selections and Ind superstar crkter are living in some kind of delusion, have no accountability.

 

Before 2019 wc all the wins came if top3 batters scored and there was no plan with no. 4-7 batters.

Fitness and fielding is all time low. Longer ropes giving to certain player. They lack in confidence to play and win big matches. And their top game is not too far better than their regular game.

 

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Good posts.

 

Expanding on that, Dravid's main role perhaps is to facilitate the transition and he's done some of that in Tests already. 

 

Foreign coach perhaps will care less about stardom of players but that comes with its own consequences.

done nowhere enough. kela, rohit, poojari, brat still playing.

[Lord]

Just now, Vijy said:

done nowhere enough. kela, rohit, poojari, brat still playing.

Rahane,Ishant,Saha gone. Thats good start.

 

Kohli is too big. Pujara was dropped but conned his way back. His days are numbered too.

 

Rahul is seen as not so senior though might be dropped on form anyway.

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

Rahane,Ishant,Saha gone. Thats good start.

 

Kohli is too big. Pujara was dropped but conned his way back. His days are numbered too.

 

Rahul is seen as not so senior though might be dropped on form anyway.

Saha was irregular even pre-dravid. only 2 gone are rahane and ishant, and both might make a comeback along with dhawan

[rkt.india]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

That asshole played favorites and politics on a order of magnitude worse than BCCI babus - he did have cricket knowledge at a high level, but it was his political focus that ruined his tenure and led to sub-optimal outcomes for 'guru greg' and the Indian team.

What favorites or politics in an Indian set up.