Ram Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 We have plenty of fatherly figures to accompany the team, heck even grandfatherly figures.... look no further than Borde.... selection is left to selectors and captain.... in the oz team also, the selection of the final 11 is determined by the selectors... the coach has no role...in terms of strategy, a bowling coach is paid to work out the bowling strategy and the batting consultant should help prepare for difficult conditions - read tour to oz or such... the overall game strategy has always been and will be always be with the Captain... Being a Fatherly figure is just ONE of the roles that a coach should play. Unfortunately , grandpas like Borde can play ONLY that role. And its surprising to see you claim that coaches have no role in strategy. EVERY match strategy will surely be prepared by the coach and captain together , with inputs from players. Remember how Gavaskar question Whatmore acumen because B'desh opted to field first on a flat track. That obv means only one thing - The coach does have a MAJOR role in match strategy. What else is there for ? Greggie tried all the complicated psychoanalysis shyte on our village bumpkins and came up a cropper.... simply put, our guys come from rural areas with just high school education and they dont understand management lectures.... they get confused and dont play by their instinct.... careers derailed - Pathan, Sehwag, Bajji, amost Zak, almost Sachin.... Whenever anybody talks about Greg Chappell's india tenure , the common refrain will always be the rifts within the team and the world cup disaster. It is under the same chappell , that we were almost unbeatable in late 2005/early 2006. One shoudnt forget that. India's failure in the last section of chappell's tenure isnt his fault. Players lost form , lost senses. Chaos followed. even if the head coach does it, it will result in a national bandh.... media will pour hot lead on him till he resigns and runs... I am pretty sure the coach has a say in selection issues. You are free to prove the contrary to me. Again aussie system works best for aussies and you are yet to name a subcontinental coach as an example... no Whatmore please... myself and many including Ranatunga give credit to him for the SL's WC victory..... Whatmore is yet to stop Bangles from losing in tests after so many years.... zimboks by contrast had more creditable performances in the same amount of time without such a high profile coach... Some of our best years were under Wright , who was a foreign coach. And Zimbooks performance during those years should be more attributed to the fact that they had some really good players then. u r talking 2 different sports here.... In cricket, the captain is the BOSS... if he isnt, then they are not playing cricket... Not just in football. Duncan Fletcher literally had a veto in the selection of the english team. This was common knowledge. Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Whenever anybody talks about Greg Chappell's india tenure , the common refrain will always be the rifts within the team and the world cup disaster. It is under the same chappell , that we were almost unbeatable in late 2005/early 2006. One shoudnt forget that. India's failure in the last section of chappell's tenure isnt his fault. Players lost form , lost senses. Chaos followed. but isnt it common knowledge tht players like Pathan, Sehwag, Bajji, Raina were lost to Greggie's processes.... i am not disputing the validity of those processes.. but i know for certain, it interfered with their instinctive style of play... Quote: Originally Posted by gator Again aussie system works best for aussies and you are yet to name a subcontinental coach as an example... no Whatmore please... myself and many including Ranatunga give credit to him for the SL's WC victory..... Whatmore is yet to stop Bangles from losing in tests after so many years.... zimboks by contrast had more creditable performances in the same amount of time without such a high profile coach... Some of our best years were under Wright , who was a foreign coach. And Zimbooks performance during those years should be more attributed to the fact that they had some really good players then. it is disputable.. many would argue tht the success was because of Ganguly... secondly, there is nothing to prove tht the combo of Venky and Robin wouldnt be able to match Wright's efficiency.... If you attribute Zimbok's superior performance over Bangladesh in the same infancy stages in test cricket to better players, then does it not prove tht a coach matters less and players matter more... Link to comment
Ram Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 but isnt it common knowledge tht players like Pathan, Sehwag, Bajji, Raina were lost to Greggie's processes.... i am not disputing the validity of those processes.. but i know for certain, it interfered with their instinctive style of play... Actually Irfan's intial rise was under Chappell ( from 2004-2005). Remember , people where showering heaps of praise on chappell for making irfan play at no.3. And Yuvraj became this powerful match-winner under Chappell too. So , how do you counter this ? And Raina certainly wasnt lost. That kid just didnt make use of his chances. it is disputable.. many would argue tht the success was because of Ganguly... secondly, there is nothing to prove tht the combo of Venky and Robin wouldnt be able to match Wright's efficiency.... Ganguly became captain in 1999. India started making some real progress after 2000, which was when Wright was appointed coach. Besides , the coach should be someone more than just effecient. He should be a planner, a visionary. If you attribute Zimbok's superior performance over Bangladesh in the same infancy stages in test cricket to better players, then does it not prove tht a coach matters less and players matter more... Abs ! Its the players who go out and perform. But a good coach can go a loooong way in helping them to do that. Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Maris, the fearsome Windies teams of the 70s and 80s didnt need no Master-strategist Coach.... LLoyd and Richards were strong captains and were successful.... only the Aussies hype the role of the coach so much... even recntly, Warnie mentioned tht there was no need for a coach.... Link to comment
beetle Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why do we say we don't have a coach? Earlier we had only one ...now we have two. We needed bowling and fielding coaches more than a batting coach. Is it because of the batting bias in cricket? Link to comment
CC1981 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 even recntly, Warnie mentioned tht there was no need for a coach.... Quoting someone who has a penchant for dumb and rash statements to the media is not the smartest way of bolstering your case. Besides, Warney might not need a coach but Indian cricketers do- if we don't have a coach, half the team is gonna sit around and get fat. Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Besides, Warney might not need a coach but Indian cricketers do- if we don't have a coach, half the team is gonna sit around and get fat. wen u have time away from googling about aussie team, u will notice tht the indian team has not one, but two coaches..... Link to comment
CC1981 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 wen u have time away from googling about aussie team' date=' u will notice tht the indian team has not one, but two coaches.....[/quote'] Erm so what ? When you have time to learn some English, you'd realize that my comment was in direct response to your's. Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Quote: Originally Posted by gator wen u have time away from googling about aussie team, u will notice tht the indian team has not one, but two coaches..... Erm so what ? When you have time to learn some English, you'd realize that my comment was in direct response to your's. open a separate thread for english knowledge...... we r discussing cricket here, not ur cuppa tea... Link to comment
CC1981 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 open a separate thread for english knowledge...... we r discussing cricket here, not ur cuppa tea... But we are discussing cricket in English- which is obviously not yor cuppa tea. If you fail the basic test of comprehension, you don't belong here till you can comprehend. Is that in any way not clear ? Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 But we are discussing cricket in English but u r discussing english in cricket forum, :hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment
CC1981 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 but u r discussing english in cricket forum' date=' :hysterical::hysterical:[/quote'] No, i am discussing IN English- something that *you* do not comprehend very well, as evidenced by your repeated gaffe over the kumble = 125kph comments. If you arnt competent in the language of discussion, your knowledge is irrelevant- what you cant express is not admissible in a non-telepathic society! :haha::haha: Link to comment
Donny Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 u r ?? Looks like a mobile phone to me. :wink_smile: Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 No, i am discussing IN English- something that *you* do not comprehend very well, nit-picking grammar, language.... classic defence posture of a loser in an argument.... Link to comment
CC1981 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 nit-picking grammar' date=' language.... classic defence posture of a loser in an argument....[/quote'] Nitpicking ? LOL. When you completely fail to understand a sentence and think that the comment 'replace 125kph with spin and you get Kumble' means 'Kumble bowled at 125kph', that aint nitpicking, that is underlining your basic failure in comprehending a rather basic English statement. If i were to nitpick on grammar, i'd be up people's asses about punctuation. Which i never do and i dare ya to show otherwise! You are using the 'nitpicking' shield to hide behind and cover your ineptitude in comprehending basic sentences, leading to critical misunderstandings. Thats the bottomline. Link to comment
gator Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 If i were to nitpick on grammar, i'd be up people's asses about punctuation. Which i never do and i dare ya to show otherwise! i have observed, u do... u r still trying hard to cover one of ur several bloopers in ur other thread..... Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Why the fook are we even passing verdict on KW's suitability for the job ? none of us here are even remotely qualified to judge his coaching skills' date=' so speaking on whether he is or isnt a sutaible candidate is nothing more than faltu bakwaas from people [b']who gotto have an opinion even when knowledge is lacking. :tounge_smile: Link to comment
Ram Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Maris' date=' the fearsome Windies teams of the 70s and 80s didnt need no Master-strategist Coach.... LLoyd and Richards were strong captains and were successful.... only the Aussies hype the role of the coach so much... even recntly, Warnie mentioned tht there was no need for a coach....[/quote'] If you can give one or two examples of teams performing well without having a good coach , then i can give you a dozen examples of teams performing well because the coach had a huge role to play. My basic point is , we need someone to groom the team , lay down the vision. I dont think either Prasad or Robin are capable of that. Link to comment
Predator_05 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Great teams capable of playing eleven top class players every match don't need coaches (although it doesn't hurt). Average, underachieving teams (eg; India) on the other hand, definitely do. Link to comment
Ram Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Great teams capable of playing eleven top class players every match don't need coaches (although it doesn't hurt). Average, underachieving teams (eg; India) on the other hand, definitely do. Predator , the analogy may not suit , but isnt the coach considered as GOD in a football team ? How can any professional team do without a full time coach ? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now