Myths fallacies and home grown coaches

A while ago when The Sunday Times asked the chief selector Asantha de Mel for his comments about home grown coaches his prompt reply was “That concept does not work in this part of the world”. But, former Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunge whose cricketing knowledge and skill is no secret, disagreed with that statement. His views on the matter differed to de Mel’s. He said “When I was in the cricket committee of the SLC we mooted a plan to have a foreign coach up to the World Cup along with a Sri Lankan coach to assist him and take over after the world cup. In the meantime we also were planning to have another junior coach to understudy both of them and continue with the aim of taking over the reins someday.

“My idea of a coach is about a person who can be strong. Who can take independent decisions and a person who can not be influenced. The other main drawbacks that I see in a coach especially a foreign coach is their inability to understand our culture and their inability to communicate effectively with the players.

“However at the same time in Sri Lanka I do not think the best available sides have been picked in recent times and as a result we have been under performing. For that the selectors and the captain also take a part of the blame. When I was captaining the side I once gave my resignation as captain and walked out in protest when the selectors chose the wrong side. What I feel is that at every turn the best available side should be picked without being influenced by interested parties”.

However Musings’ probe this week is an attempt to find if the concept of having foreign coaches over the world has been a successful move or it is a myth that has failed miserably.

Just imagine! Right at this moment English cricket is similar to a lonely lamp post which stands down a street full of male dogs. They seem to be just powerless to do anything to bail themselves out from the abyss that they have plunged themselves into. But, this is not going to be a commentary on English cricket, but, an argument if a home grown English coach could easily have done as badly as beleaguered Zimbabwian Duncan Fletcher

As far the “Sunday Musings” sees this myth about foreign coaches only has provided Australia with a lucrative export with their unemployed cricketers as they have a fifty per cent share in the World’s national coaching market. However, in return they have done barely any service to those countries towards the development of the game in the countries that have employed them. However this accusation does not stop only with the Australians, but is common to almost all the foreign coaches who are handling various national cricket teams.

For instance we can take the respective coaches of the ten Test playing countries (See Graphic).

Without any hesitation any one may point out and say that the Australian team is the most successful outfit at present. Then one could arguably say that the next best in the world of cricket is the South Africa team. Ironically both teams are coached by home grown coaches who have not played the ‘big time game’until they became the respective national coaches. But, both have been successful in churning out very strong sides on a regular basis.

About a year ago the centre point in cricket both in India and Sri Lanka was that “who was going to coach whom”? Several high profile names were bartered, but ultimately it boiled down to either Greg Chappell – a man who could make his bat talk and Tom Moody who made his name by being very successful with the English county Worcestershire would take vice-versa. Even the interview panel of the two men was hot news in both countries.

However what is the present status in cricket in the two neighboring cricketing nation? Both teams are on a steady downward slide. India is in a bigger hole than Sri Lanka. Besides their series win over Sri Lanka in the early days of the Chappell reign everything has gone wrong with Indian cricket while Sri Lanka beat two hapless English and South African teams that were minus more than half their regulars. However, when it has come the real tests both teams have fallen by the wayside.

Another similarity in the two teams is the step motherly treatment that they have been dishing out to their senior players. India with the taking over of Greg Chappell out went incumbent captain Surav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid being appointed as captain. In Sri Lanka it took a little more time, but slowly but surely they made sure that the incumbent captain Marvan Atapattu was replaced by Mahela Jayawardena. The above mentioned were not the only senior casualties. In Sri Lanka first it was Sanath Jayasuriya and in India it was V.V.S.Luxman. However Sanath came back into the side and cemented it once again with a trail of good performances while in India Luxman is back in style as vice captain along with once deposed Ganguly. They are back in the side because the ‘new look paint’ that coach tried rub on the team did not stick even in the slightest rain. I can see the same fate befalling the Sri Lankan side in the near future. The divide and rule concept has done a load of damage to the two countries even in the past in all spheres of life.

Even in Pakistan and the West Indies Woolmer and Bennett King have not been able to become fully effective owing to various factors indigenous to those countries. The success rate even in these two countries is not fully convincing.

My Argument is it is the home grown that understand the ground situation best who could bring the required remedies in time. Nevertheless even if the home grown coach fails they would not be able to do worse than the highly paid foreign coaches who now rule the roost.