CRICKET is an integral part of every Indian's life- there are those of us for whom it is the most sacred thing on earth, there are those who worship cricketers like gods when they win, and curse them like devils when they lose. There are those who drift in and out of this obsession depending on the nature of the match or tournament; those who couldn't care less but would like to make that known to the intoxicated masses, and last but not the least, those who simply loathe the game (or rather the fever that grips the country as a result of the game) and believe that it brings down the nation's productivity.
In any case, it touches every Indian in some form or another. And now, the time has come after Mr.Chappell's less than pretty exit, to choose another man to coach the men in blue. Names have been flying all over the place, and with each name there is associated a complex theory explaining why he is the right choice. But one of the hotter debates is over whether we should hire a firang coach or a desi. The current wave seems to suggest a slight preference for an Indian coach (I read Jimmy Amarnath and Ajit Wadekar said so), and like all true fans, I have my own views on this which I shall now freely air with pleasure.
There is no doubt that Greg Chappell did not achieve as much as he was expected to. We did crush England, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan in successive ODI series about an year and a half ago, but we also did go down in flames against a less than reputed West Indies team. We won our first series in the carribean in four(?) decades but the test performances against England and Pakistan were scratchy. Add to that the World Cup debacle and we have a tenure that would best be described as stop-start-stop.
I still think Mr.Chappell (and Captain Dravid for that matter) had the right ideas. "Experimentation" to have a wide range of young players game tested and ready for a challenge at any position in the batting order/ bowling attack is the best way to build a winning ODI team. The emphasis on a long term goal and building up a team towards it- yes, I am referring to the now infamous WC 2007- is a good approach. However, Mr.Chappell failed on two counts- firstly, he was unable to fix the inability to overcome the classical phenomenon observed in Indian cricket- tigers at home, kittens/bunnies abroad. Our worst failures still kept coming in alien conditions- I consider the WI tour overall to be a failure even though we won the tests, because based on caliber, experience and past form, we were the favourites going into both ODIs and test, even as tourists- and playing with authority in completely different conditions is something we have to learn in order to become a force to reckon with. Mr.Chappell also did not seem to win the support of every player all the time. There was always one fragile relationship waiting to break, be it Sourav Ganguly at the beginning or SachinTenulkar at the end.
Which brings us to the point: are foreign coaches not suited to coaching us because they "don't understand" us or are "culturally different"? It is a tricky question and I don't have the answer- but it is easy to see what they do bring with them, and given what they bring we must weigh out the pros and cons.
Fielding, Fielding, Fielding: that is the one mantra to success these days, especially in ODI cricket. Fielding standards outside the subcontinent are much higher than within it. Foreign coaches are in a much better position to make Team India a good fielding side, and we certainly have seen (maybe not with great consistency, but it is true nonetheless) fielding standards improve under John Wright and Greg Chappell.
Discipline, Discipline, Discipline: before John Wright came in, the team actually used to have chairs at practice sessions and some nice chai aur biskut to go with the afternoon. Sounds good, but doesn't sound like a WC winning team. The first change John Wright made was to get rid of the frills. I dont see a candidate among the Indian coaches who can put his foot down and establish a no-nonsense ethic like either of Mr.Wright or Mr.Chappell.
Kill, Kill, Kill: speaking of cultural differences, here is one that I have observed. A Kiwi or an Aussie certainly would run the last mile more aggressively than we would. Indian cricket has always been plagued by the "so close, yet so far" syndrome, where we lose more close games than we win. A foreign coach would help build some killer instinct in our men.
Where did it break down then? I suppose Greg Chappell was too authoritarian for our players. It looks like Indian cricketers like to have a little bit of their own territory and a complete control over a bit of their territory. They don't like to be told harshly what to do, and it looks like they seldom like to be questioned. This was precisely Sachin's problem a couple of months ago. He didn't understand how he was being "questioned" after years of service to Indian Cricket. Two analogies that come to mind are a) Little Children b) People looking to establish mini-circles of power in a joint family :).
What do we need then? We need either an Indian coach who inherently has the ability to tackle these problems, and has technical expertise along with a work ethic comparable to the best in the world, or, a foreign coach who brings with him technical expertise but with a softer personality- who doesn't have the same dictator-like image that Mr.Chappell had, that eventually led to disharmony.
Given the current crop in the country, I would say we don't close our minds to the latter option based blindly on the Chappell Regime. Even treating his whole tenure as a failure (which would be stretching criticism), it's 1-1 as far as foreign coaches go.
Otherwise, I shall be playing a lot more football.
