Sambit Bal
Feeds
| Archives
Feeds
| Archives
Editor, ESPNcricinfo
|
How many captains to change a lightbulb?
John Buchanan's idea of more than one man at the top did not come out of nowhere, but it has the odds stacked against it
March 30, 2009
|
|||
|
Related Links
News : Shah Rukh Khan lashes back at Gavaskar
News : Kolkata to have one captain and many 'strategists' News : Kolkata to announce captain and squad in South Africa News : Sangakkara open to 'maverick idea' News : Ganguly knew about multiple-captain theory - Buchanan News : Ganguly not fully convinced by Buchanan theory Analysis : One man's instinct, or a vote? News : 'It has to be one leader always' - Arthur News : Kolkata to have multiple captains Players/Officials:
John Buchanan
| Sourav Ganguly
Series/Tournaments:
Indian Premier League
Teams:
India
|
|||
Even by his own left-field standards, the concept of multiple captains leading by turns must rank as the most radical, and outrageous, idea John Buchanan has unleashed on cricket. His previous such notable one - the idea of training cricketers to be ambidextrous - never had the opportunity to take off because it relied on the willingness and ability of others; but this is a more implementable idea, and it is reasonable to assume that Buchanan has the support of his employer, Shah Rukh Khan. If nothing, Buchanan wins points for having the nerve to put his job and reputation on the line for an idea he believes in. He must be a brave man, too, to try it out with Kolkata Knight Riders.
There is a cynical way to look at it: as a clever ploy to ease out Sourav Ganguly, who in every way answers to the description of icon in the Knight Riders team. However, all the passion he generates in his hometown cannot hide the effects of advancing years and slowing reflexes. He is 37, no longer plays competitive cricket in any other form, and even at the best of times was never a fan of fitness routines. He has no particular love for this form of cricket, and he would not be the first man on the sheet for a Twenty20 team at most levels. It was his emotional hold over Kolkata that made him such a compelling proposition for the franchise.
This year there will be no matches at Eden Gardens. So crowd attendance, and consequently Ganguly's drawing power, aren't as big factors. He has one year left in his contract, but he will be 38 next year. If you want his loyal constituency to get used to the idea of life without him, South Africa presents the perfect opportunity.
But to think that Buchanan would conjure up plan so radical - and so outlandish - and risk his own reputation just to get rid of Ganguly would be stretching it. Yes, Ganguly's situation will have made it easier for Buchanan, but it is implausible that it is the reason.
So then, what's behind it? Why would he want to mess around with one of cricket's strongest and most sacrosanct institutions, and risk personal ridicule in the process? Opinion is divided in cricket circles about Buchanan's maverick ideas, but he is known as a man of method, not of whims.
He is a keen student of management practices, and the idea of collective leadership isn't new in corporate structures. It is known as a matrix, or horizontal, management system, as opposed to the traditional vertical system that is still favoured by most organisations.
The matrix format is considered as one of the most natural forms of leadership, based on influence and expertise rather than the power of position. It offers the chosen leaders the opportunity to work with a group of talented, but not necessarily similar-minded, peers to create goals, procedures and ways of taking the organisation forward. It is a process that focuses on the team, looks to build collective strengths, and relies more on a system than individuals.
| I can see why Buchanan's idea could have appeal. Unlike national and state teams, an IPL team is an artificial coalition - closer to a corporate team than a cricket side. Further, a lot of these players are fierce rivals in the international arena. And lastly, there is no permanence to these teams. It is a highly fluid and volatile environment, where the coach can be a more permanent and more central figure than the captain | |||
I can see why the idea could have some appeal. Unlike national and state teams, an IPL team is an artificial coalition, bound not by geography, nationality, cultures or emotions, but by professional commitment. In that sense, it is closer to a corporate team than a cricket team as traditionally understood. Further, a lot of the players in a side are fierce rivals in the international arena, often in highly-charged circumstances. And lastly, there is no permanence to the teams: players can change sides, and not all of them are available to their team every year, or even through the duration of a season. All put together, it is a highly fluid and highly volatile environment, one where the coach can be a more permanent and more central figure than the captain.
Also, the creation of a collective leadership could be a tool to create a greater sense of belonging among the senior international players, who might not feel it otherwise. Of course, personal and professional pride is a factor, and the value of the players, which is the primary reason why most of them are part of the IPL anyway, is directly linked to performance. But loyalty and belonging are linked to emotions, and giving these players a sense of ownership could be an effective way of fostering these feelings.
In a sense, cricket already has a structure of collective leadership: the responsibility of managing a team is shared by the captain and the coach, and they work closely with the selectors. Increasingly, teams have specialised coaches, physios, fitness trainers and psychologists, who look after specific areas. But one aspect of leadership remains unchanged: once the team steps on to the field to do its business, there is only one boss. The coach might offer tactical inputs, but it's the captain who takes the decisions on the field.
And that marks out the cricket captain as distinctly different from a captain in any other sport. Cricket requires lots of decisions to be taken on the field, and ultimately these influence the course of the match. That's why the captain occupies a far more pivotal position than the coach. And it is on the field that I can see Buchanan's idea breaking down.
It can be argued that the short duration of Twenty20 reduces the scope of on-field strategy and decision-making, but at the same time it can be said that the decision-making needs to be far more precise because there are smaller margins for error. One bowling change, one good over or one bad one, one fielding lapse, one change in the batting order, can decide a match. The captain needs to be always alert, always sharp, and prepared to be flexible. And the team needs not only to know who is in charge, but to feel his presence. Not only does the cricket field require an unambiguous command structure, continuity is also paramount.
And not every man is cut out for the job. It was perhaps not a coincidence that the teams that made to the IPL final last year were led by two very singular men. I wonder if Buchanan would have mooted his idea if either Shane Warne or MS Dhoni were captaining Kolkata.
That said, Twenty20 itself presents the most persuasive argument why the game mustn't be shy of trying out new ideas. At the very least, Buchanan's idea must be given a chance to fail.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo
Feeds: Sambit Bal
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
|
Does Buchanan's theory have any merit?
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Sambit Bal
Editor Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Bought as a rookie for an eye-popping fee, Sunil Narine and his knuckle ball have delivered in the IPL. Next up? Watch out, Test cricket. By Nagraj Gollapudi
Young quick with lower back pain?
Bone stress injuries cannot be taken lightly - they have ended many careers and put others on hold, says Andrew Leipus
Mark Nicholas describes how Darren Sammy finally brought up his first Test century
A pretty good day to be a 'Sam'
Two Chucks: Darren Sammy shuts everyone up, England bowlers look knackered, and what fans think of Nick Knight
Better win than be second favourites
Kimber: WI need to do more than just challenge teams
Six Indian IPL players to watch out for
Four young batsmen and two medium-pacers should be on the selectors' radar
Free-spenders can't buy consistency
Despite splashing money this season, Mumbai Indians were rarely at the top of their game and most of their wins came through last-over heists
The madness of benching Morne Morkel
To make up for Irfan Pathan's absence, Delhi Daredevils made two changes, one of which was leaving out Morne Morkel. And that made a significant difference
Analysis of individual batting and bowling performances in IPL 2012
The best batsman in Twenty20 cricket
Chris Gayle has scored 2591 runs in this format in the last 17 months, at an average of 57 and a strike rate of 170. No other batsman comes close
Welcome to fortress England (183)
The England team are utterly professional, confident in their skills and exude an air of superiority over touring opposition
'I like football more than cricket' (105)
Is the world's top allrounder trapped in the wrong sport? Hear it from the man himself
The madness of benching Morne Morkel (92)
To make up for Irfan Pathan's absence, Delhi Daredevils made two changes, one of which was leaving out Morne Morkel. And that made a significant difference
England in for test of nerve and character (87)
Fourth-highest chase at Lord's the target for a line-up that has poor previous experience of small chases
More holes than Gayle could plug (83)
Chris Gayle, AB de Villiers and Muttiah Muralitharan could only do so much. Royal Challengers Bangalore's campaign suffered because their Indian players struggled
Sponsored Links
Watch Bollywood movies for free
Citibank NRI Account, Fast Reliable & Secure Way to
Transfer Money. Apply Online Now!
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
BUY England 2012 official Test & ODI kit
Available now at Cricshop
All of this boils down to some selectors, administrators and coaches seeing themselves as wearing the matle of the old 'establishment', and not warming to players who are too individualistic and have (for lack of a better word) the 'common touch'. Saurav, Warney and KP(not the three amigos at the best of times!) have all paid dearly being personalities and being more important to the team than their coaches or selectors. It's been a long ride from the Nawab of Pataudi to the Prince of Calcutta, and the ride will get just more interesting with Dhoni and Viru and Pup and Jesse and Bopara emerging as the new generation of leaders. Ok, so we will still have 'good boys' like Stewie and Amla, but I'd love to see them elbow each other and drive off on a Kawasaki. Of all the contributions of Saurav to cricket (he is my favorite non-Warne player), this shift in power between the captain and the "management" may be the most underrated, and the most profound.
Posted by proudkolkatan on (April 01 2009, 12:15 PM GMT)this will just spur Ganguly on.....he prolly planned this whole thing lol, Dada always has the last laugh!
Posted by Nampally on (April 01 2009, 02:48 AM GMT)Buchanan's idea is ridiculously outrageous. Not everyone has the leadership abilities. The best qualified man for the job is the outomatic captain. There should be just one team captain for each season.I cannot understand why Kolkatta has given the authority of appointing captain to a foreign Coach. The team owners should have made the choice themselves. It is preferrable that the IPL teams be captained by an Indian player because it is an Indian league. The local captain understands the crowd, their mentality and what ticks them. The foreign players are invited to increase the capability of the teams. There is absolutely no reason to dethrone Ganguly who is the Prince of Bengal and local favourite. Buchanan's job is to coach the team not select captains. IPL teams may be coalition of players but has several younger local players and several captains idea is just not feasible. Each team needs stability under a single leader who is the best choice and make no mistake about it.
Posted by RomanNoseJob on (April 01 2009, 01:56 AM GMT)it smacks of a ploy to me. I remember yuvraj singh saying he found captaincy easy because he just asked jayawardene and sangakkara for help all the time. You almost got the impression he was captain in name only. I think Warne, whilst obviously had his way in the coaching methods and had the final say, admitted that he consulted with Graeme Smith often. so the idea isn't really all that radical, it's almost been done before just without putting such a stamp on it. I mean, even dhoni, one of the strong captains, would let murali set his own field surely. I think Buchannan doesn't think ganguly is up to it and is looking for a way to shift his power. i mean, I agree captaincy is important in T20 but choosing which bowler is on and setting a field are really the only duties, no declarations here, simple batting tactics ( "attack the bowler.") so really only two duties to delegate, three if you include calling the toss. pointless.
Posted by drinks.break on (April 01 2009, 00:37 AM GMT)To riteshjsr. Yes, Qld did have Border and Love for that famous 1st Sheffield Shield victory - but at the time Border was 39 and Love 20, hardly in the prime of their respective careers! Now, you would be correct to point out that the winning Qld team had a host of stars ... Hayden, Love, Law, Border, Maher, Bichel, Rackemann, Kasprowicz (12th man). But these same players - and others, such as Healy and McDermott - all played in the previous season, when they came last (ie, were a bunch of "star" losers - their last match of 93-94 they lost to a NSW team whose biggest stars were Bevan, Shane Lee and Gavin Robertson!). So what was the difference between 93-94 and 94-95? The only significant personnel difference was their new coach, John Buchanan. So it's ludicrous to suggest that he had no or very little role to play in their remarkable turnaround - and their ongoing success during his tenure.
Posted by DeepPoint on (March 31 2009, 20:27 PM GMT)I dont see why people are up in arms against this so quickly? Without it being implemented at all. I seem to remember that when India participated in the 2003 World Cup, the had batting, bowling and fielding captains. I remember that Yuvraj and Kaif were the fielding captains, and this did seem to work for India. I for one, think it may not be a bad idea at all.
Posted by KrishnaDatta on (March 31 2009, 20:09 PM GMT)Hi Sambit, It would be great if you could help me understand some basics about multiple captaincy theory. 1) What is the need for change? - Is there anything that is lacking in Single captaincy that the new theory could address? 2) What are the advantages? - I gave reasonable amount of thought to it and I was not able to come up with any good advantage that would benefit the team (I was able to think about many disadvantages). Cheers
Posted by AnSee on (March 31 2009, 19:56 PM GMT)When a team boasts the likes of Gilly, McGrath, Warney, Haydos and a roaring Ponting, why is the coach required? With due respect to John, I can confidently say that the erstwhile Aussies would have still ruled the roost without John's presence. So he is no magician. Now coming to the crux - there has always been a lot of bad blood between Sourav and the Aussies. Sourav's edgy attitude incited the Aussies. Aussies say a similitude attitude via his arrogant demeanour. How he kept Steve Waugh waiting in the sweltering sun before the toss, his lacerous tongue cutting through oz ego, his ugly spat with Greg Chappell. He has rubbed them hard enough. John now wants to mould KKR through his thinking cap. However, Sourav and his inherent personality can only dominate and not be dominated. Mark my words; there is yet another storm brewing from the Sunderbans. Let's see how they patch up and work together in bringing SRK the glory...
Posted by jin4cric on (March 31 2009, 17:39 PM GMT)All's good in the article but the last bit about Dhoni and Warne being singular. Yes they are, but you're saying Ganguly isn't? How much more singular a man can you get - one who turns up for practice sessions and tosses at will, remains unfazed even by Steve Waugh, leads a sole fightback into the Indian team and just this guy who's always had this aura about him with head held high. I think the problem lies in having an Australian coach work with Ganguly. Be it Chapell or Buchanan; something just doesn't work. So SRK try and get John Wright, any of the Crowe Brothers or even Chris Cairns to coach!
Posted by wilecoyote on (March 31 2009, 16:35 PM GMT)All the above comments assume one thing, That T20 is cricket... It's not, it's garbage and anything that comes out of it is garbage.