Ed Smith
Ed Smith Ed SmithRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman; writer for the New Statesman

Coaches don't win matches

They may be the ones who front up at the post-match press conferences, but they're not really in control of the matters they answer questions about

Ed Smith

May 9, 2012

Comments: 24 | Text size: A | A

John Wright will be relieved after his first game as New Zealand coach, New Zealand v Pakistan, 1st Twenty20, Auckland, December 26, 2010
John Wright was at his best in situations that could not be mastered © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links
Players/Officials: John Wright
Teams: India | New Zealand

The overwhelming majority of professional cricket coaches are decent people, but few leave much of an impression on their players as human beings. I played for dozens of coaches who followed conventional wisdom, ran with the pack, and cut their cloth according to the opinions of those around them. They were professionally competent, but were they men of honour? Would they risk their own jobs for a point of principle?

John Wright is one of the few who would. Indeed, he often has, most recently in resigning from his job as New Zealand coach after refusing to go along with managerial systems that he does not agree with. He could have dragged out his time and taken the money; he could have stormed off in a huff. He has done neither, preferring to retain his dignity and his honour.

Wright has always been a brave man, as a player and then as a coach. He was at his very best in situations that could not be mastered. It brought out his winning combination of steely resolve and innate modesty. That is why he succeeded as the coach of India. He grasped that the job was too mysterious, too vast and too emotional to be condensed into a reductive formula or limited to a set of rational tactics. You were not only coaching a team, you were serving the whole body politic of a fanatical cricketing nation. Rahul Dravid captured Wright's emotional intelligence when he said he said he was "more Indian than the Indians".

Wright has always been driven from within. He does not see life as a series of shrewd decisions; it is an adventure that must be lived to the full. That's why he has always retained a splash of the artist in his life. With his guitar in one hand and an old paperback in the other, Wright was on a constant journey of self-discovery. He has more in common with a folk musician than with a corporate salesman. It was cricket's great gain that such a restless, bohemian spirit found a home in the increasingly slick and systems-driven world of modern professional sport.

Wright believes in the power of laughter and friendship as well as training and discipline. He knows that cricket teams learn and grow not only through training but also through their shared laughter - the craic, those moments of shared warmth and friendship when a group comes together and forgets its rivalries and tensions.

There will doubtless be moments when Wright asks himself how lesser men have survived longer in their posts than he has. But if he follows the logic, he should not reproach himself. In being his own man, he has lived a fuller, more honest life. And through his own example Wright has taught his players about life as well as cricket in ways they may not yet understand, but will one day deeply appreciate.

There were a couple of insights in Wright's resignation press conference that make essential listening for anyone involved in cricket. The first was typically understated. He thanked his senior players for their "understanding". But he added quickly that they were "pretty busy in India". Did he mean "Distracted by the IPL?" If I was captain of my country - or a senior player - I wouldn't want too many vital changes to happen to the national squad when I was euphemistically "away in India".

Secondly, Wright questioned the idea that cricket matches are won by coaches. They aren't. They are won by players. Coaches can help at the margins - they can improve players' techniques, they can hone a group's sense of togetherness, they can foster a competitive spirit and tactical nous. But Wright knows that the crucial people are the ones on the field, the men in possession of the bat and the ball.

 
 
A cricket coach's accountability is very largely illusory. What makes a team win or lose on any given day is far more complex and mysterious than the lines of accountability on a reductive managerial flow-chart
 

It is self-evident that coaches can make a difference. We know it is not dumb luck that allows Alex Ferguson to lead Manchester United to so many trophies over so many decades. But cricket is not the same as football. Because cricket captains have so much more power than captains in other sports, the coach is inevitably more of a supportive, enabling figure. Cricket has never responded well to all-powerful coaches: the fluid structure of the game works against off-field puppet masters.

Crucially, the cricketing public does not always understand this. Because the coach is among the two most visible people in any team - the man who fronts the press conferences and provides the quotes for the media - it is mistakenly assumed that he is ultimately responsible for short-term results. He isn't. The players are. Indeed, in a small cricketing nation such as New Zealand, the coach doesn't even have much scope to change the pool of players.

There is a very serious point here. The modern media - as it seeks to serve the wider sporting public - demands that someone is always available to comment on the team's performance and tactics. That person is usually the coach. The order of events is always the same: the coach announces the team, then the team plays the match, then the coach analyses the team's performance in public and vows to do better. It is only natural that a correlation forms in the public's collective consciousness that the coach is in control of all subjects about which he has to answer questions. But he isn't. Far from it. The coach is often answering questions on issues over which he has almost no control at all. We should not blame coaches for mistakes that were never theirs.

"Accountability" is a buzzword that managers in all walks of life are encouraged to use. The media encourages them to do so in order to create a clear line of responsibility: in other words, so they can "legitimately" blame someone. But a cricket coach's accountability is very largely illusory. What makes a team win or lose on any given day is far more complex and mysterious than the lines of accountability on a reductive managerial flow-chart.

Wright intuitively understood this. It is ironic that some people think this makes him old-fashioned, a coach who doesn't quite understand the way sport has evolved. I think quite the opposite: in recognising the limitations of coaching, Wright is ahead of his time.

Former England, Kent and Middlesex batsman Ed Smith's new book, Luck - What It Means and Why It Matters, is out now. His Twitter feed is here

RSS Feeds: Ed Smith

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by cloudmess on (May 10, 2012, 22:41 GMT)

It's a pleasure to read anything by Ed Smith. I'd say the efficacy of coaches has a lot to do on circumstance. With his emphasis on hard work, impressive technical knowledge, and sensitive handling on players, Duncan Fletcher was an ideal 'moderate team' coach. Conversely, his methodical, cautious approach has been disastrous for a potentially great team like India. John Buchanan is the polar opposite of Fletcher, but his left-field, experimental, sometimes antagonistic approach helped make Australia a scarily good side in the early 2000s. Andy Flower is more of a Fletcher than a Buchanan, but he has something of the latter's ability to think things through for himself - it will be interesting to see what legacy he can now create. Peter Moores is an ideal coach for younger, more impressionable cricketers, who need guidance and strong instruction, but has little to offer more seasoned test cricketers. It is why he was so successful with Lancashire last year but failed as England coach.

Posted by latercut on (May 10, 2012, 7:49 GMT)

Beautifully written, Ed. You've described Wright brilliantly. The bit about accountability - in our management-dominated societies, it's more of a veiled threat than anything else. Exactly as you said. Keep writing, I'll definitely go looking for your book :)

Posted by jr1972 on (May 10, 2012, 3:55 GMT)

Ed, I agree with your sentiments and still believe that accountability has a place in sport. I think that you have possibly idealised John Wright who in many people's eyes is a bit too laid back on a good day and downright slack on most. There have been many quotes about him being late for meetings etc. for those who would debate against this. On the other John, my Grandmother could have coached THAT Australian side and had the same success as Buchanan. Remember the famous Warne quote about a coach being the mode of transport to the game. The NZ side is almost a polar-opposite of Buchanan's Australian side so we may have a bit more of a barometer of his ability as a coach. By the way, Wright was hardly a great success and we did not see any increase in backbone from the batting line up which was his main aim. Don't let one win over an average Australian side cloud your judgement.

Posted by HyderabadiFlick on (May 10, 2012, 0:09 GMT)

Ask the great S.K.Warne he will tell you who is Buchanan? Great work Ed.

Posted by Nadeem1976 on (May 9, 2012, 19:46 GMT)

It depends on the resources available to a coach. In NZ coaches and captains don't have too much talent in hand because of population. Look at Australia and India what their coaches did for them in recent past. Coaches do win matches but they need talented players in their team. Whatmore was able to win WC 1996 with minnow Sri Lanka because of their too much hard work and asian conditions but again whatmore played big role in that win too. A team is consist of Captain, Coach, Players. Any of these three are not performing mean team is going to lose so Coaches do play big role in winning and losing now.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (May 9, 2012, 19:39 GMT)

they don't win matches,

but they sure can LOSE them ....

take a miscalculation on DL ,,, or playing the wrong combination of bowlers, or mucking up the batting order ...

a good example is the MI vs RCB game today....

when MI was floundering, in the 10th over when the 4th wicket went down, Pollard should have been promoted....

in the end he came in with 4 overs remaining and hit 20 off 12 ...BUT he faced 7 balls from Murli and Khan .... so he only had 5 deliveries from the lesser bowlers to score of (and he capitalized) ...

If he was sent in earlier....

Yes he could have gotten out,

but he could have also made 40 of 20 ......

sending him in late to face 12 balls gives you ZERO chance of crossing 150 .....

MI lost because of a failure of the coach and captain to adjust to a top order batting collapse ....

they may have scored 170 and still lost .... but, if coaching can;t help you win, it can sure help you lose .....

Posted by Hayat22 on (May 9, 2012, 18:06 GMT)

Whatever Buchanan did with Australia, i can't argue, but if he is so successful then why could he not get the KKR to perform? Or was the obstinacy of Ganguly more than the measure of Buchanan! ;-D

Posted by joker4 on (May 9, 2012, 14:17 GMT)

I will say NZ have chosen wrong John. No need to say anything else.

Posted by mcricmad on (May 9, 2012, 14:01 GMT)

Excellent Article Ed, i was tired reading articles making no sense these days and this has been one of the best that i have read in recent times. Undoubtedly, John is one of the best coaches around and also the person who seems to be easily approachable..

Posted by Praxis on (May 9, 2012, 13:41 GMT)

@tompuffin, I completely agree with you comment. Recently like many other sports cricket too has been infested with these business ideas & eventually turning into entertainment than a sport. Now even coaching is going that way too.

Posted by serious-am-i on (May 9, 2012, 12:49 GMT)

excellent article Ed, it was pleasure to read. Probably I would call it the best ever piece I have read for a long time in cricinfo. Now getting back to the issue, NZ is going to have a nightmare when they are working under Buchannan, he can't be he anywhere, he thinks too many changes are the success mantra probably he is under such an impression because of his success with Australia but the Australian team he was coaching didn't really need a coach, they needed a mentor who could just put the pieces and mind at correct places, its not the same now. If he takes over Aus now, he would certainly bring down Aus with out a doubt. I pity NZ for such an awful decision of preferring JB over JW.

Posted by hyclass on (May 9, 2012, 12:26 GMT)

@Xolile...I enjoyed your insight immensely. Once players have arrived at international level,one expects them to have results in order to have first been selected. It implies that regardless of the nature of their skill set,they possess the attributes of success in their chosen disciplines. John Buchanan was a man who recognised that the core skill of coaching is man management. Following the Buchanan years,CA chose to reverse the application of every successful organisiation,institution and process,including in the type of coach. Nielsen may remain the longest serving coach to have no ability to improve his players. Under his tutelage,every batsmen fell far and most bowlers were injured. He was apparently a technician and along with the Hilditch selection policies,responsible for creating the myth that technique supercedes performance.It was the foundation for undermining many quality players. EQ is the awareness to correctly apply the most appropriate energies to any circumstance.

Posted by davidlister on (May 9, 2012, 10:58 GMT)

Ed (if I may call you so) it is great to read your work.

Posted by tompuffin on (May 9, 2012, 10:54 GMT)

@ Xolile Good god, and look where so many business of the world are now! Bankrupt and leeching tax payers money. No, cricket is not a business. I doubt you could receive the same whole hearted joy from a business, that you get from a great game of cricket. The thing is, business aren't primarily meant to have a fun, or appealing or gripping environment, they're there to 1. make money 2. provide services. Cricket, and sport on the other hand is exactly it's anti thesis. Part of Mr. Smith's argument here is precisely that- we can't transfer business ideas like accountability to sport, because the two things are built on the foundation of different ideas. Businesses are full of responsibility and targets, but cricket is a passion, it is something I and many others love and treasure. To treat it, and one of the greatest coaches in the game as if a cold hearted dismissal over "conflicts in personality" and just expect to move on is terrible indeed.

Posted by BellCurve on (May 9, 2012, 9:07 GMT)

There are way too many ex-players of limited intellectual capacity in senior managerial, selection and coaching positions. Cricket is a business and should be run like a business. In business, you very rarely see a craftsman promoted to the position of CEO. That is because the two roles require completely different skill sets. I am a massive Buchanan fan. The man has vision and is taking the game forward. John Wright is a relic. He belongs in the past. If the BCCI appoints him it would be a gigantic leap backwards.

Posted by sacricketlegend on (May 9, 2012, 8:39 GMT)

This article raises a number of incredibly important but rather simple points. This is almost certainly true for the vast majority of Ed Smith's articles. Here is a man who truly understands cricket for what it is, and is able to articulate these thoughts expertly. I absolutely treasure reading his pieces.

Posted by nickcoxhill on (May 9, 2012, 7:54 GMT)

Mr Smith has it right. A coach can't win you a match. John Buchanan may be a good coach, but his success as coach of an Australian team with Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting, the Waughs, etc. You don't need to be a genius to coach that team to win everything. I don't know which of Buchanan or Wright I would prefer, except to say that NZ were doing pretty well with Wright in charge.

Posted by s3ns3 on (May 9, 2012, 7:40 GMT)

The article doesn't justify the point that JW risked his job for a point of principle. If his strength was his high EQ (apparently) by stating he was "more Indian than Indians" then it should've been a cakewalk to be "more Aussie than an Aussie!" But I believe one of the reasons he quit could be because a certain legend in Indian team wants DF out and JW back. It could be as simple as that.

Posted by JohnnyRook on (May 9, 2012, 7:01 GMT)

In my opinion, there are two types of coaches. One is a hard nosed, very technical, very tough coach and other is a friendly strategic coach who works in the background. Both of them are important for a player but the first one is more important in formative years. At international level though, the latter guy is a better bet. Greg Chappell is first kind of coach whereas John Wright, Graham Ford and ofcourse Gary Kirsten fall in second category.

Posted by MarineDoniv on (May 9, 2012, 6:49 GMT)

this is the most unrealistic statement i have ever heard! It is in fact Coaches responsibility to have the team ready to WIN the Game! Coaches in Cricket have been getting away with no consequences when the team is not performing & captain's are being blamed for losses! Coaches must accept the responsibility & do everything possible to make sure the team is well prepared, physically, mentally, & emotionally ready to Win the Match on that particular day! Duncan has indeed become a liability fr Indian cricket!

Posted by venkatesh018 on (May 9, 2012, 5:12 GMT)

Have the NZ board gone nuts? Preferring Buchanan over Wright is insane.

Posted by   on (May 9, 2012, 4:59 GMT)

The reason why John was successful with India was because he ensured a happy dressing room at all times and always motivated the players.His motto was "Win or lose play the game hard and enjoy it." In every one of his interviews as India Coach he always said "We cannot play 'soft cricket' ". Team India misses this kind of atmosphere now in the dressing room.This was evident in the recent England and Australia disasters where the players looked lethargic and downcast on the field without an iota of fight.

Posted by HadleeCrowe on (May 9, 2012, 4:58 GMT)

An absolute tragedy...... Can't explain how devastating this is for NZ cricket. Buchanan was mocked by his own players before (notably warnie), then gets a higher position in NZ cricket and promotes a bowls asutralia (Yes LAWN BOWLS ....) guy to the head selector position... Is it any wonder John Wright wanted to leave????? Great article about John (Shake) Wright the man himself too.... His nickname comes from that bohemian spirit too...

Posted by satish619chandar on (May 9, 2012, 3:35 GMT)

Can a coach win game or anything? No.. He can help player slightly with their technique and have frame a strategy but a game is not won or lost by framing strategy but executing it.. Bowling on off stump with occasional fast bouncers is a simple strategy which can trouble any batsman in the world and it doesn't require any coach to say it daily to a player who had proved that he is good enough to represent the country.. A coach's role is more important in keeping the players fresh mentally erasing any bad games from memory and start afresh next game.. As far as i saw in India, Wright is a great guy at the backend who never wanted the limelight but made sure everything was in order for the team.. But same can't be said of Buchannan.. Given a chance to chose between Wright-Buch, i would have chose Wright eyes closed.. Mr.Wright, will u be available to coach India again? Duncan is not able to satisfy even minimum expectation.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print

    It's not the plan, stupid

Ed Smith: Good performances make all plans look good. The better team on the day always wins, irrespective of what was strategised in the dressing room

    Original hits

ESPNcricinfo XI: A look at some of cricket's most memorable strokes - and their makers

    What is Rohit Sharma's role?

Should India have practised slip catching in the nets? Who will play at the G?

    'I'd like to have faced the West Indies quicks'

Northamptonshire's David Willey picks his ideal partner for a jungle expedition, and talks about his famous dad

The charm of the Boxing Day Test

Jonathan Wilson: It's special not just for the cricket, but also because it satisfies one of the tenets of Christmas - bringing people together

News | Features Last 7 days

What ails Rohit and Watson?

Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena

Hazlewood completes quartet of promise

Josh Hazlewood has been on Australian cricket's radar since he was a teenager. The player that made a Test debut at the Gabba was a much-improved version of the tearaway from 2010

Australia in good hands under proactive Smith

The new stand-in captain has the makings of a long-term leader, given his ability to stay ahead of the game

Karn struggles to stay afloat

The failed gamble of handing Karn Sharma a Test debut despite him having a moderate first-class record means India have to rethink who their spinner will be

Vijay 144, Ganguly 144

Stats highlights from the first day of the second Test between Australia and India in Brisbane

News | Features Last 7 days