A coach is an extra baggage

This year alone, Pakistan have had four coaches, Javed Miandad, Mushtaq Mohammad, Wasim Raja and Richard Pybus. Obviously the job of The Pakistan cricket coach does not carry job security and personally I am surprised that anyone would want the job. Four coaches in one year would suggest a problem and it can't be the coaches. I have a feeling that we are not clear in our minds what we expect from the coach. And now that Pakistan is on the verge of appointing a fifth and he may well have been appointed by the time this appears in print (Mudassir Nazar has bee named as new coach) it might be a good idea if it was clearly spelt out what we expect from the coach, in otter words, he should have a job description. Should his head be on the chopping block if the team lose? But surely this is grossly unfair. The coach has no say in the selection of the team. He has no say in fixing the itinerary of a tour. He has no say in the disciplining of the players should they not be pulling their weight. That's the job of the Manager. A coach can only make suggestion in chalking out the strategy. The final say is with the captain. So how can the coach be held responsible if the team fails to deliver the goods?

I am not at all certain that a national team needs a coach. The idea of a coach is something of a fad. I can remember many successful teams of the recent past who did not carry the extra baggage of coaches and trainers and nutritionists. The senior professional of she teen. rant the nets arid -were available to help out any young player who may have been having some technique problem. What we have in cricket is an employment bureau in the mistaken belief that the game has become sophisticated. The game remains the same. It is being unnecessarily complicated with coaches sitting with computers and video-tapes being used to try and find out any chinks in the armour of the opposition. I think the sacking of Richard Pybus seemed unfair. He was made the scapegoat of the whitewash in Australia. There are others who bear a higher responsibility.

Does a visiting team have the right not to accept a particular match-referee? On Pakistanis tour of Australia, John Reid was less than even-handed. He promptly administered a stern warning to Mohammad Akram when he appeared to stick out his elbow when Shane Warne was taking a run. I saw it on television and it was no big deal and I'm not even sure that he did it deliberately. Yet John Reid seemed not to take any notice of the sledging to which the Pakistan players were subjected. One particular incident was there for all to see. This was when Ijaz Ahmed was given not out on a caught behind appeal. The bowler Glen McGrath made no bones of what he thought of the decision. To make matters worse, Ricky Pointing joined in and hearted Ijaz angrily and in language that can be imagined, Ponting himself being no paragon of virtue, having had many brushes with his own Board. The point is that it was the umpire who gave Ijaz not out and if McGrath nd Ponting found it necessary to abuse anyone, it should have been the umpire. The match-referee took no action. Some years ago. John Reid had taken action against Aamir Sohail for showing dissent in a match in Sri Lanka. To add insult to injury, he went on television and justified his action. The match-referee should be accountable. He should not have a free hand in interpreting the code of conduct as he fancies. The ICC should ask John Reid why he did not take any action against McGrath and Ponting, in particular.

The second issue to emerge from Pakistan's tour of Australia is the role of the home umpire. There are many who feel, including Imran Khan, that the time has come for "neutral" umpires at both ends. It has been the practice in the past for visiting teams to accuse umpires from Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka of either being incompetent or less than honest. There is a certain self-righteousness about this. The English like to believe that they have the best umpires in the world, a view not shared by Pakistan and Indian teams who have been victims of some "patriotic" decisions. I have David Constant in mind. The Australian too like to feel that their umpires are above board. This has not been the experience of visiting teams and Zaheer Abbass wrote in a newspaper column that when he toured Australia, there were Peter Parkers at both ends! No one grudges an honest mistake. The umpires are human and come under great pressure, particularly as frivolous and hysterical appealing seems to be the accepted norm. But such a crucial decision as giving Justin Langer not out in the Hobart test match when he had clearly nicked the ball does not, on the face of it smack of human error. It could have been the turning point of the match and the series. It took the ICC a long time to be convinced of a need for an ICC panel of the umpires. There should be no problem in extending the idea and have ICC umpires at both ends. All other games have "neutral" referees, why should cricket be an exception?

In the meanwhile the Indians should be careful about showing dissent. They may find that they may have to pay a heavy price for it in the test matches. The Australian umpires have a way of sticking together. Ask the Sri Lankans. Besides dissent does not change the decision. You just put the backs up of the umpires.