'You've got to be ruthless to be successful'

A day after he was officially unveiled as India's cricket coach, Greg Chappell spent a relaxed morning in rainy-and-sunny Bangalore, having breakfast by the pool at the Taj West End with his wife and two men who will sink or swim with him over the next two years - Greg King, the trainer, and John Gloster, the physio. Afterwards, he spoke to Wisden Asia Cricket about the challenges ahead, his coaching philosophy, and his excitement at working with some of the finest cricketing talent the world has known.

What will be your biggest challenge? And what's the biggest advantage that you start with?
There are a number of challenges. Obviously, working in a different environment and culture is going to be challenging in itself. Dealing with the media will be another. There are so many members of the media, all of whom want a bit of time. If I gave everyone 10 or 15 minutes, the season would be over before it started. Managing that is probably going to be as big a challenge as anything from the playing point of view.

I'm not overly concerned about anything with regard to the playing side. The talent is here and the desire is here to be a champion team. The challenge will be to get the players to buy into that vision. Once they do that, they'll do what's required.

As for the advantages, I know many of the players and they know me. They know of my reputation as a player and that gives me a positive note on which to start. In the end though, that's not going to help me much. What will is the players accepting my philosophies and ideas on how they can become a champion team. My reputation as a player should mean that they give me a good hearing to start with, and from then on it's down to my ability as a coach.

Have you set yourself any targets at all? In the long run, the World Cup in 2007 would seem to be one ...
That's right at the end of my tenure. By that stage we want to be a good team and give ourselves a chance of winning. With that in mind, we put in the stepping stones towards achieving that target. That will help us in all of the series between now and then. The idea is to put together a squad over the next two years that has a good chance of winning the World Cup. The vision that I put to the BCCI was about a commitment to excellence. It's about doing all of the basic things well, day after day. If we do that, we'll be very competitive no matter who we play.

Was it your decision to base yourself in Bangalore when not touring?
I had the option of being wherever I wanted to be, but with the National Cricket Academy being here, it seemed a sensible choice. We [his wife Judy has also moved to India] also have some friends here, which played a part in the decision. The beauty of the place and the weather was another factor. I want to immerse myself in the cricket as soon as possible, and the fact that we had training camps planned here for late June and early July also helped.

Speaking of the Academy, how important is it for the national coach to oversee the development of the younger generation?
I have to be aware of as many players and as large a group as possible because the team could look very different in two years' time. If there's a problem with the balance of the team, we need to know who the players are who have the talent to come in and set that right. That's the reason I've asked 25 players to come for the camp in mid-July, so that I can take a look at the fringe players and our bench strength. With the schedule that we have in international cricket these days, injuries will happen. We need to be in a position to know who the back-up players are and we need to give them opportunities. I suppose the fact that Sourav's [Ganguly] not going to be available for a few games and the fact that Sachin's [Tendulkar] not available until later in the year gives me the chance to look at other players.

You were part of one of the great Australian sides, led by your brother who's not a great believer in international teams having a coach. Do you believe the team you played for would have been better with a coach?
Our views aren't that different, to be honest. If you read what Ian says about coaching, we're pretty much on the same page. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate with my brother through the media.

The era in which we played didn't have coaches. This one does. The demands on captains these days are very different from those 30 years ago. So to have a support staff, I think, is very important. One of the biggest problems is the title of coach. That has a connotation, and I'm not sure the role is one of a coach. It's more of a manager, someone who manages resources, who manages the environment and preparation of the team. Where necessary, he either does some coaching or gets experts in to do it. The idea of having a support staff for international teams these days is eminently sensible. No matter what you call it, coach or manager, the person you appoint has to have a wide range of skills. I think it helps if the individual has had some playing experience at that level, but it's not mandatory as we've seen with the Australian team. John Buchanan's done a very good job with the Australian team by getting them to think differently.

The person doing the job is a resource for the team. I have no doubt that teams can benefit by having people around them who are capable of stimulating them in many ways. If they're also capable of doing some coaching, I see that as an advantage.

Do you think it also has something to do with the fact that in your playing days cricketers had more time to work on their game if something was going wrong?
We did have more time, less pressure of game after game. There wasn't much one-day cricket in the first part of my career, but the latter half was very much like modern playing schedules. My preparation then was very different from what it had been earlier. I didn't have the luxury of a bit more time and of going back and playing a first-class game in between Tests to work on some problems. To have resources to call upon, someone who can help with mental and physical preparation, is sensible.

Where would you draw the line between the coach's responsibility and the captain's?
The coach, in my view, is a resource for the captain and the team, involving with preparation, planning, and having a vision for the side. He needs to have a close relationship with the captain; it's important that they work well together. They don't need to be best friends but there has to be a good working relationship.

Once the game starts, the captain's the one out on the field. He's the boss, it's his team. I think that's a very important demarcation between the two roles. The coach can't make any runs, can't take any wickets, can't take any catches. He can't change the bowlers or order the field placings. That's the captain's job and he's got to have the support of the players. He's got to be someone who's good tactically, he's got to understand the game fully. The better a coach understands the game, the more support he can offer a captain. But on game days, the captain's the boss.

John Wright transformed this Indian side in many ways. How closely did you follow his work?
I followed it reasonably closely. I've spoken to John on many occasions about his time here, including just recently. He told me about many of the positive things and also about some of the things he found frustrating. That's good background information but that's all it is. We have fairly similar philosophies in a lot of areas but also different personalities. I think I'll benefit greatly from what John has done. He did break down many of the barriers, being the first foreign coach for India. Being a trailblazer is very different from being the person coming along second, as I'm doing now. He had the respect of the players and the relationship that he had with Sourav, particularly early on, was instrumental in India moving up to another level.

Towards the end of his tenure, he spoke of how it would probably make sense for the coach to be part of the selection panel. Do you go along with that?
I haven't got a fixed view on that. I look forward to sitting down with the selectors and discussing the philosophy of what makes a good cricket team. The fact that I've had experience doing that is perhaps an advantage. But it isn't necessary, and I certainly don't hold fast to the view that I need to be a selector. I need to have a good relationship with the selectors, I need to have a good relationship with the players. And sometimes, being a coach and a selector is not necessarily the best combination.

Is it extra hard to coach guys who are such celebrities, men who make more money from one endorsement deal than some of your contemporaries did over a career?
Not really. At the end of the day, they're cricketers, they're human beings. They have the same doubts and fears as everyone else. Many of them, despite having been very successful, still have those doubts and fears about their ability to make runs, take wickets and so on.

I don't see them as celebrities. They might be famous, and busy and successful off the cricket field. All I ask from them is that when they're playing cricket, they focus on that. I've dealt with cricketers most of my life. I know that most elite athletes are just big kids at heart. They like to enjoy themselves, they like to be successful, they like to be recognised for what they do. I need to get to understand their personalities and their strengths and weaknesses as quickly as I can so that I'm more aware and capable of being the best support that I can be.

I've found in general that the most successful cricketers are the easiest to deal with. You have guys who are highly committed, highly focused - that's a hell of a headstart. I look forward to working with some of the best talent that we've ever seen on a cricket field.

Steve Waugh insisted that his teams have a sense of the history of the game. Do you foresee doing something similar with this side?
Possibly. It's not something I'm fixated on. I think it's important that you understand the history of the game. As a player, I also felt very lucky that we'd been left the inheritance that we had as the Australian cricket team. Having spoken to a number of the members of the Indian team, they're well aware of the history of cricket - probably more so than any other country I've ever been involved with. Their love of the game is deep, so is their knowledge. There's different things that you can use for motivation at different times, and having successful players from the past come and be with the team at various times is something that can be quite useful. But equally, the players have to focus on what they need to do to be successful now and in the future. There's a place for it, but it's not like I have sat down and worked out an itinerary of historical sites that I'd like to take the team to visit.

You commentated on the series when India toured Australia last and did so well. Where do you think they lost their way after that? Or was the absence of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne a really decisive factor?
That was probably a factor, but the fact of the matter was that that Indian team played very good cricket. It's not easy to keep playing at that level. The demands on the mind and the body when you play that level of cricket long-term are great, and I think it's part of a learning process for a team that aspires to champion status. The intensity, the work ethic, the planning, the preparation, the focus, the belief - all of those things are necessary to take a team to another level. Many of the guys who experienced success in Australia will know what it takes, but not everyone can keep backing it up and do it day in, day out.

Where do India - and every other team - lag behind Australia?
What teams need to do to compete with Australia is to plan and prepare as well as they do, or even better. I was part of the administration and the selection process 20 years ago when we had to sit down and look at what West Indian cricket was doing, and work out what we needed to do to be competitive and go to that next level. Teams have to work out what the Australians do well, emulate that and then improve on it.

Australian cricket was at an all-time low when you became a selector. What did it do subsequently to become such an overwhelming force? How important is it to pick a core group for the future like you did with Steve Waugh, David Boon and Rod Marsh in 1985-86?
There are a limited number of players who have the wherewithal to be successful at international level. It's not about the physical ability to hit the cricket ball, or bowl it. It's about being able to focus, travel well, cope with all of the pressures of living in the spotlight, being away from your family and friends. Most importantly, you need to have a temperament that can cope with failure because elite sport is all about failure. Some players have early success and get carried away with it. Others struggle initially and find it hard to make the changes necessary to step up to the highest level. Once you find such players, give them an opportunity to succeed.

That's one of the things Australia did well. They looked at their identification process, their elite training programme, pay structures, all of that, to work out how to build a successful team.

What did the stint in charge of your home state teach you, and what do you say to those who suggest you have no pedigree at the international level?
I played international cricket for 14 years, so that experience will be very useful. The fact that I haven't coached at this level is neither here nor there. At some stage everyone coaches at this level for the first time. My five-year stint at South Australia was a very good training ground. I don't think I would have even considered taking on a role like this without that experience. I gained a lot of knowledge. I'm more informed and appreciative of what it takes to build a successful cricket team than I was before. I worked with some elite cricketers there, guys like Darren Lehmann, Jason Gillespie and Greg Blewett. There's also Shaun Tait who's coming up as a young fast bowler.

What that experience taught me is that elite players are very good to work with. If you can give them concepts that they can understand and believe in, they've got the talent to go away and use that. That's what's most exciting about coaching at this level. There is an adjustment that needs to be made when you step up to international cricket but the biggest adjustment is not concerning skill, it's about being on the road 10 months a year.

I've played the game at this level, coached at the level just below it, been a selector and administrator. So the preparation I've had for this has been pretty intensive and encompassed a wide range of experiences and skills.

Would you favour one bowling coach, or specialised help for spinners and fast bowlers depending on the circumstances?
It's situation by situation; I don't have a fixed view on it. I have fixed views on what it takes to be a successful team, I have some fairly firm views on the sort of training processes that are going to be most useful, but I'll be quite happy to use experts from time to time in different fields. It could be someone totally unrelated to cricket who can be of benefit. I can't say for sure about a bowling coach but I will tell you that I intend to make use of other experts from time to time.

How do you intend to deal with a maverick like Virender Sehwag, who's likely to slap the first ball of a Test match over point for six?
I'll encourage him to keep playing the cricket that's been very successful for him.

Just before the Sydney Test in 2004, you predicted that Tendulkar would come out of his slump because he'd "looked good" in Melbourne. Does having been a player yourself help you understand such dips in form better?
Absolutely. Anyone who plays at this level for any length of time is going to have periods where runs are hard to come by. Generally, that will have more to do with focus than about physical ability. If I worked at it, I'm sure I could bat reasonably well, but I don't have the same desire I had 30 years ago. If I had the desire, I'm sure my talent would still be there to go and play a reasonable game of cricket. Players don't lose their talent, they lose focus, they lose the drive to keep doing the work that's necessary. Understanding that makes it a lot easier to help someone who's going through such a blip, because it's inevitably got to do with their mental state.

Coaching is about observation, it's about watching and picking up the cues - much like it was when I was playing. Having been there and been through it all, it makes it easier, perhaps, to recognise early that a person is getting into a state of mind that might lead to him having a poor run.

What do you think has stopped India from winning away from the subcontinent?
There's a range of issues; I don't think it's one thing. Belief is the main thing. Different conditions, preparation. This Indian team is playing more cricket away from home than ever before so they're getting used to the different conditions and beginning to understand the different types of preparation required. It ultimately boils down to a belief that you can perform out of the home environment.

Is there a sense of irony in the fact that you're now coaching the country that you never toured as a Test player?
Not really. That's life, it's what happened. What I'm focused on is that this is the epicentre of cricket and will be for the foreseeable future. It's fitting that India has a successful cricket team that can match its success off the field. The opportunity to coach at such an exciting stage in the development of India as a country, and as a cricket team is, I think, a very great honour.

There's a great deal of resistance to technology from some of the old-timers. Can you understand that? And what do you say to those who claim that they did it all without laptops, dieticians or slow-motion replays?
Times are different. You've got to understand that technology was available when we played too. We've all got a computer. It's here [points to his head]; it's the best one that's ever been built. Players from past eras who pooh-pooh technology haven't really thought it through very much. But it's got to be understood that technology is a tool and has to be used wisely. Computers are only as good as the information put into them, and what comes out is only as good as the individuals that use it. The basics of the game haven't changed - you still have to bowl in the right areas, and you have to find gaps in the field to score runs. If you rely on technology alone, you're making a huge mistake.

Is being one of the legends of the game a disadvantage in some way? Men like Kapil Dev and Viv Richards had disastrous coaching stints.
I think people have to understand that the coach is not a miracle worker. If the talent is there, you have a better chance of getting results. I think the fact that I played at the highest level with some success is part of my kit of tools, if you like. A coach is limited in what he can do - the role is to help players learn as quickly as possible and to maximise their potential. But selection is more critical in building great cricket teams: picking players when they're ready, pushing others on when it's time to go.

You can't go and graft your skill and knowledge onto someone else. All you can do is provide an environment where they become the best players that they can be. We've got to get away from this notion that one individual can come along, wave a magic wand and turn a bunch of ugly ducklings into graceful swans. That's ludicrous, and the sooner we can disabuse people of that notion, the sooner I think we'll understand what the role of a coach is.

Your old pal Dennis Lillee has been working with pace bowlers here for almost two decades. Given how essential a strong fast-bowling contingent is for success abroad, how important is it that you work closely with such people?
I've spoken to Dennis Lillee about some of the upcoming fast bowlers, just to get a feel of what's outside the team. But again, academies can't make cricketers. They're a resource where cricketers can learn and build their skills. The indefinable qualities that make a champion come more from the early environment. Academies are just finishing schools; you can't take someone to one and turn him into a great cricketer. First-class cricket is probably more important than academies. Learning to play under pressure is what the development process is all about - being able to make decisions in real time in the same sort of environment as international cricket.

Recently you were quoted as saying that the seniors needed to push themselves harder. What did you mean by that?
Everybody has to push themselves harder - seniors, juniors, coaches, support staff. To have a successful organisation, everybody has to perform at their optimum level. In my own case, World Series cricket forced me to dig deeper than Test cricket had up to that stage. It was more demanding, it was tougher, and I had to push myself harder to perform at a consistent level. You have to keep finding ways of working smarter. Working hard is not necessarily the answer. Working smarter, being more efficient, minimising errors, that's what improvement is about. Now I have no doubt that Sachin Tendulkar will continue to improve because he'll look to push the boundaries further than he's ever pushed them before.

You said in an interview recently: "You fend for yourself on the field. Nobody held my hand or walked me through my paces. On the field you have to read the signs and pick up clues to survive." How important is it that a successful side weeds out the weak and builds itself around a core that will not crack?
Critical, absolutely critical. Obviously, you want to refresh teams, bring new talent in to alter the balance if need be. Good teams are made up of resourceful individuals - people who can motivate themselves, who can be self-starters, and who learn from their experiences. If you can't read the game, you can't be a good player. If you don't understand what's going on out on the field at every moment, and be one step ahead of your opposition, then you're not going to be a success. The champion players are the ones who learn the fastest. They pick up the cues that are always presenting themselves out on the field. We need to find 15 or 20 of those individuals from which we can make up a squad.

If someone continually needs to be picked up and have his hand held, then we're not going to be successful. You have to be ruthless as selectors, ruthless as coaches; we've got to demand high standards in all areas. We've got to provide an environment that gives everyone the best chance of success, but if they keep falling down, we haven't got time to stop and pick them up. We've got to find those who can stand on their own feet, think for themselves, and make decisions in real time.