The state of international coaching
Where does the merry-go-round stop?
 The international coaching scene is currently the most unsettled it has been for a long time, with the tumult beginning last December.
After a succession of disastrous results with the ODI World Cup around the corner, New Zealand swung the axe on Mark Greatbatch and installed former Indian coach John Wright at the helm. Following their World Cup triumph, India appointed former England coach Duncan Fletcher at the end of April to replace the triumphant Gary Kirsten, who became the head coach in his native South Africa succeeding Corrie van Zyl in early July.
At the end of the same month, Stuart Law was named as the new Bangladeshi coach taking over from Jamie Siddons. In doing so, Law had to leave his temporary post as Sri Lankan coach after filling in for Trevor Bayliss who had departed after the World Cup. In mid-August Waqar Younis announced his resignation as Pakistani coach, and Australia's Tim Nielsen followed suit on September 20. To top it all off, Sri Lanka filled their vacant position three days later as former Australian and Zimbabwean coach Geoff Marsh took on the job, while Troy Cooley has taken on the Australian job on an interim basis.
As a result of all this change, it means that only three Full Members have not changed their coaches in the last year. England have reaped the benefits of a solid coaching structure under the canny Andy Flower, which has culminated in their rise to the top spot of the coveted Test rankings. The other two nations are near the opposite end of those rankings, but the West Indies and Zimbabwe have chosen to retain faith in Ottis Gibson and Alan Butcher respectively.
The ramifications of such a state of affairs are revealing. It is a sign of the increasingly globalised world that we currently have Zimbabweans coaching England and India, an Englishman coaching Zimbabwe, and Australians taking charge of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies have gone against the steadily increasing tide though by sticking with candidates from within.
The bedding-in period for new coaches always throws up some intrigue. In this respect, the Indian appointment has certainly raised a few eyebrows. Kirsten, who had been mentored by Fletcher in his early days as a coach, had reportedly recommended Fletcher as his replacement to the Indian board. This appears to have been a major influence in the final outcome. Perceived similarities between Fletcher and Kirsten no doubt were a major positive in the former's favour. However, even if their largely behind-the-scenes coaching styles are similar, their personalities are vastly different.
Kirsten was a diplomat and sought compromise throughout his time in order to ensure team harmony. Fletcher in contrast is known for his blunt, stubborn nature, which was evident in his media dealings as England coach. Such an approach is rife with difficulties in the Indian cricket environment, as Greg Chappell found out to great detriment. Whether it will limit the power he exerts over matters such as selection, scheduling and player maintenance with the notoriously unpredictable BCCI administrators will not take long to become clear.
Thousands of kilometres away Down Under, Nielsen may have bowed out with an extremely creditable 1-0 Test series win in difficult conditions in Sri Lanka, but this did not stop him from expressing disappointment at how his role was handled by his bosses at Cricket Australia. He made it clear that he felt like he was "doing an interview for the job every day for the last four years", and felt he was targeted for the team's poor Test form whilst not being given due credit for their ODI and T20I performances. Despite this, it was nevertheless probably the right time for Nielsen to go.
He was effectively a dead man walking in the aftermath of the recommendations of the Argus Report, an internal CA inquiry commissioned to investigate the decline of the national side. The report contained a number of veiled criticisms of how Nielsen had run the team, particularly concerning the relaxation of the high standards which had been set at the turn of the millennium. After a period of unrivalled dominance from 1995 to 2008, the Test side had slumped to fifth place in the rankings, while the ODI side ultimately failed in its key aim to win a fourth successive World Cup.
Nielsen's last opponents, the Sri Lankans, have also taken a brave call by appointing Marsh, who has not been part of the international scene for a considerable period. This appears to be an attempt at continuity, with fellow Australians Bayliss and Tom Moody being Marsh's predecessors. All three are known for their level-headedness, but the challenge for Marsh will be whether he can adapt to the behind-the-scenes political machinations in Sri Lankan cricket as quickly and adeptly as Bayliss and Moody did.
Overall it is noticeable even one of the Full Member head coaching positions is headed by a coach originating from the subcontinent. This may be rectified soon as there appears to be a preference within certain circles in Pakistan for a homegrown coach, but nevertheless the situation appears to be indicative of a lack of coaching quality. This scarcity is surely an aberration awaiting rectification, particularly given the sheer numbers involved in the game in the subcontinent. The next decade could well be dubbed the rise of the subcontinental coaches. Whether this will produce an overall benefit to international cricket is a question to which we eagerly await an answer.
Article written by Avi Singh
Back to newsletter page
|