Manu is very pleased, and goes prancing off, little knowing what lies in store. You see, Manu is the one of the newer employees, and has only been given this responsibility because he is the best of the delivery boys.

So the next morning, when the boys meet before delivery begins, Manu tries to pep them up. “We gotta do this,” he says, “we gotta do that.” (Of course, he specifies “this” and “that,” but why go into details here?) The other boys are bemused. He asks them to come an hour early the next day.

Nobody turns up.

Manu calls up one of them, and gets shouted at. He waits for them to come, but when they do, they are sullen. They won’t listen to him. “We report to the bossman,” they tell him. “You are not bossman. You are sissyboy.”

So Manu goes to the bossman. “Bossman,” he says, “they’re refusing to listen to me. Why don’t you make me chief news delivery boy or something, so I can make them listen? Give me power over them.”

“No,” says Bossman. “Besides, you are too young. Besides, you are failing in the task I just gave you. Bad boy.”

Responsibility without power.

As his agency goes downhill, Bossman gets upset. One day he tells Pikoo, who is a slightly older boy and a bit of a bully, “Pikoo, I’m going away for a week, you run the place as you want. And you, Manu, come here. You’re responsible for anything that goes wrong.” Pikoo is delighted. He comes later and later to work every day, steals glamour supplements from the newspapers he is supposed to deliver, and generally enjoys himself.

Power without responsibility.

Now, any organisation, or sporting team, needs a perfect balance between power and responsibility to survive. The above example is deliberately exaggerated and simplistic, but I’m sure you see such cases around you all the time: some people are held accountable for certain things, but not given enough power over it; others are given power that they aren’t held responsible for. I can think of an obvious illustration of this in Indian politics, but this post is about cricket.

My contention is that for any cricket team to succeed, power and responsibility have to be balanced. The amount of responsibility a person is given for something should equal the amount of power he has over it. Otherwise, the system doesn't function well.

An obvious, evocative example from Indian cricket is that of Sachin Tendulkar, who, through his captaincy, never got the teams he wanted. The poor man kept suffering because of this, was held responsible for his team’s defeats, and eventually quit in disgust. His successor, Sourav Ganguly, had the savvy to realise this and the political backing within the BCCI to subvert this, and to get himself more power in matters like selection. Of course, there are other factors behind the failures and successes of these two men, but the balance of power and responsibility did play a part.

However, it isn’t enough to balance power and responsibility, it is also important to assign them well. For example, if too many people are responsible for a task, it is likely to suffer as diffusion of responsibility takes place, and everyone leaves it to someone else. It also becomes hard to hold people accountable when things go wrong. The system works best when power and responsibility are well-defined, and clearly assigned.

That is why I think the system that will work best for a cricket team is one in which the coach has vastly greater powers than today, akin to that of a soccer coach. As sides have got more and more professional, the coaches have got increasingly influential, and I think that is no coincidence. I think the coach should be responsible for planning and the captain jointly responsible for execution on the field, and the two should have a decisive say in selection. (The captain is conflicted by being part of the team, which is why more power, and responsibility, should rest with the coach.) The selectors should act as a support system, pointing them to new talent, and as checks and balances.

“So what about if the coach is a bad apple?” you ask. “Won’t the team suffer then?”

Well, not if there is enough feedback built in within the system. It works well in other team sports, and as cricket gets more professional, I think it is inevitable that the powers of the coach will increase. And yes, the likes of Bob Woolmer and Greg Chappell will be held responsible if their sides lose, but will also have the power to build the teams they want over the long run. At least they will avoid the fate of John Wright, who was held responsible when India started losing, but had little power over most his tenure. It was unsustainable and unfair, and it is, thankfully for India, changing.

More power to the coach would mean that the Cricket coaches may start behaving like the Football coaches, shouting themselves hoarse from the sidelines. Let the coach call the shots in the pavillion, but in the ground the captain should be the undisputed authority.

What an insightful piece! Frankly I rate this above most of the contributions during the previous blog round. Utterly relevant and supreme anology.

It is, however, the Devil's advocate in me that is putting forth the forecast that this situation in Indian Cricket is destined to evaporate. Chappel & Rahul are currently given a much stronger hand only because the new BCCI wants to sustain its 'progressive image' at least for sometime. But inevitably they will be faced with political compulsions, given that Ms. Sonia Gandhi herself endorsed Sharad Pawar's campaign. Then will come the real test of whether this dynamic duo will be treated as prime authority or prime rib!

Wow, that's the roundest anyone's ever gone to reach just around the corner. Your deductions are obvious, your stretched analogy, unnecessary. Smallest idea in most words!

An absolutely correct article written. Hats off to Amit Verma. The coach should the power to run the cricket team in his/her way. I fully agree with that.

Well put, Fouad. Those were precisely my thoughts. However, given that what we consider bleedin' obvious hasn't been happening for so long in Indian cricket, Amit can be excused for this post.

Pratik
http://yorker.wordpress.com

It might work but then again it might not. One of the main features of being a national football coach is that though the job is full-time, the work is not. Players are away with clubs most of the time and national games are few and far between. This means the coach has plenty of time to travel and watch the players he's interested in. A Cricket coach can't do this as his work is virtually full-time. So he has to rely on reports or opinions from others. The question is how important these 'others' will be. Scouts or Selectors?

Power and responsibilty are two components of a three piece jigsaw. The third being a shared destiny, a common commitment to a well defined and understood goal, that every member of the unit has fully embraced.

Any two of the jigsaw pieces will not paint the right picture without the remaining third.

Welcome back, 23 yards! The comeback post is relevant in the sense the 23rd yard should belong to the coach. Not just him, all responsible people should have commensurate power if 'perform or perish' mantra is to be adopted in spirit instead of paper.

The grey on white font is tough on the eyes.

More power and responsibility to the coach - does this infer less power and responsibility to the players? One might suggest that keeping power and responsibility with players helps them to develop the skills to perform in and out of cricket. If Kunal suggests that with more power is given to the coaches they mgiht behave like football managers - if less power and responsibility is left with the players will they behave like footballers?

I think balance of power, responsibility, and visible feedback mechanism within the system is key to success of any organization. These keywords are very well illustrated by Amit Verma.

-Santosh

You have given a 360 degree view. But BCCI should become more professional. It shouldn't be run the way it is being done. Yearly elections....so by the time the new president comes to know about his job, he has to start campaigning for the next election. And we have zonal selectors who rather spotting the best talent try to push in a player from their zone. If all these change, then coach can control a team well...else you will never know who has the power...and there will be a struggle

A remarkable piece and a very thought provoking one. I agree that coaches must have more powers but still captain is the most important perosn as he is there in the middle so it makes more sense if he has the most power. Only the captain can bring the planning into actions. The coach go and play for the team.

I agree with the notion of balancing the power and responsibility but not completely with the view that cricket coaches should be given as much power as football coaches. The point made by Anil is very valid that cricket coaches cannot do justice with the selection of players so the power and responsibility should lie with the selection committee. So, I guess instead of giving cricket coaches more power, take a bit of responsibility off them.
Hussam

Very insightful piece. I think the key word should be 'accountability', whether player, coach, or selctor has the power.

If you want to give coaches a carte blanche on selection issues, then you must have him as a member of the actual selection panel. No point in just giving him authority over who to select from within the squad.

The roles of a coach across sports cannot be compared.The captain in footbal doesn't have much to do unless he is an inspirational one like Roy Keane. On the other hand,cricket is such a game where the captain has to be aware of the goings on and take dynamic decisions and those decisions can produce immediate results as well.The inputs from the coach during a game of football are not as dynamic as they have to be in cricket.As Ian Chappell says,a good cricket captain doesn't need a coach. A facilitator on the lines of Buchanan is probably a good idea.Giving the captains all the powers and defining the role of a coach properly should do the trick as has been shown by Imran - Intikhab Alam,Steve Waugh - Buchanan,Taylor/Border- Simpson or for that matter Ganguly - Wright.Where they went wrong in India was not being able to read the sell-by dates of both the captain and coach.

Amit, you astute dog!

If I were a nail, my head would be bloody hurting!!

Amit,
Way to bring out the essence of the issue. To all of you out there, critiquing Amit for his verbosity, if he comments are actually stating the obvious loquaciously then why is there still an uproar about Chappell's email and comments. The coach is asked to do a job which has some responsibilities. He is to be judged by some tangible outcomes. Why then should he not have the power to actually state that merit should trump all in the matter of selection?

Too simplistic I'm afraid. 1. Autocratic coaches are going out of style even in games like football. We all seem to hold Alex Ferguson as a shining example, but he's not exactly on the top of his game these days is he? Jose Mourinho could make Carvalho apologise but didnt peremptorily sell him. Players have to do the playing, the coach has to manage them, not treat them like little kids. y, that's the mantra in any management today. Power also comes with the responsibility for the outcome of your actions on the people you deal with, not just "results". 2. In cricket, the captain has far greater responsibilities than in any other game. He has to take on the spot decisions on field placings and bowling changes. These cant be taken by the coach. So if you take away the captain's powers off the field, you can't expect him to suddenly switch on the authority when on the field. Woolmer and Fletcher are successful bcoz they work *with* the incumbent captains. 3. In football, the game is set up in a club system where even if a coach sacks an errant player, the player can find alternate employment in another club (and usually gets paid a hefty settlement - look up "Roy Keane" in google). In cricket, a player who gets dropped from the national team loses his entire income suddenly, especially in India/Pak/SL where there is practically no professional first class cricket. Its incumbent upon boards to set up a fair system of assessing players and selecting them. In fact in Australia/SAF, selectors can't make statements like "we dropped him coz we dont like his attitude". That's unfair dismissal the board can be sued. Remember klusener? http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/128752.html

Well said by everyone. But, the thing is that when power is given it should not be miused. OK, the coach should have say on selection, but, that does not mean that he can sack any player for the sake of just not listening to him. I am not referring to Chappell/Ganguly alone but this could have well happened in Woolmer/Shoaib case also. So power should be given but closely monitored by people who really understand what is Cricket and Team selection(not by the so called members of the BCCI). Somebody like Gavaskar or Kapil should be involved in tracking the coach's performances as well.

Amit, Congrats on a good piece! Power can be utilised only if there is responsibility (accountability). In the US, basketball coaches get fired if the team fails, because he alone is held accountable for the performance of the team and the captain and the players are left to focus on the game. The coach is not a trainer of the team; after all each player got selected only because of their talent, in the first place!

A coach deserves a certain degree of accountability and responsibility but a cricket captain's job on the field is perhaps the most dynamic of any game. He changes fields, he changes bowlers and he can modify plans. The coach should be instrumental in developing plans and nurturing the talent given him by the selectors. However, it is the captain who carries out and adapts the plan on the field. Thus, he should be held equally responsible for developing the plans. After all, instant communication between the coach and captain is not currently possible while on the field.
It makes more sense that the responsibility for team planning and selection(whatever their contribution to it) be shared equally between the two, but that fitness activities and ancillary contributions be more the purview of the coach.
That being said, personal responsibility for each player to carry out the plans and keep up with training programmes needs to be enforced as well.

The concept works in corporate governance, but that may not be the yard-stick to judge its success in the Indian cricket arena. Power in the hands of deserving people is welcome - power to Greg Chappel would backfire. Why? As a captain Greg ordered his bowler to bowl underarm, his famous finger salute to cricket fans, his banging the car door on a lady journalist's hand - these are not qualities that can be appreciated or emulated. Choosing Rahul Dravid as captain was the first move towards an autocratic regimental setup- a backboneless team, that is getting used to taking orders only will fail miserably in International games and in World Cup. Kapil's Devil's were succesful because of freedom and the spirit to fight for the country, Saurav's boys also brought home a lot of Gaurav, but Greg's followers will slowly get conditioned to curbing their natural instincts and would only look forward to orders to follow - like Dravid. And we also have the Raj Singh Dungarpurs and the Kiran More's - let's start scripting the tombstone, 2007 is not far away.

The article points out the importance of power and responsibility, but the other two faces of this tradeoff are independence and accountability. Accountability lies with captain and coach, but as agents, they are not given enough independence. There appears to be no argument that the selectors should not wield as much power as they do, and that captain and coach should have more of a say.

The question of devolution of power is a tricky one because the nature of the game may change with the onus shifting from captain to coach. Professional Football is a fantastic game, rich in tactical detail, but while it has produced Its Alex Fergussons, it is unlikely to produce a Steve Waugh.

Well said.But still Indian cricket is influenced by politics. Ganguly got selected in the test squad only because the selectors were influenced by politicians. Neither Dravid or Chappel would have preferred ganguly instead of yuvraj in the 11 considering Yuvrajs form in the oneday series against South Africa.

Its good that chappel is trying not to let the selectors(politicians) dictate terms.I completly agree with the failure of sachin as a captain and the success of ganguly is because of team selection.

I hope chappel and dravid can build a really good team for the world cup and most importantly a professional team which dont keep loosing the finals.

A very interesting discussion, and many insights. However, I totally disagree that powerful coaches are going out of style. Examples: baseball, basketball. Extremely professional sports, the only ones with as much (or more than?) money at stake as cricket. There, it's the captain's role that's diluted. Come to think of it, isn't it comparatively dilute in football? The simple fact of the matter is, the administrators of those sports realize that coaches are in the best position to notice various things going on during the game. The players, of whom the captain is one, are too preoccupied with the immediate moment. The strategic input, therefore, goes from the coach (Cronje, Woolmer and the hidden microphone, anyone?).

When you make the coach's role so pivotal, you justify the amount of pressure he faces. Agreed, the Klusener-dropping was a bad way to go about things, but wasn't it the captain who got away with the most words? Keeping silent about such matters, or being diplomatic, comes within the purview of "responsibility", which is probably part of Amit's point as well.

As for "free-spirit-reigns", well, that's long been established as the worst method when expecting lasting success, even more so when the group in question is a very talented one. It's not so much rigid discipline, but responsibility for one's actions, that seems to be the hallmark of the Chappell regime. I'm unable to think of any callous dropped-from-squad episodes without sufficient chance. Rather, in such an environment, everyone is likely to keep believing that they'll get a look-in if they knock on the door hard enough with performances. Isn't that the kind of atmosphere one wants to foster in any professional environment?

As for as my views are concern i would like to see a balance between Coach, Captain and Selection committee. I think the first thing that should be applied without concern is that minimal role of a board in the team selection (premier examples are PCB, BCCI who demolished the nation's cricket with their interruption).
As for as coach is concern, unless he is given a part from each role he will not be responsible for any defeat or even success.
As for as captain's powers are concern i would like to see him like Imran's.Though he too demolsihed some priemer players of his time but also show plenti of results.

I disagree with empowering coaches as in other sports. Cricket is a better sport with thinking captains and players. I prefer that captains make decisions, strategies. Otherwise, we'll start putting players with no intelligence, just an ability to physically execute, follow instructions on the field. Much like in American Football and basketball. That would definitely drive me away from the game.

Bleeding obvious ? Maybe - but in a different sense. That a team would perform best when the brilliant captain / coach is given absolute power and responsibility is just one - and perhaps the oldest - paradigms in achieving success in a team activity. Steve Waugh, in his autobiography, for example, makes a compelling argument against having the captain make tough selection decisions.
Maybe this argument about balancing power with responsibility could be applied to the support staff too. The selectors, for instance, need to select a team that they think would the best fit for the current assignment. They would get the stick for a bad job - when the team loses and the carrot when the team wins. But ofcourse that would be utopia. Even the ideal that Indian Cricket aspires for - corporate governance has no such notions of accountability. When was the last time an HR VP was held accountable for recruiting a lousy manager ?

the best coach at the moment is woolmer. well i disagree with what you said about wright. he had the power. well when india beat aussies and then drew againsat them wright was credited very much. he was called the mastermind. but when they lose you cannot blame ganguly

Good work Amit - and all the responders. I too feel the coach needs more powers, if not like a shouting football coach. The strategy the team needs to adopt and the approach to any situation should be his ball-game - and He should be blamed if things go wrong - (mind you, the next step is FIRED). Frankly speaking i got a doubt, whether Dravid would repeat a Tendulkar as captain(keeping the new lobby in pic?).. lets hope for the best and expect the worst!! (and be a little more sportive - after all its a game!)

U can't make cricket coach act like a football coach can you? It is certainly not the way cricket is played... coach has got work behind the scenes..while caption should possess powers to run the game in the field

Load of rubbish! Mind you cricket is not football.And what about Greg"s newlook team. Apart from one R.P.Singh and one Shreesant, I see the same faces. Certainly the so called performers have done the same years before. Deja-vue! Mr.Amit. Bit of a lesser cacafoney would be well placed.

Good post, Amit. I agree with you that the coach needs more power. In fact, like American sports, I would say that we accept that the team belongs to the coach. He decides what should be done and the players should execute it.

BTW, what are your thoughts on a purely professional cricket league replacing the current system? Not the feasibility, just theoretical thoughts.

People like Tikolo, Ganguly and Gillespie would just find a place elsewhere when their team doesn't want them. Think about it.

In the world of sports, power always lies with the player who possess the deepest skills set. Success in sports stands next to skills. The person with the extraordinary skills set is the one with the power. Coaches and Captains are just escape goats for these players, when they are going through a down period. Look at Ganguly and wright, seemed like they were the most powerfull men when Sachin was playing well. It was Ganguly and Wright who were sacked when Sachin was not performing.
Then moral of the story is, when in prime of their careers, some players are irreplaceable, and all the higher authorities cater to those players.
Power lies with the skills of the players and reponsibility is just an illusion.

Giving power to a coach akin to that of a football club manager is not a bad thing at all. In the case of let's say - Man Utd - one of the richest and most supported clubs, Alex Ferguson has single handedly managed the club and even now is putting up a brave face in trying to defend the players (inspite of their recent debacles). On the field he had an inspirational figure in Roy Keane who did play a very important role. One may argue that for Sir Alex, being in the club for such a long period makes him alive to the club's sensitivities which is even more important in cricket as it is the nation that one manages. So in the case of Greg Chappell the newly appointed media manager along with Rahul dravid would do well to educate him only in this regard. Otherwise I think power that a coach normally deserves should be given to him. And in matters dealing with selection I think it would be a good idea to allow the coach to be a pseudo selector in the sense that in case he does manage to spot a talent that the selectors haven't seen (which may be a rare occurrence as we have a foreign coach) he MUST be allowed to select that player irrespective of what the other selectors think., i.e, if the board decides on a squad of 16 this coach could select a 17 or even an 18th if he felt he was too good a talent to be left out.

Unlike the game of soccer, cricket moves at a different pace and as such a coach sitting on the sidelines has a different perspective of the game as compared to the captain. He could be watching the game on the tv and will have the God's eye view of the game, he would also be listening to the commentary as well and listen to what the others are saying about what is happening in the field and how a situation may be addressed in a different manner. So these are like reserve forces that are available to the coach and he can send the directive to the captain through the drinks guy to change the strategy, bowl in a different manner, have a different field setting. All these assets are available to the coach and not the captain and they must be utilized to the max. The bottom line is winning. The teams where the coach is the leader and the captain is his point man and executes the directives without any prejudice will succeed over teams that do otherwise.
The job of a coach is to get the best out the individual players to perform at the highest level as a team. The captain is the enforcer of the game plan that the coach and the team has come up with.

Power without any accountability is dangerous. I still cannot figure out that a coach with so much power, insists on performance, yet consistently goes with Agarkar over Zaheer, Nehra and Balaji. If I remember correctly, these three bowlers performed extremely well before they were dropped in favor of Agarkar who has been in and out of the team for years without any contribution. Team India is doing well under the new system, but lets not get carried away by their performance against an overrated team at home. The real test will come in a month or so.

I still think captain and coach should have no say in selection matters; like in Australia.
However this might not work that well in India and Pakistan unless there is a foreign cheif selector.
Otherwise 8 of India's playing 11 would always be from Bombay and 8 of Pakistan's playing 11 would always be from Lahore

The coach running the show may work wonders in soccer where the idea is to kick the ball into the posts. Cricket is a vastly different game with many facets wherein a player or the captain in the field dynamically has to adjust to the varying inputs and give outputs accordingly. The coaches job is to fine tune the team. The captain should be the one who should be running it!

The direct relationship between power and responsibility is a considerably acceptable solution to most of the dillemas that rear when accountability issues arise but for it's implementation, a clear cut methodology has to be defined in cases where distributed responsibility occurs (which you mentioned in your post as well). About the selection, well yes i'll certain advocate the coach having the final word to say when selection matters arise. Unfortunately we don't see more talent hunters in our boards than talent suppressers. We had this quota system in the Pakistani board a couple of years back, not sure if it exists now but it makes selection biased and pathetic to a precarious degree.

Well, i guess if this methodology is adopted to improve the game ... not sure about that but it would surely make handling of a player like Shoaib Akhtar easier. To control such players, the captain and the coach certainly need greater amount of power. This power would make the player feel the importance of adopting a bland and comitted attitude towards the game. In Imran's time, that's how things worked. He was the sole authority ... his verdict was the final one. Entrusting him with greater responsibilites and greater power was one of the cardinal reasons of Pakistan's successful era of late 80z and early 90z.

Agree with Asok De. Cricket is just a game of 11 on 11. No matter what kind of responsibility and power dynamics you have, a coach can't make a batsman play a cover drive or bowler bowl outswing. In fact, i think captain should be the top dawg and the coach just help him with training and stuff.

The coach standing right outside the boundary line doing all the thinking and passing on the orders looks like a good idea to me. The captain has lot of things to do between every ball bowled. How many times have we seen a captain miss filed or drop a catch and felt that he wasn’t there 100%? When you compare with captains of other sports, I don’t think its fair on cricket captains. Why let the coach enjoy the game as a spectator, why not get him into doing the thinking when the game is in progress (not that they don’t do some of it now). That way the captain can just concentrate on his game when he is in the middle and the coach on his strategies, who I believe knows about the abilities and the form of the players a little bit better than anyone else in the team.

Agree with the concept in general. But I thought the selection of the topic was a bit mistimed. I mean surely you're not suggesting more powers to Chappell of all people. Fletcher yes, Woolmer, Micky Arthur for sure. Moody perhaps after a 6 month probation. But Chappell is already a bit of a disaster (although I suspect few realize it now) and rather than give him more power BCCI would do well to remind him that he is an accountable employee of the Board and not the honorary Lord of Indian cricket that he has started believing he is.

Let a coach prove himself, let him build a track record and then yes, empower him. (Oh, and let's never again hire a coach with no track record, especially if he's been a star player).

Shankar Mazumdar
Calgary, Canada

Amit - You have stated the obvious; any manager worth his salt knows that Power and Responsibility should go hand-in-hand. GC, Darvid, Indian media and BCCI must singlemindedly focus on winning WC 2007 by:
a) identify 15-20 good players
b) give big-match experience to newbies in that group to further groom or eliminate

and repeat steps a and b until we find a highly motivated, fit and potential match-winners to play in WC.

-Tushar
http://tscali.blogspot.com

I think there should be three key people

1) Captain - who is responsible for everything that happens on the field which includes final decisions on strategy, game plan etc. during the game

2) Coach - responsible for picking the captain, deciding the team for every match with input from the captain, and working on strategy , game plan etc.

3) Chairman of selectors / Manager Type person - responsible for picking the coach, choosing the squad, scouting younger players etc... the chairman should be expected to pick the other members of the selection committee with input from BCCI

A structure like this where there are clear roles, clear responsibilities, clear hierarchy (& at least for the coach and the chairman of selection committee a fixed tenure / contract) generally works well whether it is a sports organization or corporation.

As you said Amit, there should be a fair balance. The question though is how much is too much. I'm very pleased with the decisions Chappell's made, giving the likes of Harbhajan/Ganguly a kick in the backside to perform and bringing in some fresh blood - but with another coach taking on such power, it could lead to major problems.

The England team under Atherton in the mid 90s when Illingworth was coach/manager/etc is a very good example of just what can go wrong if the coach is given too much power. The coach's own personal likes/dislikes/regional biases can come in the way of logical thinking, and England's record under Illingworth should really say it all. Chappell, thankfully, is of a far higher standard as far as his man-management and tactical thinking goes, and with Dravid, it seems like a perfect partnership at the moment. But that's not to say that every coach down the line, or every captain-coach combination, might work out as well.

Its a very good idea, they should give more power to coach.

Power is a heavyweight entity which always makes people to be autocrate at any level. We have seen Saurav, the third 10K+ run getters in ODI is dropped from Indian team. It is significant example of power misuse. Both Saurav and Chappel misused the power. So, from my point of view its good to offer power to the coach beside captain but it should be limited to certain point. Otherwise who knows, we may see Chappel raising issue that Kumble is becoming old (!!), Sachin is no more destructive like his earlier times (!!!).

A great insightful thought by Mr. Verma. I do support the author's idea of giving more power or even ultimate power to coach. There are couple of reasons behind it. First of all a coach plays a main role in making strategies and plans to handle the opponents. Also he knows his team's strength and weakness better than anyone else. So if coach is given in the ultimate power he can have his best possible selection to take on the opponents, plus he can't make any excuse that he wasn't given any resources needed. Giving power to captain won't be a bad idea either since he has to handle all the players on the field and get work done. But it should be made sure by the game's national governing body (in this case BCCI) that they don't misuse this power. There is also one more benefit to this, and that is a team's power will be in the hands of someone who is related to cricket (like former legend Greg Chappell as a coach and current best cricketer Rahul Dravid, not in the hands of the politican like Pawar who may have never played any street cricket and god knows he may not know any cricket rules either). As far as the zonal selection committe, why don't BCCI make a point system for the domestic teams too. Player who performs consitently well for a longer period of time will obviously have higher points and making his stand clear for getting slected in national side. I believe this is a great idea brought up by Mr. Verma. I even believe that any cricketing nation implementing this thought in practice will get positive results soon. Thanx for letting us share our opinion. BTW Welcome back 23 yards...new 23 YARDS!

Giving powere to the coach alone will not improve matters.Professionals and not politicians are needed in the BCCI. There is also no place for businessmen in the BCCI. The day our country realises this, our Team can hope to win the World Cup. Till then we should be happy if we are finalists in the World Cup.
Coaches and Captains have a place in the scheme of things - but they are not everything.

I agree with Rezaul Karim. More power to the coach but no absolute power to anyone.
Infact even right now a significant misuse of the coach's power is underway ... exclusion of Zaheer Khan. If Yashpal Sharma is to be believed then it is Chappel who is keeping Zaheer out.

Coming back to my opening statement. Now, the question is how much power to the coach? and who decides it? I think the coach's power should be restricted only when it comes to team selection. In team selection the captain should have the last say.

To me, it's pretty clear that things have been distinctly mishandled in India for some time. There is definite bias to particular districts and there seems to be an almost racist feeling going toward Chappell - let's not forget that his record as a captain was impeccable and that he has a fine brain for cricket, so makes a good choice as coach. The main thing here, though, is the spilt of power - and I feel that it depends on the people you have at the time - Illingworth was a disaster and Atherton should have had more power (as should have everyone else) but then Illingworth was also a hypocrit who should have never been coach, as short-minded as he was. Actually, he could have been an Indian - he favoured one county (Yorkshire) and demanded total control. Then take Bennett King - frankly, with Chanderpaul as skipper, he needs to take more responsibility than maybe Buchanan as there is not the imagination in the field. Anyway, I'm sure you'll all lambast me.

Yes. A perfectly logical approach. Only snag is that it will be more of a reality if the entire Board is professionalised and not based on honorary posts. At the moment the basic imbalance exists here - between power and accountability + responsibility.

Ironically the opening remarks of this topic go against Greg Chappell now. Power without responsibility. Integrity is a must for any human being. By welcoming Ganguly's inclusion and opposing it in the selection committee he lost the trust. Now we can't believe that Rahul Dravid can express his views in public and get away with it. I agree with Ganguly that the issue is between the coach and himself. But, it is utterly wrong on the part of press to project that GC has full backing of whole team.
Finally this issue tells us why we should keep selection different from operations.
This issue would not have been discussed in Parliament if the coach is allowed to just give the inputs to the selection committee and not sit in selection committee meeting thoughout its length and then critisize selectors in public, just because one of his demands are not met.