Osman Samiuddin looks at the coaching clearout which has followed the World Cup and examines the prospects for the old, the new and the unknown

Greg Chappell: the first coach to stand down after India's exit © Getty Images

India

Inbox: The new man will have to gel with skipper Rahul Dravid, yet take the other players who had distanced themselves from captain and coach along as well. A number of senior stars will near a natural end under the new coach and handling that will require the touch of a diplomat. Dealing with strong-minded underperformers like Virender Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh will not be easy either. The most difficult assignment it may not be (see across the border, or below) but none brings greater pressure.

Contenders: That Dav Whatmore is keen on the job is no secret. He is also the likeliest contender and subcontinent experience is a handy advantage. A John Wright return won't be ruled out until he says no: have feelers been sent out? Locals such as Mohinder Amarnath, Sandeep Patil and even Sunil Gavaskar will also be in the running.

Pakistan

Inbox: The new coach has a new young captain to work with and much on his plate: senior players will need soothing, the issue of religion will have to be tread around delicately and WADA may still have something to say about two key players. Factor in the general madness of Pakistan cricket and it is the most difficult, and least desirable, job in world cricket at the moment.

Contenders: John Wright was contacted last year but nothing concrete emerged from it. Though he hasn't ruled out a coaching job, sources close to Wright told Cricinfo that no offer had been made. Tim Boon, of Leicestershire, has also been mentioned but if the PCB go local, then Aaqib Javed is first choice. Wasim Akram, about to help out local fast bowlers in Lahore, is the wildest wildcard.

Bangladesh

Inbox: The new man walks into one of the more exciting jobs. Underpinned by an Australian blueprint for success, Bangladesh cricket is currently abuzz, an academy delivering talent proper to the national team in a country in which the game's popularity is growing still.

Contenders: Few official noises have been made as Whatmore will stay till the India series in May to give the board time to find a replacement. Somewhere, the name of Allan Donald has cropped up though. And even, believe it or not, Nasser Hussain.

Sri Lanka:

Inbox: Walking into the most exciting job in world cricket. There is a lovely balance between the old legs and new ones, the captain himself is beautifully poised in between and the team appears on the verge of big things. The board, though, is as crazy as they come in the subcontinent.

Contenders: Moody's departure is not inked in just yet, but a move to Western Australia, according to some, is all but settled. And he was a frontrunner for India two years ago and Australia recently.

West Indies

Inbox: Given that King wasn't a popular choice among locals, a foreign appointment would have that to deal with that resentment first. There is also the small matter of answering the toughest question in cricket: How on earth do you reverse Caribbean cricketing fortunes? A legend light and a new captain to work with may or may not help.

Contenders: Likely to be a local this time round and Roger Harper, currently with Kenya, might be lured away by the lustre of a big job at home.

New men at the helm

Australia

Inbox: Tim Nielsen is a system pick through and through, safe and credible. More skills-based and hands-on than his predecessor, but Buchanan remains a mentor. Has played more first-class cricket too, which will probably earn him some more respect.

Prospects: After the West Indies, this must be the toughest question: How does one of the greatest teams of all time get better? He will have to deal quickly with the retirements of a number of geniuses, though as the World Cup has revealed, they appear to have a replacement ready in every position.

Peter Moores: another safe, system pick, © Getty Images

England

Inbox: Peter Moores's was a swift appointment, though David Morgan calling it an 'emergency' choice seems plain rude. Another safe, system pick, though in nearly all of his previous appointments and incarnations, he has produced results.

Prospects: Following on from arguably the best coach England has ever had is every bit as difficult as it sounds. He has some work on his hands, with an ODI overhaul and a major Test rekindling for starters. And helping Steve Harmison and Marcus Trescothick get their groove back might not be a bad idea either.

Netherlands

Inbox: Paul-Jan Bakker's appointment carries on that trend, as Netherlands cannot afford to pay a higher-profile coach. The team is in transition and the next two years will show which way they are going.

Prospects: Like all Associates, Netherlands are battling with being amateurs in a professional world. A small player base and finite commercial opportunities means that Bakker will do well to tread water.

Steady as she goes

Mickey Arthur: could end 2007 as the senior coach in world cricket © Getty Images

New Zealand

South Africa

Zimbabwe

Kenya

Glenn McGrath collected 3 for 14 in his opening spell and dropped South Africa to 27 for 5 © Getty Images

Rahul Bhattacharya

St Lucia is a delightful island of Caribbean vibes. At night the liming strip in Rodney Bay has come alive for comers from all over the world. Beres Hammond, Sean Paul and David Rudder have performed. Shaggy and Maxi Priest will tonight. But Lucians don't much talk about cricket - or listen to it, as Tuesday's Jamaica semi-final did not come over the radio. There has never been a Test cricketer out of here and the few locals who were at Beausejour will not have been bowled over by what they saw.

This was a less than rousing affair. The trouble with Australian professionalism is that it has become such a cliché that even watching it at its calibrated best can be numbing. Glory be flaws.

Yet, with a little filter of nostalgia even these hours of unremitting lopsided excellence are able to take on some warmth. To watch the chuntering maestro Glenn McGrath at work was to see an entire era of wicket-to-wicket back-of-length menace flash before the eyes, the eternal hypnotic torture of it. We will get to see it once more on Saturday. Once more only.

Few cricketers have been at once so level as McGrath and yet able to find another one. In an over, in a spell, in a day, in a series, in a season, he seems always to be operating at his peak. Still he is continually rising to occasions. Remember his ball to Sachin at the '99 World Cup? The one to Lara?

Admittedly Ashwell Prince played the stroke of a paralysed man and Jacques Kallis' foolishness brought the best out of a fine yorker. The touch of the master was in the Mark Boucher dismissal. It was the classic McGrath incision, Halal if you will. Off stump and just outside, a bit of wobble and bounce, caught first slip. Equally McGrathian was the impact: big semi-final, opening spell, six overs, 3 for 14, South Africa 27 for 5. The man is two months after 37. He looks it too. Australians were asking for him to be put to pasture before the World Cup. There you go.

"The fact that I'm going to retire is probably one of the reasons I'm bowling so well," he said, "because I'm just going out there, trying to enjoy it, make the most of it, make the most of every game I play. There's no pressure, no fear, no anything.

"I've probably bowled a little differently this tournament. Probably bowled a little more aggressively than I have done in the past. That's the reason I've got a few more wickets, I've probably gone for a few more runs than I normally do. It's worked out with 25 wickets; Tait has 23 wickets, Brad Hogg has 20 and Bracks [Nathan Bracken] is doing well too. The fact that we've bowled every team out is a huge lift for us, bar Bangladesh who we only got 20 overs with."

Those last two sentences draw out an essence of the McGrath personality. To observe him at a press conference is to appreciate that his renowned trick of knowing each one of his dismissals cannot be idle exaggeration.

Mark Boucher's dismissal was classic McGrath: off stump and just outside, a bit of wobble and bounce, caught first slip © Getty Images

There was something like the Dustin Hoffman character in Rain Man about the scene at the dais. Every time Ponting needed a figure, he'd look to McGrath, who would oblige.
Sometimes he did not need to ask. When Ponting said Australia had done well to restrict Sri Lanka to 226 in 50 overs the other day, McGrath intervened to say that they had in fact bowled them out (they had, in 49.4 overs). When Ponting mentioned Shaun Tait had done very well to get 22 wickets in the tournament, McGrath interrupted to say that it was in fact 23. When a journalist asked him about his four Man-of-the-Match awards in the tournament, he quipped: "Hopefully if it's four it will mean we've won the final. I've only really got three."

"They talk about batsmen batting in partnerships," McGrath said, "I think it's even more so with bowlers. With Nathan Bracken and Shaun Tait bowling the way they are, Punter asks me to come on generally with one or two wickets down. Bracks always keeps it tight, puts batsmen under pressure, and the way Taity's been bowling they just want to get down to the other end and face me!

"We're all different bowlers but complement each other. You've got an old bloke running in and hitting the deck top of off, Bracks swinging it up front and then he's back with old ball at the end, Taity who can come in and just blast guys out, and Hoggy has had an exceptional tour, he played a big part in 2003 and is again now. And you've got guys like Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson dying to get out for a game, and Brett Lee is at home."

There was pride in the words of the oldie. With the departure of McGrath, shortly after Shane Warne, an epoch in cricket will have been completed. Expertly, precisely, and more humorously than given credit, the job has been done. McGrath leaves Australian cricket in a better shape than he found it in and Australia, as ever, are ready to make the most of it.

Rahul Bhattacharya

Brian Lara batted with sensual beauty and gluttonous appetite. Many will hope he does it one last time in Barbados © AFP

Brian Lara, maker of epics, will bat one last time on Saturday. As ever, man and batsman, leader and performer, will take stage together in familiar conflict. Appointed captain a third time specifically for the Caribbean World Cup, he had some encouraging success with the one-day side but ultimately leaves behind this botched campaign as his final mark. Humiliation still fresh in their minds, but still the momentousness of the exit of the most brilliant batsman of his time before their eyes, West Indians will be divided. To savour him one last time or blame him one last time?

Always it has been so with Lara. I stumbled across an article from many years ago by BC Pires in Jamaica. To the Jamaican taxi driver the issue of Lara was clear: "'im like a child, like my likka son at home: 'im want captaincy, 'im must get captaincy; 'im wan' to bat at number five, 'im must bat at number five; 'im don't want captaincy any more, 'im t'row it back; 'im don't wan' play, 'im don' play, 'im never care if the team need 'im. No, bredren, West Indies parform better without him."

I also came across a short note on the message boards of caribbeancricket.com minutes after the understated announcement of retirement. "My hero since I was a very young boy. I've followed his career since de afro days at Fatima. Missed classes to watch him bat. This is a sad day for me."

It is for me too, because Lara's batsmanship was the greatest pleasure I derived out of cricket in the last two decades along with the bowling of Wasim Akram and I could have watched the game if they alone played it in the field. Lara batted with sensual beauty and gluttonous appetite. To watch him move into position was to already understand the possibilities of this game. To study his figures was to marvel the scope of his conception. He made the most runs in an over, an innings, a career. Anything anyone did he did bigger. Can you imagine someone making five hundred runs at one shot?

Nobody twinkled his feet so and angled his blade so and keep hitting gaps like Lara, an intuition sharpened in childhood when he arranged pots as fielders to practise. In 2003 a man at deep midwicket was taken out and put beside another behind point. This comes from Adam Gilchrist in The Australian a couple of seasons ago. "Mistake," hissed Lara. Next ball Lara lofted to midwicket for six. Gilchrist taunted Lara to take on the two men behind point instead. Lara strung it between them for four. Next ball was straighter, Lara backed away and strung it through again. Best remain silent now, Gilchrist then decided. This was to demonstrate precision of his skill. But I particularly liked "mistake". 'You don't know what I can do?' was the strut. That is the Lara motif.

The ambitions of his mind as much as the liquidity of his movements have been of fascination. A colleague from junior cricket told me about the time Lara the boy would come knocking at the door early in the morning every week when they published the averages, brandish the paper in his face with a great satisfied smirk and be off on his way to practice. When he was performing the improbable task of continuously taking apart Muttiah Muralitharan in Sri Lanka

in 2001, his likely successor Ramnaresh Sarwan, unable to summon such mastery, watched in awe from the other end. 'Just watch how I do it,' Lara is said to have advised Sarwan, testament to both the man's ego and his genius.

Nobody could pack so much drama, meaning in every shot of cricket. Consequently nobody could so illuminate the point that this is a sport of such independent events, of an infinite number of worlds.

Five years ago after a fair chase I did a satisfying interview with him. He told me a little story behind the 153 not out against Australia, perhaps his defining work in a career full of defining works. You remember the scenario, pay dispute, 0-5 in South Africa, 51 all out in the first Test, and then the brilliant double hundred to level the series before the classic Test at Bridgetown. A school friend, Nicholas Gomez, had presented him a Michael Jordan book. In it Jordan had spoken about his visualisation techniques. "I remember calling Gomez at six o'clock in the morning, the last morning of the Test match, and we went about planning this innings against the best team in the world." This was Lara's focus upon arousal, and if it deserted him he always found it back, and in the waxing and waning there was something reassuringly cyclical as it was frustrating.

Seven years on from that Australia series came another contract dispute, and Lara among others was dropped for endorsing the wrong corporate. When he returned, 36 years old now, he walked out at 13 for 2 in the opening hour against South Africa, having not played a Test for seven months. He made 196; the next highest score was 35. Thirteen days later he emerged at 12 for 2, soon to become 12 for 3, again on the first morning, and made 176 from 224 balls out of 296. West Indies were drubbed in both Tests. To test the point that Lara inhibits the rest of the team, he was dropped for the following one-dayers against Pakistan. West Indies lost all matches. Back for the Tests, Lara now walked out at 25 for 2 - for a third time, in the opening hour of the match - and struck 130 from 120 balls , this the most sublime of the lot.

He bows out now in a one-day match but it was not his preferred stage. Though his magical wrists, his intuition for gaps, his talent at going aerial were all suited to one-day cricket, not so the scale. The canvas was too small. Lara was of odysseys. He liked to get in, bat one, two days, score two, three, four hundred runs. Before such calibre, the limitations of one-day cricket were too petty.

Even so he was for a time - early in his career, when he batted always in the top four, rather than five or six where he has spent much of his last stint as captain - about the finest limited-overs batsman in the world too. He took 41 matches to get his first hundred. Then he added another ten in the next 70. His average passed 47. Those were the days of the mid-Nineties when the world of cricket turned for Brian Lara. All he touched turned to runs. Then came the slump, and while he regained his genius in Test matches, it wasn't ever quite the same in one-day cricket. The same appetite he could not bring to the short form and many a potential masterpiece was sawn off. In the past eleven innings alone he has had scores of 44, 31, 37, 37, 21 and 33.

But every now and then the brilliance shone through. His last one-day century, the only one in three years, was 156 against Pakistan at Adelaide last season. The final 57 balls of that innings brought 106 runs. It was a stunning reminder of his destructive potential and reminiscent particularly of his Sharjah blitz against Sri Lanka a decade ago when he had gone from 100 to 169 in 29 deliveries.

Lara tees off against Harbhajan Singh in Trinidad last year © AFP

Having been unlucky in that way, it is from a one-day match that I have the best memories of watching Lara live. This was in Trinidad last year. The position was carefully determined so as to find the most unfettered view of that great big glittering backlift and wind-up. We settled somewhere between wide long-off and extra cover. Till he closed the issue with triumphant sixes off Harbhajan Singh, he played an innings of hard grit. So it was an hour or two of watching him size it up and really it was all I wanted to watch.

There comes a point in the Lara wind-up when all the game seems frozen. He is bent climatically at the knees, bat, as the cliché' has it, raised like a guillotine, eyes trained down the pitch and, surely, given his knack for reading of spin and swing, at the bowler's wrist. Insofar as the life of a cricket stroke goes, this is the fatal moment, the hairline between death, glory and a day at the office. It is perhaps not normal to think of cricket shots in those terms. Yet nobody could make the spectator more alive to these possibilities. Nobody could pack so much drama, meaning in every shot of cricket. Consequently nobody could so illuminate the point that this is a sport of such independent events, of an infinite number of worlds. Nobody, for better or for worse, could so strongly confirm that this here is the ultimate individual sport played by a team.

Nobody made the game look better and few ever played it better. So look hard on Saturday because we may not see the likes of this again and if we do we can think back to Lara and smile.

by Sambit Bal

Brian Lara has been a peerless batsman © Getty Images

Saturday could be the last time we watch Brian Lara in an international match. Anyone who has a feel for cricket will mourn his loss, for no batsman in the last 15 years has brought more joy to spectators. But paradoxically, West Indian cricket is unlikely to miss him.

Lara's legacy will be deeply flawed as he has been the most mortal of geniuses. Any human, however talented, must be granted his indiscretions, and Lara has always been a complex character. His batting, a hostage to his moods, has touched extraordinary highs and inexplicable lows. But that's the essence of Lara and the peaks have been so rewarding that it's been easy to overlook the troughs.

To judge Lara's contribution to West Indian cricket, it is essential to separate his batting from his leadership. Lara the batsman is peerless, light years ahead of his compatriots who have struggled to match the deeds of their predecessors. Lara the leader has been diametrically opposite. Aloof and whimsical are the mild words used to describe him. The stronger ones are selfish, vindictive and unbecoming.

It is hardly a secret that Lara was foisted as captain by Ken Gordon, the president of the West Indies Cricket Board and a fellow Trinidadian, after the infamous row between the board and the players over sponsorship in 2005. A majority of the then selection committee didn't want him and none of the members of the present one want him either. But Gordon, in a move that will be familiar to most cricket fans in the subcontinent, imposed his will on them, and might want do so again. However, his hold on the board has been weakened following the World Cup debacle, and if the selectors have their way, Lara will not make the West Indian touring party for the trip to England in May. Not as captain, not even as player.

Two faced: as a leader Lara has been selfish and vindictive © Getty Images

While it would be unfair to blame one person, however powerful, for the abjectness of an entire team, those in the know firmly believe that the rot begins right at the top. Lara, they say, has never allowed the team to settle down, and worse, done his best to undermine any player who has crossed his path.

Of course, barring occasional outbursts against the selectors, he has been a model of rectitude and decorum in public, always choosing the right words, and hitting the right notes. In his press conference before the game against Bangladesh at Kensington Oval on Thursday, he repeated his apology to cricket fans and talked about the disappointment of the Caribbean nations. "The need to show character" was a phrase that came up repeatedly.

Yet, Lara, who will retire from one-day internationals after the tournament, stands accused of destroying the character of the team more than anyone else. On the field, he has been eccentric and unpredictable and some of his tactics have bordered on the bizarre. Some of his improvisations, like opening the bowling with Wavell Hinds and Dwayne Smith, have borne fruit, and he has been persuasive in arguing that he has used innovation as a surprise weapon due to the lack of too many real ones at his disposal. "I wouldn't have needed to experiment if I was leading Australia," he said during last year's Champions Trophy.

But some of the selections defied logic and cricket sense. For much of last year, Ian Bradshaw and Jerome Taylor were the team's best one-day bowlers. Bradshaw was outstanding with the new ball, often bowled his overs through and conceded about 40 runs. Taylor was beginning to master operating at the death, delivering at pace and firing in yorkers. Both have found themselves dropped repeatedly and Bradshaw has been used at first change and sometimes even at the death where he has been easy meat at his pace.

Lara picked the rookie Lendl Simmons as a batsman in the World Cup and put him at No. 8, and in the crucial, near knock-out match against New Zealand, he chose to hand a one-day debut to the 19-year-old Keiron Pollard while dropping Marlon Samuels, in whom he had expressed faith only a few weeks earlier.

Off the field, he has set a poor example to his team-mates when it comes to behaviour and personal work ethic. Genius must receive an allowance, and tales of Garry Sobers turning up at a match after a night of revelry abound in these parts. But Sobers played in a different era and he was captain for only a short part of his career. Lara has led a bunch of impressionable and far less talented individuals much prone to the risk of being led astray.

And he has been severe on the players who he has come to dislike. Ramnaresh Sarwan, a captaincy candidate who has a far better record in both forms of the game than most current players, had the mortification of being dropped on the tour of Pakistan and others have had their batting positions shuffled. Some are believed to be dead against him, while many others live in fear. It is not only a team lacking faith in its own ability, but lacking faith in their leader.

The cricket world will be poorer for Lara's departure, but for West Indian cricket it could be the way forward. It's a tragedy. Lara ought to be remembered as one of the most special batsmen in the history of the game and not a captain whose whims and sullenness destabilised an already feeble team.

by Andrew Miller

Sri Lanka failed to build on the excellent recovery of Mahela Jayawardene and Chamara Silva © AFP

Only an ambush will be able to stop Australia. That's the consensus after a bizarre and deliberately staged mismatch between the team most tipped to win the World Cup and their nearest - yet still distant - challenger. After Stephen Fleming last week managed the pace of New Zealand's defeat against Sri Lanka in a bid to enhance their longevity in the competition, this time it was the Sri Lankans who indulged in a bit of by-play. Knock-out time is nearing, but the pretenders to Australia's title are still wheeling around the favourite, ducking and bobbing and striving for the merest hint of an opening.

Sri Lanka's captain, Mahela Jayawardene, tried to deny that his key bowlers, Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas, (and the injured Lasith Malinga) had been rested for tactical reasons, but nobody truly believed his protestations. When you set a trap for a beast as big, powerful and terrifying as the Australians, timing is everything. To have sprung a major surprise in a game as meaningless as this encounter had become would have been a criminal waste of their energies.

Forget all the talk of victories building momentum and other such clichéd interpretations. Ricky Ponting's Australians are so crushingly focused that a defeat would have been like a ricochet off a rhino's hide. Australia would have stored up the indignity, redirected their fury, and doubtless entered the semi-finals even more determined to crush all resistance. One look at Ponting's thousand-yard stare tells you that much.

"To tell you the truth it doesn't worry me one little bit," he said, having long since dispensed with the platitudes in press conferences. "They obviously had some you-beaut plan going into the game, to rest a couple of the best players, but that's fine with us. We'll take a comprehensive win against Sri Lanka this close to the finals.

"I don't know their reasons and I don't care. It's out of our control. We put our best team on the park to win the game and we clearly finished on top which is great. If they want to make it through and win the World Cup they are more than likely going to have to play us again at some stage. They've got to bounce back from what we've done to them, but that's for them to worry about, not us."

Sri Lanka will face all sorts of accusations in the coming days of bringing the game into disrepute and of devaluing the World Cup with their tactics. But if the shielding of their star bowlers pays any sort of dividends come the business end of the competition, then hindsight will not only forgive them but thank them as well. Australia, for the eighth match running, learned little of relevance about their opponents, and once again, their former world No. 1 batsman, Michael Hussey, was left to fester in the pavilion. His event has stalled at a mere 50 runs from 72 balls faced.

They managed to get our score pretty easily and our bowlers didn't look that penetrative, but I don't think they bowled particularly well either Mahela Jayawardene

"It must have been a fairly frustrating tournament for him," Ponting said in a statement that contained the only glimmer of compassion he was willing to emit all day. "The top-order guys have done the job, but there is going to be a time in this tournament when Andrew Symonds, Hussey and maybe Brad Hodge are going to have to do some very important batting for us." Sri Lanka are determined that that moment should come in the final in 12 days.

For that to happen, however, they will need to raise their game to levels higher than their second-string managed, and it was a serious concern for Jayawardene that his batsmen folded quite as readily as they did on a fairly blameless pitch. Ponting would have batted first had he won the toss, and so for Sri Lanka to be all out for 226, with a collapse of 5 for 17 undermining their recovery from early setbacks, was not the message that Jayawardene had hoped to send out.

"We know we can compete but we are disappointed with the way we played today," Jayawardene said. "We made a lot of mistakes and when you do that against a quality side they will definitely punish you. Yes, they managed to get our score pretty easily and our bowlers didn't look that penetrative, but I don't think they bowled particularly well either, given the conditions."

A total of 250 might have turned this into a contest, but Nathan Bracken pulled Sri Lanka's strings in an exemplary four-wicket stint, and Shaun Tait bounced back from a scattergun first spell to take two crucial wickets with his out-and-out hostility. "Every game we've tried to make a bit of a statement and we've done it again," Ponting said. "The only team we haven't bowled out is Bangladesh and that was over 22 overs."

by Tim de Lisle

84 matches, an average of 26, with not a single hundred - It is indeed a feeble record for Michael Vaughan, the England captain, though his numbers are similar with several other England captains in the past © AFP

For a batsman good enough to have been the world Test number one, Michael Vaughan has had a wretched World Cup. He opens England's batting, yet he goes into today's crunch game against South Africa with an average like a handy tailender (16) and the strike rate of a Seventies stonewaller (55). Vaughan has managed no fifties, no sixes, and only 15 fours off 203 balls. Of England's 1455 runs in the tournament, only 113 have come from his cultured bat. He has faced 75 more balls than England's new boy, Ravi Bopara, and made one more run. As World Cup openers go, he is the poor man's William Porterfield.

Anyone can have a bad trot, but this one has now lasted for most of Vaughan's one-day career: in 84 matches he has an average of 26, with not a single hundred. Even a Vaughan fan has to concede that it's a feeble record. But it's not just him. England captains never make many one-day runs.

The Wisden Cricketer magazine are running a competition to name England's all-time best (or least worst) one-day XI, and I was one of the people they roped in to make a selection. So I checked the stats and found that many of England's best-loved cricketers flopped with the bat while leading the one-day team.

Vaughan's average as captain is 28. That's decidedly better than Alec Stewart, who averaged 23 in 41 matches as one-day captain. It's better than David Gower, who managed a measly 25, and much the same as Graham Gooch, who steered England to the 1992 World Cup final but hardly led by example, averaging 29 as one-day captain. And it puts Andrew Flintoff in the shade: his average as captain is 17, with no fifties.

Vaughan's strike rate as captain is 65. Turgid stuff, but much the same as Stewart (64) and Mike Denness (63), and not as bad as Mike Atherton (59) or Gooch (55), let alone Mike Brearley (45). Even Graham Thorpe, a fine one-day finisher, managed just 58 in his three matches as captain. The only captains with strike rates over 80 are stand-ins - Allan Lamb, John Emburey, Marcus Trescothick, Andrew Strauss, Alan Knott and, bizarrely, Brian Close.

Nasser Hussain did slightly better than Vaughan, with an average of 31 and a strike rate of 70. Mike Gatting did slightly better still, with an average of 33 and a strike rate of 75 - hot stuff by the standards of the 1980s. But when it comes to hundreds, they're all about as bad as each other. In 465 matches, England's one-day captains have mustered only six centuries. Ricky Ponting gets that many every 18 months.

The only other major teams with as few as six hundreds are Pakistan, who have often been captained by fast bowlers (Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis), and South Africa, who have only been playing one-day internationals since 1991. All South Africa's six hundreds, curiously, have been made by Graeme Smith. Hansie Cronje never got one, although he made umpteen fifties. Neither England's captains nor South Africa's have ever made a World Cup hundred, a statistical curiosity which really ought to end today.

Most England supporters probably don't even know that Alec Stewart flopped with the bat as captain © AFP

Of the six one-day hundreds England captains have made, two were by Mike Atherton. Excellent innings they were too, each against a top attack - West Indies in 1995 and Australia in 1997. Atherton saw off Curtly Ambrose on a dewy morning at Lord's and Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne at The Oval. Maybe England should have valued him more highly. His record - average a shade under 34 - is a whole lot better than some of the men he has worked with in commentary boxes and in the England hierarchy. Geoff Boycott made three runs in two games as England one-day captain, Tony Greig five runs in two, Ray Illingworth five in three.

Those last few figures are just random bits of trivia, but overall there is a clear pattern. England captains don't make big one-day runs; they bat worse in one-dayers than in Tests. Why should this be?

It's partly that English coaching is geared to Test, not one-day cricket, stressing defence more than attack, orthodoxy rather than invention. To see Vaughan play his classical strokes, mostly straight to the man at mid-off, is like watching a Victorian watercolourist stumble into a party at Damien Hirst's.

It's partly the one-day cricket played by the counties, which is all quantity and not much quality. There are three one-day tournaments, which is at least one too many. The only one that makes players stronger and cleverer is Twenty20, and Duncan Fletcher seldom lets his big names join in the fun. Vaughan has played two Twenty20 games in his life, both for England.

England weren't wrong to pick Vaughan: he is worth a place, just, as a puppeteer alone

These factors apply to most England players. The difference with the captains is simply that they are England captain. It's a heavy burden to bear. You're being judged nearly all the time - but less so in one-dayers. Most England supporters probably don't even know that Gooch and Gower and Stewart flopped with the bat. Compared to the blazing limelight of Tests, a one-day series is a relative hiding place, little scrutinised by the press, soon forgotten by the fans.

The World Cup, of course, is different. And some England captains have raised their game accordingly - Gatting averaged 50 in 1987, Denness flourished briefly in 1975, and Stewart dragged his average up to 37 in various outings spread over 11 years. But they all captained in World Cups that came at the start of an international season. Vaughan, like Hussain in 2003 and Atherton in 1996, has the extra pressure of working with an exhausted rabble.

England weren't wrong to pick Vaughan: he is worth a place, just, as a puppeteer alone. Where they have blundered is in surrounding him with other slow-lane drivers. Fletcher's suggestion that opening with Flintoff or Pietersen would mean shifting four or five players is nonsense. Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, Joyce, Flintoff, Collingwood: job done, with everyone in a position they're used to except Pietersen, who loves a new challenge.

In the long run, what all this shows is that England should have a separate one-day captain. There is a squeamishness about splitting the job which is quite misplaced. Australia have done it with huge success, keeping both teams growing and allowing first Steve Waugh, then Ponting, to get years of practice before taking over as Test captain. English resistance to it tends to be based on the idea that the Test captain wouldn't like it. Which goes straight back to the root of the problem.

by Sambit Bal

The decision to retain Rahul Dravid as captain is a mature one, not swayed by the immediacy of defeat © AFP

Adversity is known to test character. It can provoke reactions ranging from panic and hysteria to composure and creativity. Over the past two days, the Board of Control for Cricket in India has shown itself to be schizophrenic. Its response to the recent decline of the Indian team ranged from the pragmatic and progressive to the shrill and slyly opportunistic.

It has taken a number of good decisions and made some right noises. By appointing Ravi Shastri as cricket manager, though it's not yet clear if can be persuaded to accept the job on a long-term basis, and splitting the coach's job, the BCCI has demonstrated its openness to flexible and creative thinking.

By retaining Rahul Dravid as captain, and also acceding to a number of his suggestions - appointing bowling and fielding coaches and creating the posts of professional administrative manager and media manager - the board has not only reposed faith in the captain, who is the best available choice at the moment, but also given him his desired personnel. It is a mature decision not swayed by the immediacy of defeat. It is a massive vote of confidence for Dravid.

And by deciding to send a young team to Bangladesh under Dravid, the board has not only shown a commitment to the future but also sent out a strong message to a bunch of players who were beginning to form a pressure group for all the wrong reasons. A certain staleness has crept in to the batting, with a few big players seeming more intent on self-preservation, and India have floundered repeatedly in conditions and situations where the Big Fish have been required to step up. Four of India's top-five batsmen are now nearing the end of their careers and the changeover has to be made now.

But the most seminal and far-reaching of all is the decision to scrap the zonal selection committee. Amateur selectors picked through the regional quota system have been among the most anachronistic and venal symbols of an organization that relies on power-broking and horse-trading. There is no guarantee that this will not be another hollow promise but it is for the first time that the board has made a written commitment to professionalise the system and that's a big step forward.

The measures announced to strengthen and revitalize domestic cricket appear to be superficial. Announcing that international players will play more domestic matches is one thing and creating the circumstances for them to be able to do so is another. The international calendar is already crammed, and in addition the Indian board has its own television deals that need fulfilling.

As for making lively pitches, it's an old commitment that has never been kept. Pitch committees have existed for years and have taken several token, half-baked measures but it is hard to believe that something will happen till it actually happens.

However, the board has also exploited the current circumstances - players are vulnerable and public opinion is that they are overpaid and underperforming - to protect its own commercial interests at the expense of the players.

As for making lively pitches, it's an old commitment that has never been kept and it is hard to believe that something will happen till it actually happens © Getty Images

The trigger for this crackdown is understood to be a clause that the board believes exists in the endorsement contract of a couple of batsmen linking their bonus to their stay in the crease.
If true, it is a serious transgression, and the matter must be investigated and culprits exposed. Rumours and innuendos will only hurt Indian cricket.

And to use this to impose the kind of restrictions the board is seeking to might be legally indefensible. It would run contrary to the spirit of free trade and would amount to exploitation of a monopoly organisation, not to speak of the widespread resentment it will create among the players. Since the board is not seeking to enforce this with retrospective effect, the players with existing contracts will not be affected while those on the rise will.

To argue that players are distracted from the game by their commitment to advertisers is slightly specious because the most successful players happen to be those with the most contracts.

The board's motives are obvious. It is keen to protect the interest of its own sponsors. Many of the current Indian players endorse Reebok and Adidas to the discomfort of Nike, who have paid a handsome amount for the apparel sponsorship of the national team. Most of the individual contracts pre-date the team contract and Nike signed the deal in full knowledge of this. Whether the players want to stay with their existing deals or accept a deal from the team's sponsor if it was offered to them should be their decision alone.

Without doubt, there is a case for moderation all around. The cricket economy is overheated at the moment and the Indian board is partly responsible for it. The players are not blameless either. But there's nothing that can't be sorted out across the table. The strong-arm tactics adopted by the BCCI at the moment feel like a low blow.

by Anand Vasu

It may yet be of symbolic value, but the BCCI's message to Sachin Tendulkar, the holiest of holy cows, will not be lost on anyone © AFP

Review meetings are meant to be eyewashes. Not much more than some token nip and tuck was expected of the two-day meeting of the Board of Control for Cricket in India to discuss its team's embarrasssing early return from the World Cup. What has emerged instead is a series of tough, some would even say harsh, measures aimed at reining in some of the game's biggest - and, in the eyes of the board, truant - superstars. The message to them is strong, and it has been delivered in the bluntest manner possible.

And amid it all there is a massive vote of confidence for Rahul Dravid. It may yet be of symbolic value, but the message to Sachin Tendulkar, the holiest of holy cows, will not be lost on anyone. By deciding to serve him a show cause notice for his interview to a leading newspaper,
in which he expressed his hurt over the coach questioning his attitude, the board has demonstrated that it is not willing to spare anyone. A similar notice has been issued to Yuvraj Singh, who went on record to say the players backed Sachin's stand.

To rub it in, the board has also announced that a team consisting of younger players will tour Bangladesh under Dravid, who has also been appointed captain for the next tour to England.

It might not say it in so many words but it is the strongest assertion of power from the board in recent times and a clear acknowledgement of the fact that it has taken serious note of the attitude of some senior players.

This is probably the most strident move by the board against the players since August 1989, when it banned six players - Dilip Vengsarkar, Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri, Arun Lal, Mohammed Azharuddin and Kiran More - from playing international cricket for a period of one year after they participated in a series of unofficial matches in the USA. That came at a time when the players were talking about protecting their player rights and forming an association. The six players challenged the ban in the Supreme Court, which applied the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act to rule in their favour.

Though it's farfetched to see the board actually banning or fining the two players they have issued noticed to, the board has backed the accent on youth that Dravid and Greg Chappell have been talking of for a while now.

There's a strong chance that several senior players will be rested, at least for the one-dayers, in the forthcoming tour of Bangladesh. This means that players like Manoj Tiwari and Rohit Sharma will get a chance to dislodge some of the established members of the team. Strong
performances could well ensure that they get a look-in when tougher tests confront India later in the year.

It's tough to say whether Dravid has got all he wanted. But one thing is clear: The players have got a strong signal - pull together, win matches, and you will be rewarded. The board will not stand by and watch wheels within wheels undermine the efforts of some members of the team.

by Anand Vasu

'What some players saw as a single-minded commitment to an ideology, others saw as a reflection of how inflexible Chappell was as a person, how fixed he was in his ideas and views, schoolmasterly in his approach' © Getty Images

When marriages end, even the happiest of them, they end badly. And this was never a happy marriage to begin with; in that sense, the circumstances of Greg Chappell's departure comes as no surprise.

Ever since Chappell won the coaching assignment some 23 months ago, armed with a vision he was picked for by a panel of eminent former Indian captains, controversy has dogged Indian cricket. He took over at a time when the Indian team was in a downward slide and it was assumed that his larger-than-life persona would not just arrest this slide but take Indian cricket to the next level.

However, for his way of thinking and working - distinct as it was from the Indian way, precisely the reason that he was hired - to have any effect, he needed the team, especially the senior group, to buy into his philosophy. That the team has not merely failed to go up to the next level but has come down a notch could have as much to do with this as it does with the assertion that Chappell failed as a man-manager and could not carry a group of diverse and difficult cricketers with him.

It didn't take a genius to work out that he would be the obvious scapegoat for India's failure at the World Cup. But it is mischievous to lay the blame for all ills squarely at his doorstep. "Team-spirit is a bit of an overrated word," Rahul Dravid once said in an interview, taking this writer by surprise. "When the team is winning the spirit is always good. When the spirit is good, the team wins, more often than not. But which comes first?" In this case the spirit, if at all present when Chappell took over, was considerably weakened.

Convinced that Indian cricket was strong enough, he was willing to plunge it into chaos for he believed that real clarity had a better chance of emerging from confusion rather than denial

And there came Chappell's first blind spot.

Convinced that Indian cricket was strong enough, he was willing to plunge it into chaos for he believed that real clarity had a better chance of emerging from confusion rather than denial. When he wrote that scathing six-page email to the BCCI on Ganguly, knowing full well it could be leaked, he precipitated a change of captaincy that was clearly needed - Indian cricket needed the coach and captain to reading from the same page, and that happened with Dravid's elevation. Yet it should escape no one's attention that he had put his job on the line in doing so, standing for the principles he believed in.

The transition was messy - private arguments became public wars - leaving Dravid with a poisoned chalice. Therein came what is seen as Chappell's second flaw, and ironically Dravid's greatest strength. For the two, some things were non-negotiable. They made it clear that players would pick themselves - not be artificially propped up by selectors or the team management - and, apart from just runs and wickets, factors like a constant urge to improve, a hunger to excel, to do things the right way, would play a part.

There were some players whom the two probably felt had slipped into a comfort zone, did not display these attributes, and got the axe. But their young replacements, who had the right attitude - the Suresh Rainas and VRV Singhs - simply did not do enough to validate the theory that doing the right things would bring the right results.

What some players saw as a single-minded commitment to an ideology, others saw as a reflection of how inflexible Chappell was as a person, how fixed he was in his ideas and views, schoolmasterly in his approach. Chappell could counter that by pointing to a group of cricketers who were unused to being told what to do, were left untouched in success and failure, and largely believed they already knew all they needed to about cricket. And it's no coincidence which group, the youngsters or the seniors, were doing the most complaining, even in private.

'Chappell pushed the players harder than they ever had been, physically and mentally, and some didn't take too kindly to this' © Getty Images

The flashpoint of Chappell's tempestuous tenure was the dropping of Ganguly, the premise of which was that a Ganguly free of the burden of captaincy would emerge a stronger batsman. This was proved right when Ganguly returned from 14 months in the wilderness, before which his batting had fallen away to the point that even his loyalists in the team had lost faith in it. With Ganguly away, India won a record 18 one-day chases, and it was only much later, after the youth policy caved in, that the "experimentation" failed, the "process" was summarily discarded and the old guard recalled for the World Cup, leaving Chappell's hands all but tied.

Chappell pushed the players harder than they ever had been, physically and mentally, and some didn't take too kindly to this. The players were also enraged by the fact that Chappell was talking about his apprehensions, in confidence, to a variety of journalists - something his friends constantly warned against - but the damage was done when these tales reached the players.

That Chappell repeatedly failed to learn from these incidents was a serious error in judgment and cannot be glossed over. But that the players should take such umbrage, and blame this alone for destroying the harmony of the dressing-room is laughable, for they are past masters at manipulating the media to achieve their purposes, as the most recent sordid episode amply demonstrated.

Chappell leaving is not a tragedy. Someone will take his place, Indian cricket, and life, will go on. It is sad, though, that that things hadn't worked out between Indian cricket and Chappell. When a relationship breaks down and a dream dies, what really hurts is the fact itself, not whose fault it was. Perhaps the sceptics were right all along - Indian cricket and Chappell were just not meant to be -but an honest person would admit that it couldn't have failed solely because of one man's flaws.

by Sambit Bal

Perhaps India was not ready for Chappell, or perhaps Chappell didn't have it him to coach India with all its complexities © Getty Images

One of the most tumultuous chapters in Indian cricket has come to an end with Greg Chappell ruling himself out of contention for the Indian coaching job. Perhaps he merely pre-empted the inevitable; it was difficult to see how he could have carried on. The differences between him and many of those whom he was to manage had become far too wide and far beyond healthy.

Passions are running too high at the moment to attempt an objective assessment of his tenure. Perhaps India was not ready for Chappell, or perhaps Chappell didn't have it him to coach India with all its complexities.

His letter has simplified the matter for the BCCI to a degree. It has removed one of the many inconvenient questions confronting the board. It should not, however, serve as a convenient escape route. Chappell had his faults but Indian cricket, and the cricketers in particular, would be living in delusion if they convince themselves that he was the problem. To comprehend the magnitude of the problem read S Rajesh's fine analysis of India's batting in recent times. Sanjay Manjrekar has pithily pointed out that Chappell held up a mirror to Indian cricket.

Chappell's final report shouldn't be dismissed as the rants of a bitter coach, because it's likely to contain some home truths. Not confronting the truth and not owning up would only keep Indian cricket in the comfort of darkness.

So what now? The sentiment is building up towards a homegrown coach. Even the players, who were so opposed to the idea a couple of years ago, are open it to now. Mohinder Amarnath's name has cropped up again, as has Sandeep Patil's. Some board members are even proposing the name of Sunil Gavaskar, who has so far kept himself away from contention.

Do India really need a coach in the traditional sense? In fact, is there a single definition for a cricket coach?

But nothing would be more disastrous than an Indian being appointed for the sake of it. It is fashionable among former players to speak mockingly of laptop coaches but no country can afford a coach lacking in contemporary thinking. A return to status quo would be a step
back to the dark ages.

Here's a thought, though: Do India really need a coach in the traditional sense? In fact, is there a single definition for a cricket coach?

Over the years, coaches have defined their own roles according to their own beliefs and abilities. Some focus on technicalities, some are theorists, some are man-managers and some believe in being facilitators. Bob Woolmer was one of the finest batting coaches, John Buchanan is a man of ideas and John Wright believed in creating the right environment for
his players. No single coach can ever hope to fulfill all the requirements of a modern cricket team.

Given that a foreign coach is bound come up against the system in India and get both frustrated with and hampered by it, why not consider appointing a team of specialists? Many countries are moving towards specialised coaches integrated into a unit. Troy Cooley worked wonders with the English bowlers, Jonty Rhodes is busy cranking up the fielding of the South African team yet another notch and Mike Young has done so with the Australians.

India need help in all three areas of the game. The batsmen have consistently struggled to come to terms with pace, bounce and swing. They have a young and impressionable pace bowling attack which is now led by Zaheer Khan, himself returning from a break, and no one needs help more urgently than Irfan Pathan. John Wright has often spoken about how much the pace bowlers benefited from the presence of Bruce Reid in their camp during their successful tour of Australia. And India are among the world's worst fielding sides, regularly conceding 20 to 30 runs in one-day cricket.

Money is not a concern and if the board is sincere about it, they can find the best professionals from the global pool of talent. This team can then work with a manager of stature and proven integrity, an Indian who can help them negotiate the system. Someone who can be both link and a shield. Someone tough and uncompromising. Someone who can relate to Indian players, who is above petty politics and regionalism, and wholly committed to the idea of winning.

Step forward Ravi Shastri.

Ian Chappell

To see senior players just going through the motions in the field would have been enough to send Greg off on a search for young players who could field © AFP

If there was any chance of Greg Chappell continuing his tenure as coach of India it probably disappeared when Bob Woolmer was murdered during the World Cup.

Such an ugly incident is sure to focus your concentration on life's priorities. As much as it would seem that Greg is probably better off without all the angst that comes with one of the most demanding jobs in cricket I doubt he'll feel completely fulfilled. A perfectionist, even
one who has mellowed, is never going to be happy with under-achieving on his expectations.

Greg's only rationale for playing cricket was to win. I can guarantee that, because we had the same tutor: our father Martin. Greg's approach in his latest role would have been exactly the same, to do everything he could to help India win.

Greg is a respectful person but there is no point in trying to be like an Indian when you've been employed because of your knowledge and experience as an Australian cricketer.

For example, in Sachin Tendulkar's recent comments he said: "No coach
had mentioned even in passing that my attitude was not correct."

As a cricketer Greg was always trying to better himself, especially his
mental approach to the game. Improvement doesn't come without constantly
challenging yourself and also responding to the demands of your
team-mates, something that happened regularly in the Australian team.
Having seen Tendulkar struggle in recent times Greg would accept it as
part of his job to challenge the him to resurrect his batting
in order to help India win matches.

There is no point in trying to be like an Indian when you've been employed because of your knowledge and experience as an Australian cricketer

That is not questioning a player's attitude, that is called striving for
improvement.

Greg was one of the best half a dozen all-round fieldsmen I've seen;
he's up there with Neil Harvey, Viv Richards, Mark Waugh, Mohammad
Azharuddin and Ricky Ponting and it would have grated that many of
India's best batsmen were slouches in the field.

To see senior players just going through the motions in the field would
have been enough to send Greg off on a search for young players who
could field. However, they would also have needed to be good at another
skill and hence his early push to get younger, more athletic cricketers
into the team.

The fact that his tenure as Indian coach was less than satisfactory for
both Greg and the team is probably a good indication that the system
producing young cricketers needs more than just a bit of fine tuning.
The day before he resigned, a "Kerry Packer'-style proposal was put
forward for Indian cricket, which suggests Greg isn't the only one who
thinks the system needs a large overhaul.

S Rajesh

'The best players like to measure themselves against the strongest opposition, and in Tendulkar's case the recent numbers don't stack up well at all' © Getty Images

While India's players blame their recent poor form on everything from a manipulative coach to a sense of insecurity to an indifferent captain, the plain truth is this: When it really mattered, India's batsmen failed to deliver. It's a fact that has been obscured by emotion, hype and selective memory but a reading of the statistics is revealing.

First, India's overall ODI record under Greg Chappell:

Played 62, won 32, lost 27. It's a fair record - more victories than defeats, a win-loss ratio (1.18) which is better than that achieved by West Indies (1), Pakistan (0.94) and England (0.65), and only marginally behind Sri Lanka (1.22).

Scratch the surface, though, and some disturbing trends emerge: India won 19 out of 28 matches at home - mostly in comfortable batting conditions - but only 13 out of 34 when they travelled overseas. The win-loss ratio of 0.68 is comfortably lower than Pakistan's and England's, and only marginally better than West Indies' 0.57.

That Indian batsmen flourish on the flat tracks of home is well documented, but the star-studded line-up had briefly demonstrated an ability to perform in more demanding conditions as well. That has all but disappeared in the last 21 months - the big names have appeared far too vulnerable to the merest hint of seam, swing or even spin.

The analysis below brings out how the runs scored by the Indian batsmen during this period has been a function of the conditions and the strength of the opposition, not of their own form, which comes and goes depending on the might of the bowlers.

For the purpose of the analysis, all the ODIs played by India during this period have been divided into two categories - the first comprises matches that were played in relatively batting-friendly conditions; and the second includes the games in which the bowlers had more say. The first category includes the following: all ODIs played in India except the Champions Trophy and the four ODIs versus South Africa in 2005-06, plus India's five-match series in Pakistan in the same season, and their World Cup game against Bermuda. These were games in which the bowling attack or the conditions or both allowed the bat to dominate. Not surprisingly, all the Indian batsmen except a couple have excellent records, with Mahendra Singh Dhoni's numbers reaching Bradmanesque proportions.

The story is entirely different, though, when the batsmen have been tested a little more. The next table includes matches which have been a bigger test for batsmen - the Videocon Cup in Zimbabwe, all matches in Sri Lanka, the DLF Cup in Malaysia, and the ODIs in South Africa in West Indies.

The batsman who was the most successful in these tougher games didn't even make it to the World Cup. Mohammad Kaif made unbeaten knocks of 102 and 93 against New Zealand in the Videocon Cup and was consistently among the runs in the West Indies in 2006, but a few failures thereafter pushed him out of the side. Apart from him and Yuvraj, none of the others averages even 30 in these games.

The differences in batting averages between the two tables shows just how much the batsmen have been found wanting when the team's needed someone to put his hand up. Dhoni's average drops by a whopping 73 runs, while even Dravid's and Tendulkar's performances have dropped by 50%.

All these numbers are of course masked when you merely look at the overall figures during this period: Dravid averages 39.82 in these 21 months, Tendulkar 40.16, Dhoni 46.13. They look like healthy numbers - and they are - till you delve deeper.

Tendulkar's overall stats look impressive, but check out his recent performances against the two best sides - apart from the 55 against South Africa at Centurion, he hasn't managed a single half-century in 11 innings. The best players always like to measure themselves against the strongest opposition, and in Tendulkar's case the recent numbers don't stack up well at all.

Through most of India's recent ODI travails, it's the less-heralded bowlers who have done well - only twice during this period have they conceded more than 300, while the average runs per over conceded is only 4.93. Twenty times they've restricted the opposition to less than five per over, but India have only managed to win 50% of those games.

The batsmen have always been the ones who've been feted after most of India's ODI triumphs. It's time they took the bulk of the blame for the losses too.

by Jayaditya Gupta

'For years the BCCI has steadfastly taken for granted the vast legions of footsoldiers of Indian cricket ... for years it has turned a blind eye to everything but the opportunity to make a quick buck; Now, it could be hoist on its own petard' © Getty Images