Mickey Arthur may find the idea to use multiple captains, a brainchild of Kolkata Knight Riders' coach John Buchanan, confusing but the editors at the Kolkata-based Telegraph believe the role of a cricket captain as player, strategist and tactician, goes against the simple rule for running an efficient organisation: that one person should not perform more than one function.

Translate this principle into the cricket field and it means that a player should only be a player, a captain should only be captain. A violation of this rule results in pressure on individuals and the consequent decline in performance. A player-captain combination also produces prima donnas, which create major problems in any organizational structure. Let the players do the batting, bowling and fielding and the thinker do the planning off the field. All this may appear as too alien to the cricket purist (or even to those who are lamenting Sourav Ganguly’s loss of captaincy), but the winds of change are blowing over the cricket fields. That wind will make the ball of cricket swing in various unexpected ways. Twenty20, and its popularity, are products of the change affecting cricket. Others will follow. Refashioning the definition of a cricket captain is another radical change. Mr Buchanan has taken a step in the right direction. Pioneers never make a virtue of patience.

Sharda Ugra, on the other hand, writes the idea of having multiple captains comes with its problems, the first of which is accountability. Read her blog in India Today.

Also read Dileep Premachandran's views on the multiple-captains issue on cricinfo.com.

	Feedback