CHENNAI: Coach selection for the Indian cricket team was supposed to be transparent and straightforward. Instead, in a year we have seen two ugly episodes involving the BCCI’s Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC), comprising Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. That’s thanks to some self-created issues brought about by a board in turmoil; more so by a captain who has openly shown who the boss is.
Before the CAC was set up, three such panels have selected coaches between 2000 and 2007. None witnessed such episodes while giving John Wright, Greg Chappell and Gary Kirsten to India. Ravi Shastri himself has been part of all three.
So how did it get so bad? To begin with, the BCCI has to take the blame. With no strong figure, it has been vulnerable due to the Committee of Administrators’ (CoA) dominance.
Last year, despite knowing Virat Kohli’s liking for Shastri, the latter introduced a process to interview candidates.
The end result was the captain getting a coach with whom he didn’t want to work. Success kept flowing, but it proved to be a smokescreen as an India legend ended his tenure in circumstances that shouldn’t occur again.
Since in Kumble, the CAC saw a coach who could take this team to unseen highs, they spent the last month or so trying to convince a captain who just didn’t relent. It was a perfect time for the three to resign. Instead, they chose to stay and fight on.
On Tuesday, board secretary Amitabh Choudhary sat in New Delhi, waiting to sign the press release (with Shastri’s name) for close to six hours, as the CAC played hardball with Shastri over support staff.
Ganguly in particular believed that they had to send out a strong message. Unlike Wright, Chappell, Kirsten and Fletcher, the CAC didn’t give Shastri the choice.
“It was their way of showing that the captain can’t get what he wants all the time. Shastri wanted (Bharathi) Arun, but Zaheer Khan and Rahul Dravid are big names, and not even Tendulkar could pacify Ganguly. Maybe Shastri should have had his own support staff, but Ganguly argued that someone has to have a hold over the team as the BCCI doesn’t have a strong head,” an official privy to negotiations told Express.
Maybe the BCCI should have formed a new panel, particularly because Shastri and Tom Moody were in the fray. The former and Ganguly had an open spat after the interview process, and there may always be the possibility of some sort of enmity or ego cropping up.
Tom Moody was Ganguly’s choice. With the nullification of Laxman’s vote due to conflict of interest — they worked together for Sunrisers Hyderabad — and Tendulkar’s backing of Shastri, the final count stood at 1-1.
“A new panel could have done the job because in case Ravi had not gotten the offer this time too, he would have blamed Ganguly. If someone other than Laxman was in the mix, then it might have been another story. Ganguly and Ravi again had a heated argument where each reminded the other of the last year’s spat. Ravi even told Sourav that like last year even this time he is serious though he was on Skype. It was always bound to happen,” the official added.
Another point of approval came from the CoA on Wednesday morning through a statement. “A coach is a mentor to a team. He is an elder buddy. Motivating and guiding players off the ground is his responsibility. The captain is the leader and the gladiator on the ground. Any team is always built around his leadership qualities.”
In simple words: ‘Bow down to the captain or find another job. This isn’t the right place for upright individuals’.
venkatakrishna@newindianexpress.com