Should the role of a cricket coach change?

[pup11]

Obviously i was thinking about this for sometime now, i was just wondering whether a cricket coach should be given more power and liberty like a soccer manager.
It would be interesting if a man is picked as coach of a side and then he is given a free hand to pick the players he wants in the team from domestic cricket and he can run the team in any way he wants, this would make things a bit more interesting IMO what do you guys think??

 

[Flem274*]

Obviously i was thinking about this for sometime now, i was just wondering whether a cricket coach should be given more power and liberty like a soccer manager.
It would be interesting if a man is picked as coach of a side and then he is given a free hand to pick the players he wants in the team from domestic cricket and he can run the team in any way he wants, this would make things a bit more interesting IMO what do you guys think??

With Bracewell in charge? **** NO!!!

With someone with some sense then maybe...

 

[Perm]

Not in New Zealand. The idea has some merits, but the risk of it becoming a dictatorship is too high.

 

[The Baconator]

If it was like that, wouldn't it interfere with the captain's role a fair bit?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Obviously i was thinking about this for sometime now, i was just wondering whether a cricket coach should be given more power and liberty like a soccer manager.
It would be interesting if a man is picked as coach of a side and then he is given a free hand to pick the players he wants in the team from domestic cricket and he can run the team in any way he wants, this would make things a bit more interesting IMO what do you guys think??

I agree in part, I think the selection committie should be done away with and just have the coach and captain select the XI.

 

[Richard]

If it was like that, wouldn't it interfere with the captain's role a fair bit?

That's the idea. The captain was always too powerful in olde crickete days.

The Schofield Report, of course, recommended the idea of a "supremo" to be in charge of England (based on the pure genius of Raymond Illingworth's time in such a role) and such a thing will presumably happen before long.

Don't really like it myself, English cricket selection has of late been geared around collective responsibility, which doesn't suit the press, who like to have easy scapegoats, despite the fact that they usually in hindsight criticise the selection of players they wanted ITFP.

Mind, Illingworth at the time he took-on such a role was not suited to it at all, and one questions whether his personality was suited to it full-stop.

 

[Goughy]

It comes down to the responsibilities and expectations of the coach.

If a coach is going to be judged on the performance of their team and will get sacked after a run of poor performances then they must have complete control.

It would be unfair to make them responsible for results when they didnt have the power to implement their own ideas to the full.

 

[pup11]

The whole idea behind starting this thread is basically questioning the role of a cricket coach at the international level atm, lets be honest a coach at the international level can't teach his players how to bowl or bat well so one can't expect a coach to turn a mediocre international player into a superb one, a coach's role is basically limited to probably keeping the team focused and motivate them now and then with a pep talk, he might come up with a few tactics or plans that might help his players but when we look at the larger picture a coach's role in international cricket is pretty restricted but still when the team loses a coach faces a lot of flak.
So if a board picks a guy with good cricketing acumen who they think would manage their team well and hand him with liberties to run things as he likes to make the team perform better then i don't see anything wrong with it, he can have support staff like talent scout, physios, trainers, etc who can help him run things smoothly.
In doing so you are basically putting the coach in an answerable position where its upto him that how he manages the team and delivers the goods.

 

[Goughy]

The whole idea behind starting this thread is basically questioning the role of a cricket coach at the international level atm, lets be honest a coach at the international level can't teach his players how to bowl or bat well so one can't expect a coach to turn a mediocre international player into a superb one, a coach's role is basically limited to probably keeping the team focused and motivate them now and then with a pep talk, he might come up with a few tactics or plans that might help his players but when we look at the larger picture a coach's role in international cricket is pretty restricted but still when the team loses a coach faces a lot of flak.
So if a board picks a guy with good cricketing acumen who they think would manage their team well and hand him with liberties to run things as he likes to make the team perform better then i don't see anything wrong with it, he can have support staff like talent scout, physios, trainers, etc who can help him run things smoothly.
In doing so you are basically putting the coach in an answerable position where its upto him that how he manages the team and delivers the goods.

I disagree that a coach cant improve an International cricketer. Firstly, few of them are the finished article when they arrive at Test level and over time little flaws creep in that need to be constantly addressed. There is a reason why top golfers and Tennis players have their own coaches. They are technical games like cricket and technique needs consistant refinement.

Secondary to that a coach at international level should be focusing on preparation, team and dressing room cohesiveness, an environment for success and selection. The coach needs to be a good communicator and be able to deal with issues as they arise and make players feel comfortable in their defined roles. The coach should also offer continuity, as in if and when the players change the team mentality and attitude atays the same as the coach is still there.

I dont think pep talks are important. Cricket lasts too long for any fired up emotional team talk to make any difference.

 

[Richard]

Basically, the role of a coach is so much more than purely saying "you're doing this wrong with your grip, you need to do that" to a player.

I've said it a few times, but I think one of John Buchanan's happier pieces of phrasemaking was what he said about one of coaches' main roles being that akin to "the head of the family".

 

[pup11]

I disagree that a coach cant improve an International cricketer. Firstly, few of them are the finished article when they arrive at Test level and over time little flaws creep in that need to be constantly addressed. There is a reason why top golfers and Tennis players have their own coaches. They are technical games like cricket and technique needs consistant refinement.

Secondary to that a coach at international level should be focusing on preparation, team and dressing room cohesiveness, an environment for success and selection. The coach needs to be a good communicator and be able to deal with issues as they arise and make players feel comfortable in their defined roles. The coach should also offer continuity, as in if and when the players change the team mentality and attitude atays the same as the coach is still there.

I dont think pep talks are important. Cricket lasts too long for any fired up emotional team talk to make any difference.

I wasn't saying that a coach can't help a player get over technical problems or something on those lines but you can't certainly expect a coach to turn a mediocre cricketer into a superb cricketer, anyways my point is the coach and the captain have little or no say in selection of their team so they have to work with whatever squad that gets picked but at the end of the day when that particular squad doesn't do well the coach and captain are the one's who are answerable and always in the line of fire.
I agree with most of things you have said in your post and that's why i said that a cricket coach should have the same liberties that a soccer manager has but to help him there should be support staff consisting batting coach, bowling coach, fielding coach,talent scouts (who can keep a eye on the most talented players in the county), etc.
This sort of a thing could make cricket a lot more professional and performance oriented.

 

[ozone]

IMO, a coach should still be there to do just that, coach. The captain should still get the final say with team selection and stuff like that because, ultimately, it is him who has to lead the team on the field. Coaching is definately still needed at international level IMO because of the amount of international cricket being played. This means that many players spend little time with coaches at there state/county team and therefore have little time to work on there technique away from the internatonal setup.