What Makes a Successful Cricket Coach?
Why is it that people seem to think you need to be a past great
player to be a successful cricket coach?
I've been following the recent
discussion surrounding Roger Harper's stint and the criticisms
from Alvin Kallicharran and others and, if I'm to go by their
thinking, then the Australian team and New Zealand team would be in
dire straits right now. My question is: What makes a successful
coach?
The only relevance the past Test record has is that the Coach
has had experience at that level and knows what it?s like to be in
the Teat arena, which is not necessarily a prerequisite, as one can
acquire the services of the right people to do that.
A good coach will admit that he doesn't know everything and is not
the best at anything and will be humble enough to seek to employ
specific personnel to fill the gaps. Surely some of the most
important qualifications for a successful coach to have would be:
communication skills; humility; technical knowledge; a pool of
talented, experienced players; and be well versed in group
dynamics. There are a couple areas that two of the mentioned
'campaigners' are very sadly lacking in.
To carry out an attack on Harper's past Test record and to refer to
him as "a loser" is to attack the character of the man. If memory
serves me right, Harper was the best spinner in the region during
his time (only Nanan and Butts could compare at the time) and had a
moderately successful time with the ball in an era totally
dominated by pace bowlers. He was also thought of as 'one of the',
if not "the" best all-round fieldsmen in the world.
To refer to any member of the West Indian team from that era as "a
loser" is a totally undeserved and insubstantial allegation. Every
member was a champion! It is also mentioned that Harper was an
"ordinary Test Cricketer". In my opinion there is no such thing as
an "ordinary" Test player. These guys are the best in the world
playing in the best competition available. All extra-ordinary men!
Furthermore, I believe that whoever coaches the current West Indian
team will record the same or worse results, as the performance of
the current team is indicative of a bunch of players not
technically, and most definitely not mentally, mature at the
highest level, which speaks volumes about the level of First Class
cricket in the region and the coaching structures in place.
We can no longer rely on playing "the numbers game" and hoping that
superior talent will jump out of the woodwork. Science has caught
up with the game and the smart teams are using these approaches to
maximise the potential of whatever players they have.
I had the ill-fortune of witnessing one of the practise sessions
when the West Indies team was out in New Zealand last (the team
coach was Viv Richards), and it was one of the most ordinary
efforts I have seen for a Test side . A total lack of purpose and
enthusiasm was displayed.
Most Provincial teams here in New Zealand make better use of the
practice time. I believe that the rot has well and truly set in and
we're now paying the price of resting on our proverbial laurels and
that the time has come to stop pointing fingers and start the
reparation process ? from the bottom up. We do have the talent and
the personnel to do the job. Let's bring our collective heads
together and get the job done - now!
* Garfield Charles is a Level Three qualified coach working in
New Zealand. He is responsible for coaching the Under 19 Canterbury
side and nurturing some of the best young talent in the province
through to the 1st XI level. He played 34 first class matches for
Guyana from 1982-1991, taking 66 wickets at an average of 34.72.