It seems that the Kolkata Knight Riders IPL team is innovating in an area which has a lot of downside potential. The coach, John Buchanan, apparently believes that instead of one captain, the team will have multiple captains (maybe four or five) and they will probably take turns during the tournament. Without seeing the idea in operation, it is not right to pass judgment on it. But at first shot, it seems like a very risky proposition.

First of all, without a single captain, the responsibility for the team performance entirely falls on Buchanan’s shoulders. Since there are multiple captains, no single captain can claim credit for the team’s overall success, but they could be blamed for individual defeats. The reward-versus-ratio does not work well. Since the captains are there for individual matches, no one will take the onus between matches to talk to team members and help them out. Buchanan has to do all that. But the problem is that Buchanan cannot make the essential on-the-spot decisions on the field while the team is playing. He can only provide guidance during the breaks and that is not enough.

To some extent, this looks like hubris from Buchanan, as he wants to control the team in all aspects and gain credit for any success. He cites how Ric Charlesworth ran the Australian women’s hockey team, but hockey and cricket are two different sports. Hockey is a free-flowing, continuous game that is more dependent on the skill of the individual players and teamwork. Cricket, in constrant, is a stop-start game that requires many decisions throughout the match that can only be made by someone on the field. I don’t know what Buchanan has in mind: maybe a radio headset that will feed instructions to the on-field captain?

Also, let’s see how this would work in practice. If there are 5 captains designated, how will they be used? If a team wins the match, would that captain continue or would he be removed? If the same captain is kept on and the team keeps winning matches, what then? Or would he discarded after a few wins? How would the person react? If the captain is removed after a match (win or loss), there is a risk that the person will feel rejected and not give his full support to the next captain in upcoming matches. The ego element in this person would want the new captain to fail, so that everyone “knows” that the previous captain was a better leader.

An alternative is to appoint the captain for matches in advance. But this means that each captain knows that whether the team wins or loses, he won’t be the captain for the next match, and so he may not be as careful with decision-making. There is little incentive for better performance. The team knows this too, so they may be more lax in the field. This undermines the captain’s authority in the field.

There is a lot of room for miscommunication. For instance, in one match, the captain may communicate certain tactics to the bowlers and fielders based on the match situation. In the next match, the new captain may be frustrated by the actions of the team members, because he was not aware of what was communicated to them before. There is also the danger that the different players (who are designated captains) all start giving suggestions during the same match.

The reason that Buchanan gives for not having Ganguly (who is not happy with this decision) as the sole captain is pure BS. We have 5-day Test matches and 50-over ODI matches where the captain has to bat and bowl, and still make decisions. This is not tennis where you have non-playing captains. The mark of a good captain is that they can both do their task and lead the team. If Buchanan is worried about someone not able to do both, he should find a better captain. Ganguly has been able to perform both jobs successfully in the past, so I fail to understand where the concern comes from. In fact, a non-performing captain is more likely to get little respect from the rest of the team.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Buchanan has been successful with Australia and perhaps he knows something we don’t. I don’t have much hopes for this venture, which I think is terribly misguided. There are many other areas where new strategies and tactics could be used. But maybe Buchanan will prove us all wrong.