Tag Archives: sourav ganguly

More on the Multiple Captains Controversy

Posted on by

Most news organizations and bloggers have picked up on John Buchanan’s concept of multiple captains. Here are a few samples:

Sharda Ugra of India Today wonders about the chain of command:

Before Buchanan’s idea is taken on board, what must first be decided is who is held accountable when things go wrong? One captain? All captains? The coach? Or the poor guy who can’t point a finger fast enough?

Dileep Premachandran of Cricinfo suggests that captaincy in cricket is entirely different from captaincy in other sports:

Arthur spoke of the players getting mixed signals, and that’s the biggest problem with this Politburo model of captaincy. Who has the final say? Even in this era of coaches, the one consistent line has been that the captain has the final word once the team crossed the rope on to the field of play. Does a coach sitting on the sidelines really have a better feel for what’s going on in the middle? And if there are four or five “leaders” on the field, who makes the crunch calls? Instead of relying on one man’s instinct, do you put it to a vote?

On the other hand, Tony Becca of The Jamaica Gleaner thinks that maybe the idea could be successful:

Changes, some changes, probably most changes, are usually good. Who can tell, maybe years from now multiple captains will be the order of the day, and if and when that happens, Buchanan may be remembered as a visionary.

CricketFuzz finds it hilarious:

Right now this sounds like some marriage band that has 6 lead singers each taking turns singing their favourite songs in the manner of their influences be it hard rock, pop or avant-garde. Well you don’t really call that a professional band with a distinct character but one that is rather paid to only perform on a ’show me the money’ basis. And that’s exactly how they are treating this and this team owner obliges with them, after all, the balance sheet column is the only reason he got into this in the first place.

jrod at Cricket with Balls takes some schadenfreude at Ganguly’s embarrassment:

Any system where Brad Hodge is involved and involves rotation seems doomed to fail in my mind. [...] But for the Kolkata Knightriders I back the deicision. [...] Not because I think it will work, but because it pisses of The Giant Alien Lizard Ganguly who loses his special little title, and because it is being reported that people are burning John Buchanan effigies.

Geetha Krishnan at Cow Corner goes into Buchanan’s mind:

John (visibly excited): I can make Sourav the mascot captain. So he can wear those funny costumes (or may be take his shirt off) and cheer the team. That way I can get rid of him from the eleven. I can get Ponting to do some field placements. Now that should make the game more competitive and push our bowlers hard. Chris Gayle deciding the batting order should pose some problems for the fielding side – he will take so much time with his decisions on the batting order that it will affect the over-rate. Brendon McCullum can do some pitch reading, Brad Hodge can be the captain of the reserves… the possibilities are endless.

Finally, The Best Cricketer looks at the problems with implementation of this strategy:

Let us suppose Buchanan implements his concept and are in the semis; semi finals they play under Sourav and they win then in finals they play under Gayle and they lose. Now does this mean that they would have had a better chance if they would have played finals under Sourav? Is just Gayle to be held accountable? Who decides? Let us look at another scenario, first 4 matches they play under Sourav and they win, next three they play under Gayle and win; 8th match again under Sourav and they lose – now can’t Sourav claim that part of the reason for the loss was because the command line got shaken or his captains instincts subdued due to Gayle captaining previous 3 matches?

Multiple Captains? Kolkata Asking for Trouble

Posted on by

captain_joseph_burnett

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.