Sunil Gavaskar added a nuanced dimension to BCCI’s quest for Duncan Fletcher’s replacement while speaking at the release of another former Indian opener Madhav Apte’s autobiography, As Luck Would Have Had It, last week.
“The Indian team needs a mentor more than a coach,” said the Little Master. “A coach is necessary at the junior level, when you are starting out and looking to make a career in the sport. That is the time to learn and correct technique and stuff. “At the highest level, you need someone who puts his arm around you and tells you this is the way to do things. This is what mentors do and it is more broadbased than just technical issues,” he added.
Some might ask whether this is not just semantics, whether a coach is not also a mentor and vice versa and whether the two entities might not merge into one. I admit the distinction can be very fine undoubtedly, but is significant nonetheless.
For instance, the most discussed coach-ward relationship in modern cricket has been between Ramakant Acharekar and Sachin Tendulkar. The former spotted and nurtured Tendulkar starting from when he was around 10 till he made his international debut at 16. In his 24-year-year international career, Tendulkar had several Indian and international players heading the Indian team viz Chandu Borde, Bishen Bedi, Ajit Wadekar, Anshuman Gaekwad, Sandeep Patil, Kapil Dev, John Wright, Greg Chappell, Gary Kirsten and Duncan Fletcher. But his coach was always Achrekar.
This is not to say the others mentioned played no role in his development as a legend. But this was largely in providing inputs where he could overcome hitches and obstacles in his pursuit of excellence, rather than fundamental technical interventions.In his autobiography Playing It My Way, Tendulkar acknowledges the contribution of Wright and Kirsten particularly in helping him get over some humps when he felt vulnerable through particular drills for extended periods of time.
The crux of Gavaskar’s theory is about the value formal coaching holds after a player has arrived at the highest level. For instance, England have recently appointed Trevor Bayliss as chief coach whose international experience is hardly worth the mention. How much can he coach Alastair Cook, now his country’s highest run-getter ever and James Anderson who has 400-plus wickets is a moot point.
Interestingly, this does not skew the argument in favour of former greats. On the contrary, some of the best names have not necessarily been successful coaches. In the Indian context, Kapil Dev had a mediocre stint while Greg Chappell’s tenure was marked more for controversy and a disappointingly early exit from the 2007 World Cup. In contrast, ‘lesser stars’ like Wadekar, Wright and Kirsten were far more productive. It could be that great players when they become coach try to impose their own reading of the game and technical assessment of players a tad too hard. Essentially, the job of the coach should be to create an environment for the pursuit of excellence.
This comes in the form of forging along with the captain a strong work ethic, diligent study of opponents, easing the relationship between seniors and juniors, ensuring that the ambition to win is not diluted through complacency or cockiness. In the modern game the coach’s persona and role is seen as crucial as players have to switch mentally and technically between three different formats, with hardly any time to reflect. This is particularly true in the frenetic T20 format.
The history of cricket bears this out. Think of players like Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Miller, Sobers, the Chappells, Miandad, Kapil, Akram, Tendulkar, Lara and Gavaskar himself, to name just a few players.
