Beyond the immediate, we need to hire coaches to train our coaches so that we may have qualified professionals in the years ahead
SO now we have a ‘star performer’ Bob Woolmer to coach our star cricketers. Well, good luck to him and the boys. He has a proven track record of being a successful coach, but, then again, our boys have a proven track record of swimming against the tide and nullifying many tried and tested theories.
Anyway, I do not want to sound like a prophet of doom and gloom as nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the Pakistan team do a complete turn around and realize its full potential under Woolmer’s guidance, and be there right at the top where it should always have been.
But is the national team the only one in need of a person of Woolmer’s ability? Will his appointment be a panacea for all the ills plaguing the team? Will we suddenly see the Pakistan team embarking on a winning spree? We have had our run of arguments about the pros and cons of having local or foreign coaches, having practically experienced both in more than one stints, while the topic of sidelining experienced, brilliant performers in the field of batting and bowling to employ players of little or no ability or repute in the international circuit has also been done to death.
There is a lot of merit in the arguments that paying vast sums of money to foreign ‘coaches’ so that they can communicate their skills to players who can hardly understand what they are talking about is a waste of resources, as we have better players locally who can teach the boys the tricks of the trade while ironing out the technical kinks. But, then again, when we look around, we see most countries making use of overseas players to ‘coach’ their national team.
As far as communications is concerned, working in tandem with a local player/coach, this difficulty can be overcome, but it has to be someone who must have a role more than that of a mere translator, someone who can interact on an equal level and be a part of the analytical process. The merit of PCB’s choice, Haroon Rashid, can only be assessed in due course of time.
Many of the foreign coaches, like Woolmer, may not have been the outstanding cricketers of their times. So the reason why they are preferred over the stars has to do not with their personal ability with the bat and the ball, but with their analytical skills and communication techniques through which they coach the players under their charge.
Assessment of the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses, comparing them with the resources that their own boys possess, and devising the strategy to pit one against the other are what their job description entails. This is why the job title of coach somehow seems to be a bit odd, as the connotations it conjures up are those of a ‘teacher’ who is actually getting down to tell the boys about the correct way to wield the bat and how side-on should the bowling action be.
The modern day coach, like Bob Woolmer, armed with his paraphernalia of the laptop and video camera, equipped with the analytical skills of a master strategist who lays out the blue print for the battle plan, should probably be named the ‘team strategist’ or the ‘game manager’, much like a director of a film who has the complete picture before him, and gets the crew and the actors work according to the plot, getting the best out of each individual in keeping with their abilities, and never accepting less than cent per cent.
This is where the team needs guidance, assistance in planning, where the captain can use another head who has been able to objectively analyze the performance of the team while sitting outside. Actual coaching cannot really contribute much at this stage. What can you coach a player who has already reached the top level of the game. Unless there is something horrendously amiss in the technique of a player even at that high a level, one cannot really alter the technique.
What, however, does need to be altered is the temperament, where a batsman has lost the art of staying at the crease when so required, or the bowler keeps bowling wayward and short despite getting a licking, or get them to overcome the inability to anticipate the ball coming their way while fielding.
These are things ‘specialist’ coaches, like batting, bowling and fielding coaches, are supposed to help out with. And actually, these things need to be taken care of at a much lower level than the national team, for that is where coaching works — school and club levels.
It is a good thing that the PCB has now come around to the idea of paying attention to the longer term variety of the game rather than concentrating only on the money-spinners, which should always be considered just that.
Back to Woolmer, while it is true that he has been hired in exactly the same capacity as he had been working for South Africa, shouldn’t the Board be thinking of expanding the infrastructure by broadening the base of coaching facilities in the country so that some time in the not-too-distant future, we are weaned off the need for foreign coaches and can benefit from the experience and techniques learned by our own players who are venturing into the field of coaching.
We need coaches for our coaches, people who can learn to become coaches and strategists like Woolmer, Boycott, Chappel, Gavasker, Marsh, Wright, players who can apply the double benefit of access to modern analytical and communication skills, combined with the advantage of being able to interact with the local players at their own level so that a well rounded ability is developed in the players aspiring to perform at the top level and representing the national team.
A step in the right direction has been taken by establishing the national academies to coach players. Now let us see the process extended to the formation of academies that train coaches, trainers, physios, curators, scorers and umpires. This is what should be within the broadened scope of those responsible for the development of the game.
So while we extend a welcome to Woolmer and wish him and the boys the best of luck, it is not without a tinge of regret that we think of our own Miandad, Mushtaq, Mudassar, Intikhab and others who were given a similar charge, more than once, and found wanting, not because of any lack of cricketing credentials, but perhaps because they did not possess the modern means of ‘teaching’ that are seen as essential now in the repertoire of a team coach. Just imagine what a potent mix that would have been had they had access and been comfortable with all the technological methodology that Woolmer has.
