The coach is an important, but passive stakeholder

Unlike football or hockey, the role of a coach in cricket has always been uni-dimensional.

Unlike football or hockey, the role of a coach in cricket has always been uni-dimensional. He/she is more of a facilitator and a strategist behind closed doors just like the executives of a company or bureaucrats in a government. The CEO and PM or the President, elected or appointed people just like the Captain, are the face of the company or the government. Once the game starts, the Coach — batting or bowling or anything — hides in the shadows.

If one has to go into the intricacies of coach appointments, considering that the so-called Kohli-Kumble argument or disagreement was a piece of fiction by the media due to the lack of concrete stories and it was unnecessarily made much of. Had this been any other sport, no one would have bothered or even thought about it. But cricket brings monetary gains for all — the government, people and the media — so everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

Zaheer Khan as the bowling coach was inevitable — he is the most experienced and talented ‘retired fast bowler’ after Kapil Dev — and his appointment is a calculated move since he has been a contemporary of the current bowlers.

Rahul Dravid, well, he too was a contemporary for most players and since V. V. S. Laxman is a part of the recruitment panel, they chose Dravid.

The only loss with Shastri becoming the head coach will be in the commentary panel. Shastri was a notch above the rest and the team will be reduced to a bunch of pseudos — who speak because they have a superiority complex, but lack empathy. Just like the coach, there should be a rigorous process of selection for the commentators. They should not just be recruited because they had played in some medieval times.