Quote:We now run into a parallel question: how central is captaincy? For if the coach wishes to become the defining figure, he can assume selection control from the selectors, but tactics he must wrestle from the captain. As a teenager, I was 12th man for Kent in a one-day match. I organised the drinks bottles while sitting next to the coach. When Kent took a wicket and I prepared to run onto the pitch, the coach pulled me to one side. "Tell the captain to change the bowling at the far end and move mid-off deeper. And tell him that has come from me!" I relayed the message. "Tell the coach to f*** off and let me captain the team," the captain replied, "and tell him that's from me." It was an early lesson in a familiar confusion about roles and responsibilities.
[size=18pt]not once does Ed Smith pose and tackle the question why was a head coach appointed in the first place[/size]
Smiths evolution from manager Mickey Stewart in the 19-eighties to head coach is not good enuff.
there was and is no logic behind a head coach in cricket. he does not fit. his technical expertise is not required at the top of the game..
all else the HC now does was done much more expertly by the manager.
there was no need to appoint a HC.
Smith talks about the EVOLUTION OF THE JOB..THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME.
I swear to god somebody bonked Smith on his noggin. why would any one appoint a functionary for a job that does not exist, pay him oodles of money, then require him to go out and actually make the job, shape it, cut it out of the existing milieu?
and why did all the cricketing nations have to follow, especially when the HC came at the start at salaries most cricketing nations could not afford?
and that ill logic becomes even more glaring as the ICC truncates itself under great financial pressure, lopping off the top 3 profitable teams and making them an elite, leaving all others to exist as parasites dependant on the largess of that very top 3.
where are they going to get money pay 150K USD.. to half a million USD to 1 single functionary in a mix in which they are required to deficit spend annualy..in a reality in which there was absolutely no need to create the HC in the first place?
what and where is there a need for a HC in cricket..what are the duties of a HC in cricket..is there anything at all that is specialized in the management of the game that requires the hiring of such a functionary in the first place?
[size=14pt]will the supporters of the HC please ansah?[/size]
Reminds of a story when I was in primary school
Roy fredricks was a visiting coach responsible for all the schools on our county and one day he visited our school.
We had a fast bowler . fast as lightning and Roy gave him the ball . He bowled the first one and Roy said ' here bowl another one'"
Roy Fredricks then told him " son concentrate on your batting because I cannot change your bowling action , it is too far gone"
Our fast bowler was a pelt man extraordinaire.
I wud really like to know why the HC expanded so quickly to all cricket countries..why the price escalated so greatly so that Bennett Sking could command a million per from the west indies and Gibson gets 300k
