Another Australian coach bites the dust, with Henry Lawson being told his services aren't required at the end of his current contract. Is his departure a sign that 'western' coaches struggle with South Asian signs, or more an indication that the Pakistan cricket infrastructure is not conjusive to long-term coaching aspirations. Probably both, yet neither (how Zen!)
Lawson is a good cricketing brain, but who knows what kind of people manager he is. And Pakistan is perhaps the most difficult cricket culture for an outsider to penetrate and dominate.
Coaches (of all background and style) come and go rapidly. Personal cricket grudges often translate into cricket-related law suits. Pakistani cricket infrastructure is not what it could be (understandable in the context of the groaning problems Pakistan otherwise faces). Pakistani cricket can veer between sublime and comical often several times an over (a significant issue for outsiders used to dull consistency). But there is also a declining love of test cricket - perhaps best exemplified by the abysmal attendances at the 2003-04 series against India.
An outsider also has a number of other issues to overcome. There is the minefield of cultural and religious sensitivities - likely to be a problem for an outspoken person like Lawson, who is more in tune to the 'call a spade a spade' atmosphere in Australia (where he also often raises hackles). Added to this are the personal and political issues which exist and thrive in every national sports beauracracy. How can an outsider know that there is an unspoken feud between player X and official Y? It was interesting to see Mohsin Khan (not exactly a giant of international cricket) undertake a rather vindictive attack on Lawson (and a particularly cruel reference to Swing King Terry).
What are the Balls trying to say? Well, we guess this will lead to a round of criticisms that 'western' coaches can't coach 'South Asia' sides. We think that is bollocks. Coaching is a difficult job, and in some places it is much more so. Often coaches are seen to be heralding in a new approach, a new era, and new level of success. If this happens, they are feted (Dav Whatmore, Duncan Fletcher, Bob Simpson, Dev), if they initially fail they are convenient scapegoats (Chappell, Miandad, Dev...again).
Coaches can coach anywhere. They just need two things, the ability to unify their team and a successful record (both of which are obviously not mutually exclusive). Interestingly, coaches in Australia and New Zealand are seen largely as bit players who are largely ignored in periods of success or failure (with the focus being on the senior players). Although, captains are also long retained assets. We seem to yearn for stability.
Anyhoo, just found it interesting because the Balls had thought that Henry would do ok (and had been a very firm advocate for Pakistan in Australia). We'd be interested in seeing why he was released? And others views on the difficulties of coaching in Asia (or perhaps 'western' difficulties in succeeding)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I enjoyed reading this thought provoking post. One item with which i disagree, and appears to run against the flow of the post, is that: "coaches can coach anyone".
Even taking into the account the likely element of devil's advocacy contained within the notion, but one can look to a number of concrete examples where this has simply not been the case, for a variety of reasons. Another context in which to consider this is premiership football - look at Kevin Keegan's second stint at Newcastle, for instance.
If you look at the particular issues that Henry had to face in Pakistan, it was always going to be a very difficult gig. I think the external pressures that directly impacted on games within the country can't be overstated. And reading the comments of the new Chairman of the Pakistan cricket board at the press conference (i.e. "The day his contract expires, he will be no more with the Pakistan team. We have no utility for Lawson.), the relationship is clearly broken.
I couldn't agree more about the broken relationship. Shame really.
NTW - could you explain a fulcrum to me?
I'll bite.
In physics, a lever (from French lever, "to raise", c.f. a levant) is a rigid object that is used with an appropriate fulcrum or pivot point to multiply the mechanical force that can be applied to another object.
I bet you even know the prominet gas used in fridges!
A prominent liquid stored in fridges is Water, mixed with Hops, Sugar and Yeast.
Bugger Henry Lawson, Tait just bowled a sensational 10 overs for the SACAs. Whilst the Tassie quota may apply to players, it doesn't to selectors - Jamie Cox is high performance coach of the SACAs and has made the call to God Boon. Tait is packing his bags and on his way to India.
Tait was bloody good. bird's ball to get Khan was a cracker. But it was all an exciting coda to WA's nice little win.
In an ideal situation, I agree that coaches can coach anywhere, and that unifying a team and getting good results are crucial. However, there may be other factors, such as cricketing politics, which may leave even a great coach out in the cold.
John Buchanan is one of the great cricketing minds and coached Australia during one of it's most successful periods, but even he encountered great resistance from players like Warne (who has great talent, skill and mental strength on the field but perhaps fails to realise that not all players are like him) and from others in Australian cricket political circles.
So I think that your observation that "Interestingly, coaches in Australia and New Zealand are seen largely as bit players who are largely ignored in periods of success or failure" is true of some perspectives of those coaches but many people both in the teams and out of them realise the contribution that the good coaches make to their team.
Post a Comment