The decision that ICC (rule) has taken is good. The reason being the captain should take decision making in all matches instead of coach in a live match.
In a live match if coach contacts the captain and based on coach comments the captain is going to take decision. Which is not good.
Then the role of Captain is not required. Then the match is between "John Wright" V/s "Bob Woolmer" not India V/s Srilanka.
I feel the captain nor coach should not contact during the live match through ear plugs. Then nobody will be interested in seeing the game.
It is a match between the 11's, and any one outside the boundary line wanting to be a part of it would spoil the spirit of the game, who cares if basketball and football are played like that.
There is a whole lot of difference between looking at the game from a TV and looking at it from within the ground, A captains true capability and leadership qualities are revealed when he decides on his own .
Cricket is a game not just with the bat and the ball, its beyond that. The fate of the match should be decided by the players and their decision not the Coach.
If Messages are passed through other means, stop that, all gloves / utilities should only be passed by ground staff.
Cmmon, Lets make the game real , It adds more spice.
This artical tells you how good Bob learnt for his contemporaries. I am sure that he will be successfull in turning around the Pakastani team into a fiting unit in a short span of time. If given the correct amount of time he can even make them world beaters. I think we should watch out for Pakistan in the near future.
Woolmer's article commenting on the modern day cricket and the technology being used in the ground is worth praising.His farsightedness about the game and his suggestion about being mentally tough alongwith physically fit will give the youngsters a chance to improve upon themselves and take everything in stride because afterall it's getting tougher and tougher, so you need to be strong off and on the field.
Though the credentials of Bob Woolmer, John Wright and Dave Whatmore are nothing impeccable as cricketers, however they are highly successful coaches.
In short, world class cricketers need not necessarily make good coaches. On the contrary, many examples have shown retired cricketers whose contributions to cricket have been nothing extraordinary have turned out to be good coaches.
A coach has to be a successful public relations man, who can cement and unite all the members of the team and get the maximum contribution from them. Under a very good coach, even mediocre players can put up stupendous contribution, because the coach motivates them and impresses upon them that they are good and can contribute much more with determination and by adopting never-say-die attitude. Moreover, he trains them and ensures that they are physically fit to play for hours and under high pressure situations.
A shining example of this is Javed Miandad, who is one of the great batsmen of the game, but was a totally unsuccessful coach. This is because he lacks P.R. skills.
I do not agree with Bob Woolmer. Cricket is good the way it is. Why should the coach interfere in the middle of the game? John Wright has been successful without doing any communication during the game. It's a XI vs. XI, please do not bring the coach in. Coach has a greater role to play in a general way. Woolmer has got it wrong. May be he wants to justify the cheating they did in the WC in England (Late Cronje was getting an earful regularly from the coach). That was shame enough.
What a splendid idea. "Earplugs" would be the ideal way for the captain to communicate with the coach, especially if both men have telepathic powers. Plus this would ensure that crowd noise is blocked out!
How about an article on the state of Indian sports in general, now that the Olympics are coming up? What is that you say? Sports? What do we need sports for? We have cricket!
I am a big proponent of technology in cricket.All those stump vision cameras, television replays and decisions made by 3rd umpire have helped the game immensely. But the use of 2 way communication technology between the coach and any player on the ground is ridiculous. If this was a reality, then every player will have an ear plug and why do we need a freak'n captain on the field, if the techno savy coach is going to make the decisions.Right or Wrong, the captain has to make the decisions on the field. So lets just spare cricket from all this techno BS.
All the basketball and football teams allow their coaches to talk to their players continuously. It just adds to the strategy management of the game. Communication is key to success in literaaly everyfield int todays life and so, why should cricket be left behind in this.
ICC should really not make such screwed up decisions! What is this "no-comunicating (captain-coach) during the match" crap?? I strongly believe it should be permissible! Just like in all other field games!!
RE:why the rule against coach-contacting-captain?!?
by M.K.Suresh on Jul 23, 2004 10:42 AM
I was the Coach for the Indonesian team and I was pulled up by the Tournament Referee for going into the field during drink interval and communicating to the coach. In all the other sports coach communicate with players and captain but only cricket he has to wait till the end of session or day's play
