John Buchanan still has to answer questions about how much cricket he has played. He has been referred to as an oddball and has had many of his ideas rubbished in spite of the extraordinary success his side has achieved. For all his intellect, and ability to work with great players (in some ways more difficult than working with lesser players!), he must wonder if there is something more a coach needs to do.

Greg Chappell did everything a player could, is one of the legends of the game, one of its most successful captains and an extremely well read human being. His book on cricket, only recently published in India, is stimulating and as a commentator he was very impressive with his clear thinking and straight talking. Yet, he is hated in parts of India and often misunderstood by people. He must wonder too whether his bouquet of offerings needs periodic review.

So, quite apart from being Superman, what does a coach really need to be given that he himself never has to face a ball? Bob Woolmer writes, “It has become abundantly clear that coaching cricket is but one part of the job and any new-age coach will need to be adept in the arts of political manoeuvring, diplomacy and speaking on television.”. Sad, but probably true. Add to that being a mentor, a confidant, a technical expert and a surrogate parent and you must under if the species can exist. Indeed, whether a coach should have to play all these roles is a matter that administrators must think about once they have taken their foot off the money-making pedal.

Typically, a coach should be able to solve a player’s problems; or, ideally, help a player solve them himself. He should be able to help a player realise his potential and, in doing so, fulfill a key requirement of a leader—to take his team to places they have never been to before. That is critical because performers frequently don’t know how good they can be. A good director helps an actor discover himself, portray nuances that he didn’t think he was capable of. Performers are obsessed beings and therefore, their view of the world can be quixotic. They need a comforting hand on their shoulders one day, a subtle kick up the backside on another. It is not an easy to role. It cannot be and that is why such few people are good at it.

Now Woolmer adds “speaking on television” to that list. Again, it is something that should be low on a coach’s requirements but the increasingly intrusive role that television plays requires him to carry that off as well. Hence too the need for “diplomacy”, to choose words very carefully. I fear that we will henceforth judge a person, whether the head of selectors or secretary of the board, by the words they use in front of a camera rather than the other skills they possess. This is what 24 hour news channels have done and you just get the feeling that rather than being the watchdogs, which they could be and sometimes are, they frequently become the beast, wild and untamed. We are now being bombarded with “breaking news”, originally a device to attract attention to something critical, now civilised society’s greatest concession to the utterly banal.

The need to feed the beast of 24 hour television will require cricket, the recipient of a ridiculously irrational share of the news, to adapt. I feel the time has come to insulate the coach and give greater responsibility to the manager. And for the manager to lay down rules for the side. For that to happen, the manager has to be a constant factor, must have the respect of the side and should be able to think straight. It will not happen if the job is distributed and I hope the BCCI looks very carefully at what John Wright has said in his book.

Then the coach will have one job less to do!