“The problems go deeper for English Cricket”; “English Cricket is doomed”; “A change in team won’t work”; “Change the domestic structure”. The only conclusion these examples of erroneous analysis lead me to is that in the space of merely fifteen months the English domestic structure has run out of players, the quality has become poor, and that there is no hope left, so go to bed everyone, have a sound sleep and do remember to wake up after fifteen years of disappointment.
I was about to bang my head against a wall, but then I thought of the millions of English Cricket fans who might fall into the inescapable traps of laughable conclusions, and would start wondering if our structure really is that weak. Hallelujah! No, the case isn’t so. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at the embarrassment of riches England has regarding young world-class talent.
What do England need to help these young talents reach their potential? A “Coach”: a good coach. Remember the shambles of Australian Cricket in the Mickey Arthur era? Can you see the genius of the very nation in the Darren Lehmann era? The names in the team are the same, but what goes inside the team has changed. It isn’t that all a team requires is a natural leader, a captain who directs them on field. If that were the case, Michael Clarke won’t have lost those many matches as he did under Arthur despite having had strong squads. People often don’t realise the real difference between a team captain and a coach. A coach shows the path, he creates it and then commands the captain to lead the team on it with his personal skills.
A good coach is an individual who is brutally honest in his team assessments. He is dynamic, ready to make brave decisions, and promotes an innovative, creative environment. He understands the real potential of each player and shapes his team accordingly, whilst also making sure those individuals strive to win as a team.
Lehmann did just that. He didn’t make any major changes to the team, nor did he complain about the players available to him. He pressed them along, built a positive environment, instructed his players to play as they wanted, and in the blink of an eye, all the problems of Australian Cricket were gone, nowhere to be seen. Why Clarke couldn’t succeed alone was because of a difficult environment that prevailed within the team whereby there was no room for expressing oneself and there wasn’t that “driving and binding” force that every team must have. No matter how good a leader you are, you can’t create a path yourself and then lead the team on it as well. That is nearly impossible.
Alastair Cook is in a similar state at present. He is a good leader, someone who stays positive and keeps his troops together. The problem for him though is firstly, he isn’t Mike Brearley, who didn’t need a coach at all; secondly, he doesn’t have a good coach behind him and seems hopeless at times, just as Clarke once was. Peter Moores never has been a world-class coaching brand. He can find a raw talent, but can’t shape the talent into a world-beater. He can deliver team speeches, but can’t direct his team. Also, one of the most remarkable qualities of a real coach is that he may be hurt by a defeat inside, but he would never express it. Rather, a coach would lift himself up, and be that driving force which encourages a team to do well. Does Moores fit into that category? Take a look at him once when England are nearing a defeat and you will find a man about to explode.
Rather than mulling over numerous other factors, perhaps it is in England’s best interest to find a good coach and have him as the man to move English cricket forward instead of Moores. As soon as that is done, things will instantly start to improve. Perhaps all that England need is a proper coach.
