Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The whole Kevin Pietersen - Peter Moores saga has once again raised maaaany questions relating to team management. I've changed my mind a bit in recent years about the most ideal way to put together a successful team - the off-field players, rather than the on-field ones. Been discussed a fair bit in relation to England, but I can't see any reason why the best structure wouldn't be one that all teams would use.
Myself, I think the best would be something along the lines of:
Cricket Board President, Chairman, CEO and vice-Chairman obviously heading the operations, with some form of board forming a sub-committee.
-----------------
I like the "Team Affairs Manager" position the ECB recently created, where one person is responsible for everything relating to appointments and affairs within the whole "team" package. With everyone, at the end of the day, responsible to him.
-----------------
The Chairman Of Selectors is obviously a must, and I still think this role is best kept separate from the hands-on management of the players once selected. I guess maybe one more full-time selector is neccessary, who should be independent of anything else, with another advisory committee somewhere below these two who can have other interests.
-----------------
Then I think you need a Team Manager. Not a manager in the sense of smoothing the team through customs and making sure the shirts are clean - this is an Operations Manager and a relatively minor post. Someone who basically, as John Buchanan put it, "heads the family". The man who is responsible for tactics (at least to an extent) and man-management, and who will clearly also have play some part in selection. However, technical expertise here I'm beginning to think may be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
-----------------
Then you clearly need specialist coaches (one for fielding, batting, seam-bowling and maybe - but only maybe - spin-bowling) and conditioning expertise. A nutritionist, physiotherapist, doctor and some form of fitness trainer.
-----------------
Then of course you have players and various player committees, with the captain heading. I am not and never have been, however, a fan of the captain's responsibility or power stretching beyond the field of play. Once the boundary is crossed and the day's play is finished, the captain becomes just another player waiting for the match to start again in my book. Any captain who sees his role as bigger than this, in this day-and-age, is a recipe for disaster. All players have roles to play in preparation, but the captain has no power in my book to be doing anything out-of-the-ordinary when the match is not in motion.
Anything else anyone can think of?
Myself, I think the best would be something along the lines of:
Cricket Board President, Chairman, CEO and vice-Chairman obviously heading the operations, with some form of board forming a sub-committee.
-----------------
I like the "Team Affairs Manager" position the ECB recently created, where one person is responsible for everything relating to appointments and affairs within the whole "team" package. With everyone, at the end of the day, responsible to him.
-----------------
The Chairman Of Selectors is obviously a must, and I still think this role is best kept separate from the hands-on management of the players once selected. I guess maybe one more full-time selector is neccessary, who should be independent of anything else, with another advisory committee somewhere below these two who can have other interests.
-----------------
Then I think you need a Team Manager. Not a manager in the sense of smoothing the team through customs and making sure the shirts are clean - this is an Operations Manager and a relatively minor post. Someone who basically, as John Buchanan put it, "heads the family". The man who is responsible for tactics (at least to an extent) and man-management, and who will clearly also have play some part in selection. However, technical expertise here I'm beginning to think may be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
-----------------
Then you clearly need specialist coaches (one for fielding, batting, seam-bowling and maybe - but only maybe - spin-bowling) and conditioning expertise. A nutritionist, physiotherapist, doctor and some form of fitness trainer.
-----------------
Then of course you have players and various player committees, with the captain heading. I am not and never have been, however, a fan of the captain's responsibility or power stretching beyond the field of play. Once the boundary is crossed and the day's play is finished, the captain becomes just another player waiting for the match to start again in my book. Any captain who sees his role as bigger than this, in this day-and-age, is a recipe for disaster. All players have roles to play in preparation, but the captain has no power in my book to be doing anything out-of-the-ordinary when the match is not in motion.
Anything else anyone can think of?