Greg Chappell regrets fallout with Tendulkar

[Zinzan]

^ This is true & on the other side of the coin John Wright must be one of the most lovable personalities the world of cricket has seen, I'm struggling to recall a bad word spoken about the guy tbh. A total contrast those two, that's for sure...

 

[silentstriker]

^ This is true & on the other side of the coin John Wright must be one of the most lovable personalities the world of cricket has seen, I'm struggling to recall a bad word spoken about the guy tbh. A total contrast those two, that's for sure...

The players really seemed to like Kirstin as well.

 

[hang on]

avuncular vs paternalistic styles of people management, i suppose.

cannot understand why a seemingly intelligent person like chappell, who acknowledges in that extract about how much tendulkar had to deal with, actually asked him to give even more. would have flipped if i had been in his stead, to be perfectly honest. while he may not be the most charismatic or approachable chap around, a slacker is something he never struck me as.

 

[SJS]

I refuse to get into specifics which seem to be a way of painting yourself into a corner and i am in no corner in this case :-). My post is quite clear in this respect and I have never said in that post or before that Chappell was never to blame. rest can be handled by another reading of my post :-)

Yeah John Wright is a loveable character and Chappell can be called anything but a loveable character. But this is something that was known when BCCI hired him. Again without going into individual personalities for this (my point) is not about Chappell really. Do we have an issue with characters who are not loveable and do loveable characters make the best coaches? Its a debatable point really. Indian cricket has had its best time, according to most Indian fans, under Mr Dalmiya - hardly a loveable character.

Now it can be said that Dalmiya is not a coach and a coach has to be one of the boys and a kind of a mentor, a senior and all that. But isn't that really something that needs to be clear to both the sides at the time of the appointment - the board as well as the coach. I suspect BCCI told Greg he would be the boss but did not really mean "boss" as in "BOSS" while Greg thought and understood that is what he would be.

In management we were taught (many decades ago I am afraid although I dont think basics change in a matter of a decade or three) that there are two extremes of bosses or leadership styles. I forget the exact titles but one extreme was like a military commander who had a war situation like atmosphere and the other extreme had a club house ambience.. Then it went on to explain what would happen under one or the other. Finally explaining that you needed to have a bit of both to have the best results.

It is not for me to suggest how much towards one extreme leant Chappell and how much towards the other leant Wright and Kirsten. However, it is clear which way the other protaganists (board, players, media etc) would like the coach to lean. It is in handling their perceptions as well as to getting the rigour, the discipline, the unwavering focus on team goals that is the tricky bit for the coach. Clearly Greg had a problem managing this bit.

However, we have to understand that bosses come with different styles some leaning a bit this way and some the other. Again, without going into individuals, it is wrong to say one style is better than the other. They both leave their impact on the organisation and the individuals for sure.

The problem comes when there is a change of guard. If the new boss is different in style from the old one and the organisation was happy with the old one (remember I did not say successful) the resentment is palpable.

As for producing results is concerned, it is easy to look at the results in hindsight and then decide who was the better coach. That may well be a correct assessment but it may not be too. Its the players who finally contribute to the success. A change of guard in the team (meaning the departure of a large chunk of the core) can have a much more important effect and a coach wont be able to stem it.

I am sure Wright and Kirsten were temperamentally less likely to get into the type of issues Greg got into but it is also possible that they may not have been able to introduce the type of fundamental changes that a clear thinking, forthright and assertive man at the helm (Chappell or anyone else) can do.

When a team is as close to the top of the game as india has been for the last decade and a half, maintaining status quo is a very safe bet for any man at the helm (and this can mean a coach or a board president) but it is also a time when things that are going wrong can happen to be glossed over and neglected. I suggest that Indian cricket is going through such a phase. There is much that can be done and much that can go wrong.

We are lucky to have someone like Dhoni as skipper with the support, and the power that goes with it, that he has. A coach who is really good, whose authority is clearly defined and in matters of whose jurisdiction the authority is total, can do a lot. Ideally such a man should be a CEO of the board.

When Greg was appointed he came with a dossier on what he thought needed to be done. I understand the people in BCCI were very impressed indeed. Even when they parted company, Pawar was keen to have him involved in Indian cricket because the man clearly knew what needed to be done and Pawar may be an Indian politician but he is different in one important way, he is very bright.

I would like to think that a man like Chappell (remember I did not say him) would make a good CEO of the Indian Board. But then from BCCI even a CEO may not get a free hand. Greg thought he would get it as a mere coach. That is where he may have gone wrong besides the comlications resulting from his basic reclusive and somewhat abrasive nature.

So mine is not a case for Chappell but to state that painting Chappell as the villain of the piece is to be in denial ( a very common South Asian ailment). There were things wrong and howsoever we may dislike his methodology and lack of 'diplomacy' we cant ignore the fundamental problems that he was trying to correct.

They cant be wished away nor can they even begin to be addressed by coaches who will now come to india with a clear understanding of what they should not do having learnt from The Curious Case of Greg Chappell.

 

[Cevno]

A worse incident between Sehwag and Wright. But, it was handled by all parties in exactly the manner you mentioned above by all parties and Wright went on to have a very successful stint with India.

There were big murmurs some while back, that Sehwag had a Bust up with Dhoni and Kirsten too, a while back and then again for a time more recently.

For the first time, Dhoni lined up the entire team in a press conference and rubbished it in England IIRC -

Dhoni slams media, denies rift with Sehwag - Indian Express

Sehwag certainly has a big Ego, and has had some bust ups in Delhi cricket in the past too. Greg Chappell and him busting up was understandable.But him falling out with Sachin was so ridiculous considering he had already fallen out with almost everyone else and Sachin never having fallen out.

As the story goes,Somehow he had a brilliant idea in the 2007 World Cup that Robin Uthappa should open the batting, while one of Sehwag or Sachin being "brilliant hitters" should bat in the middle order.

Sehwag apparently refused and was batted at 3 then, while Chappell told Sachin to bat 5 as he thought they needed his "brilliance" in the middle order in his own words in the book "Sach". But Sachin expressed concerns at being batted there(and rightly so considering he has pretty much opened his entire career and Uthappa having had success in the middle order.),though he agreed to bat in the middle order(4/5).Chappell, at this moment somehow flipped and started to club him and Sehwag and also question his commitment to the team.

Was a stupid decision to begin with, and after the debacle of the World Cup Sachin came out and did that emotional interview where he said he was hurt that his commitment and will to win had been questioned.

 

[TT Boy]

So what Greg Chappell regrets is not kissing the ring? That's probably why Punter is still playing for Aus, as Chappell didn't want to offend Ricky by telling him he needs to score some runs.

 

[weldone]

Greg Chappell was a great batsman, he was always a good person for advising young promising batsmen about their technique etc...But he has always had 'zero' man management skills.

End of.

 

[weldone]

So what Greg Chappell regrets is not kissing the ring? That's probably why Punter is still playing for Aus, as Chappell didn't want to offend Ricky by telling him he needs to score some runs.

As if Ponting needs to be told this as he clearly doesn't know this, being a 4-year old !

 

[Cevno]

I refuse to get into specifics which seem to be a way of painting yourself into a corner and i am in no corner in this case :-). My post is quite clear in this respect and I have never said in that post or before that Chappell was never to blame. rest can be handled by another reading of my post :-)

Yeah John Wright is a loveable character and Chappell can be called anything but a loveable character. But this is something that was known when BCCI hired him. Again without going into individual personalities for this (my point) is not about Chappell really. Do we have an issue with characters who are not loveable and do loveable characters make the best coaches? Its a debatable point really. Indian cricket has had its best time, according to most Indian fans, under Mr Dalmiya - hardly a loveable character.

Now it can be said that Dalmiya is not a coach and a coach has to be one of the boys and a kind of a mentor, a senior and all that. But isn't that really something that needs to be clear to both the sides at the time of the appointment - the board as well as the coach. I suspect BCCI told Greg he would be the boss but did not really mean "boss" as in "BOSS" while Greg thought and understood that is what he would be.

In management we were taught (many decades ago I am afraid although I dont think basics change in a matter of a decade or three) that there are two extremes of bosses or leadership styles. I forget the exact titles but one extreme was like a military commander who had a war situation like atmosphere and the other extreme had a club house ambience.. Then it went on to explain what would happen under one or the other. Finally explaining that you needed to have a bit of both to have the best results.

It is not for me to suggest how much towards one extreme leant Chappell and how much towards the other leant Wright and Kirsten. However, it is clear which way the other protaganists (board, players, media etc) would like the coach to lean. It is in handling their perceptions as well as to getting the rigour, the discipline, the unwavering focus on team goals that is the tricky bit for the coach. Clearly Greg had a problem managing this bit.

However, we have to understand that bosses come with different styles some leaning a bit this way and some the other. Again, without going into individuals, it is wrong to say one style is better than the other. They both leave their impact on the organisation and the individuals for sure.

The problem comes when there is a change of guard. If the new boss is different in style from the old one and the organisation was happy with the old one (remember I did not say successful) the resentment is palpable.

As for producing results is concerned, it is easy to look at the results in hindsight and then decide who was the better coach. That may well be a correct assessment but it may not be too. Its the players who finally contribute to the success. A change of guard in the team (meaning the departure of a large chunk of the core) can have a much more important effect and a coach wont be able to stem it.

I am sure Wright and Kirsten were temperamentally less likely to get into the type of issues Greg got into but it is also possible that they may not have been able to introduce the type of fundamental changes that a clear thinking, forthright and assertive man at the helm (Chappell or anyone else) can do.

When a team is as close to the top of the game as india has been for the last decade and a half, maintaining status quo is a very safe bet for any man at the helm (and this can mean a coach or a board president) but it is also a time when things that are going wrong can happen to be glossed over and neglected. I suggest that Indian cricket is going through such a phase. There is much that can be done and much that can go wrong.

We are lucky to have someone like Dhoni as skipper with the support, and the power that goes with it, that he has. A coach who is really good, whose authority is clearly defined and in matters of whose jurisdiction the authority is total, can do a lot. Ideally such a man should be a CEO of the board.

When Greg was appointed he came with a dossier on what he thought needed to be done. I understand the people in BCCI were very impressed indeed. Even when they parted company, Pawar was keen to have him involved in Indian cricket because the man clearly knew what needed to be done and Pawar may be an Indian politician but he is different in one important way, he is very bright.

I would like to think that a man like Chappell (remember I did not say him) would make a good CEO of the Indian Board. But then from BCCI even a CEO may not get a free hand. Greg thought he would get it as a mere coach. That is where he may have gone wrong besides the comlications resulting from his basic reclusive and somewhat abrasive nature.

So mine is not a case for Chappell but to state that painting Chappell as the villain of the piece is to be in denial ( a very common South Asian ailment). There were things wrong and howsoever we may dislike his methodology and lack of 'diplomacy' we cant ignore the fundamental problems that he was trying to correct.

They cant be wished away nor can they even begin to be addressed by coaches who will now come to india with a clear understanding of what they should not do having learnt from The Curious Case of Greg Chappell.

That's a pretty good general commentary SJS, and also on what you would like to think he was and what you may suspect be the case.

But the Devil lies in the details, and wrt to every incident that he had somehow learning about it, he comes out wrong. I backed the dropping of Ganguly 100% when he was and also his forward looking approach when he started and so did majority of the fans, who liked younger players in the team. But something went wrong somewhere that he was hated by almost everyone by the end of his term.
His style was a problem, and the BCCI would have probably known about it but not the extent to which his power hungriness after another power hungry man Ganguly had been sidelined, would go too. Also, a bigger problem than that ultimately was that Style of his, was applied with Suspect Cricketing Judgement, which was a bigger downfall than the style of management itself.
When you are making the right decisions,gaining respect and being bossy you are more likely to gain respect of everyone. But when you are making all the wrong calls, acting like a jerk, alienating the fans, causing controversies and then still trying to be bossy and demand things from others which they suspect, well there is only one way that could end.

His past record pretty much suggests he would fail as your hypothetical CEO as well. Though, i am not sure what you'd want him to do in that position.

 

[TT Boy]

As if Ponting needs to be told this as he clearly doesn't know this, being a 4-year old !

Before this series, Michael Clarke said Ponting will be MOTS and on the eve of this test we got the old cliches from Ricky about hitting them well in the nets and big runs coming soon. Cue missing straight ones. Someone needs to have a word.

 

[weldone]

In management we were taught (many decades ago I am afraid although I dont think basics change in a matter of a decade or three) that there are two extremes of bosses or leadership styles. I forget the exact titles but one extreme was like a military commander who had a war situation like atmosphere and the other extreme had a club house ambience.. Then it went on to explain what would happen under one or the other. Finally explaining that you needed to have a bit of both to have the best results.

You mean 'autocratic leadership' and 'charismatic leadership', I presume?

Either the management fundas have changed enitrely, or that you have forgotten some of the details (more likely? )...but autocratic leadership works when you are clearly superior to the people you are managing in every way, and especially when you are a manager managing routine, unskilled jobs etc.

For example, if you are an engineer managing supply chain workers in a car manufacturing company autocratic leadership can work - but not if you are the coach of Indian National cricket team managing some insanely skilled, experienced and been-there-done-it-all cricketers.

 

[SJS]

If we can somehow stop thinking of this as a for Grag and against Greg Issue (I know it is very tough to come out of corners we painted ourselves into years ago), we might actually have the beginnings of a very interesting discussion here.

Let me try to make a start.

1. Who should decide the batting order?
The selectors, the coach, the captain, coach and captain combined, any two of the first three OR the player himself ?

It seems the answer varies not from country to country but from player to player. For a Rahul Dravid, for example, it can be decided by any of the first five and it will be done. For some of the 'bigger' players from india, Pakistan, West Indies for example it can be none of the first FIVE. The sixth is the ultimate boss. . . .

So what is the right way ?

Can we give the power to one individual and respect that authority irrespective of how WE (meaning everyone else on the planet) feel about it for we are NOT the coach or the captain at the moment.

 

[SJS]

You mean 'autocratic leadership' and 'charismatic leadership', I presume?

Either the management fundas have changed enitrely, or that you have forgotten some of the details (more likely? )...but autocratic leadership works when you are clearly superior to the people you are managing in every way, and especially when you are a manager managing routine, unskilled jobs etc.

For example, if you are an engineer managing supply chain workers in a car manufacturing company autocratic leadership can work - but not if you are the coach of Indian National cricket team managing some insanely skilled, experienced and been-there-done-it-all cricketers.

No I did not mean that. I have forgotten but not that much. I was a CEO for 21 years and stopped being one just five years ago :-)

No. The one I am talking about was actually a graphical representation in the form of a square where on the one axis was plotted the club house ambience and on the other side the military style/situation. Then this square was divided into four smaller squares each representing four different styles. 1. only military, 2. only club house, 3. neither 4. some of this and some of that. And then it went into how leaders lay on different points on this square and what was likely to happen with each in different situations.

 

[Cevno]

If we can somehow stop thinking of this as a for Grag and against Greg Issue (I know it is very tough to come out of corners we painted ourselves into years ago), we might actually have the beginnings of a very interesting discussion here.

Let me try to make a start.

1. Who should decide the batting order?
The selectors, the coach, the captain, coach and captain combined, any two of the first three OR the player himself ?

It seems the answer varies not from country to country but from player to player. For a Rahul Dravid, for example, it can be decided by any of the first five and it will be done. For some of the 'bigger' players from india, Pakistan, West Indies for example it can be none of the first FIVE. The sixth is the ultimate boss. . . .

So what is the right way ?

Can we give the power to one individual and respect that authority irrespective of how WE (meaning everyone else on the planet) feel about it for we are NOT the coach or the captain at the moment.

If the Coach and Captain are well respected and have history behind it, and are making the logical decision for the team it wouldn't be a problem for most of the players.

The problem occurs when they are not and their judgement is suspect. There are some exceptions to this for sure but that pretty much applies to bigger players everywhere and not just the nations you mentioned. Then there are some situations where there would be reluctant agreement(Including with Dravid himself when he was asked to open by Ganguly or dropped further down in ODI's).

Ideally, the captain and coach should decide with input from the said players even if it is disagreement.

 

[SJS]

That's a pretty good general commentary SJS, and also on what you would like to think he was and what you may suspect be the case.

But the Devil lies in the details, and wrt to every incident that he had somehow learning about it, he comes out wrong. I backed the dropping of Ganguly 100% when he was and also his forward looking approach when he started and so did majority of the fans, who liked younger players in the team. But something went wrong somewhere that he was hated by almost everyone by the end of his term.
His style was a problem, and the BCCI would have probably known about it but not the extent to which his power hungriness after another power hungry man Ganguly had been sidelined, would go too. Also, a bigger problem than that ultimately was that Style of his, was applied with Suspect Cricketing Judgement, which was a bigger downfall than the style of management itself.
When you are making the right decisions,gaining respect and being bossy you are more likely to gain respect of everyone. But when you are making all the wrong calls, acting like a jerk, alienating the fans, causing controversies and then still trying to be bossy and demand things from others which they suspect, well there is only one way that could end.

His past record pretty much suggests he would fail as your hypothetical CEO as well. Though, i am not sure what you'd want him to do in that position.

I am sorry mate but you are not going to drag me into discussing the details, not because i do not have my views on those but because they are not germaine to what I am trying to say here.

Sorry to disappoint

 

[weldone]

...I was a CEO for 21 years...

Ooh, that is a Tendulkar-esque longevity

 

[honestbharani]

Greg Chappell was a great batsman, he was always a good person for advising young promising batsmen about their technique etc...But he has always had 'zero' man management skills.

End of.

well put.

 

[smash84]

If the Coach and Captain are well respected and have history behind it, and are making the logical decision for the team it wouldn't be a problem for most of the players.

The problem occurs when they are not and their judgement is suspect. There are some exceptions to this for sure but that pretty much applies to bigger players everywhere and not just the nations you mentioned. Then there are some situations where there would be reluctant agreement(Including with Dravid himself when he was asked to open by Ganguly or dropped further down in ODI's).

Ideally, the captain and coach should decide with input from the said players even if it is disagreement.

awta

 

[weldone]

well put.

In essence, Greg Chappell is a technical person, not a management one. If I have to compare him with someone in our Investment Banking industry I'll probably pick some trader in Wall Street who made millions trading in exotic derivatives, but had serious ego-clashes with juniors (who were as successful as he was in their age) when he was promoted to manage a team of 25 junior traders.

 

[SJS]

If the Coach and Captain are well respected and have history behind it, and are making the logical decision for the team it wouldn't be a problem for most of the players.

The problem occurs when they are not and their judgement is suspect. There are some exceptions to this for sure but that pretty much applies to bigger players everywhere and not just the nations you mentioned. Then there are some situations where there would be reluctant agreement(Including with Dravid himself when he was asked to open by Ganguly or dropped further down in ODI's).

Ideally, the captain and coach should decide with input from the said players even if it is disagreement.

Interesting riders :-)