Allan Border's statement that Greg Chappell was in the shortlist of coaches likely to succeed John Buchanan as Australia's coach has come at the right time. Not that the Indians would want Chappell to pack his bags after his contract expires, but the BCCI has an option to appoint another foreign coach or an Indian coach if Chappell accepts the Cricket Australia job.

The very purpose of appointing John Wright was that the seniors in the Indian team were not happy with the methods adopted by Indian coaches. Having agreed to the appointment of Wright, the Indian team had to put up with whatever he was offering. The reason players didn't seem inclined to have even an Indian assistant coach was that they wanted single window instructions. So no assistant Indian coach was trained in the methodology of Wright.

The BCCI could have insisted on having two assistant Indian coaches when Chappell was appointed, but for some obscure reason allowed Chappell to induct his business partner Frazer to assist him.

Here the BCCI lost the opportunity to train Indian coaches. What special qualities did the BCCI's special committee, that appointed Chappell, find in Ian Frazer that 50 plus Level III Indian coaches didn't possess?

Coaching courses

For the past five years, the National Cricket Academy has been conducting coaching courses for various levels. Why waste time and money if trained coaches are not going to be inducted into the system?

The syllabus of Level III is so vast that it covers on and off the field aspects of the game, which include biomechanics, game planning and sports science. Now that the news of Chappell being shortlisted is known to the BCCI, the best thing would be for the Cricket Development Committee headed by Kapil Dev to interview some of these Level III coaches and a few former internationals for the post of assistant coach.

Similarly, the NCA conducted courses for trainers. Why are these trainers not in the support staff of the Indian team? Why is the BCCI so obsessed with foreigners all the time occupying the important posts when expert personnel are available in the country?

Though technical support staff of the Indian team is available to players, it is observed that some of the Mumbai boys are on long distance call with trainer Basu of Chennai. Obviously the programme or solutions offered by him must have helped players perform better.

Even by appointing a trainer and physio from outside India, players in the Indian team have not attained international fitness levels. The very fact that most of the Indian players are more in the physio's room than on the field clearly suggests that proper fitness is still to be achieved.

Prior to Wright taking over, the decision makers of the BCCI felt the Indian coaches were inadequately effective. But how is it going to help Indian cricket by ignoring Level III coaches, many of whom are former international players?

The SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis that was done some weeks back indicated the Indians took a wicket every 61 balls and averaged 30 runs per innings with only 14 centuries in 235 innings played in one year.

By 2007, it would be seven years of foreign rule in Indian cricket and it would be interesting to do a SWOT analysis of this period. Going by the reactions of Farokh Engineer, Kapil Dev, Dilip Vengsarkar, Ashok Mankad and former Mumbai captain Milind Rege, Indian cricket would stand to gain having one top class foreign fast bowler and batsman playing for each team in the Ranji.

No matter how much time Indian batsmen spend with Greg Chappell either in the nets or in the classroom, unless Indians get good practice facing tough foreign fast bowlers or have bowlers bowling to a foreign batsman, it seems unlikely that Indians would comfortably win on foreign soil. Greg Chappell can only guide. He can't bat for them.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu