Do cricket teams need multiple captains?
John Buchanan caused a huge stir in the IPL when he said "I see there is scope to challenge the way teams have been run in the past".
The former Australian coach went on to outline that his Kolkata Knight Riders side could announce a formal captain on a game-by-game basis and they would be used in a vastly diminished role:
- The batting coach picks the batting order and changes it in the dugout where needed.
- Bowlers are advised of their fields and tactics by a bowling coach and analyst before they cross the white line can set their own fields.
- On field 'strategists' would report to the captain (who could be any one of the strategists on any given day).
- Although not suggested by Buchanan, Jonty Rhodes highlighted how a 'fielding captain' can be responsible for ensuring players are in the right place and making the right tactical fielding decisions.
The question is, does this approach work better than the traditional method of having one captain for everything?
Much has been written and spoken about the idea. Those pro the idea say that it makes sense to separate players from tactical decisions as much as possible so they can concentrate on making runs or taking wickets. Others argue that there are problems of accountability and consistency without someone at the top.
In fact, this is not a particularly new idea. Good sides often say they have "a team of captains". Senior players take great responsibility. Bowlers know what fields work best for them, batsmen make decisions out in the middle without communication from the captain and fielders decide for themselves where to move to be in the optimal position.
Wicketkeepers have been the 'sergeant majors' of fielding sides for years.
This doesn't mean the captain has less of a job to do, it's just he or she can trust players to get on with certain things. That frees up the captain to keep overall control. Someone needs to think ahead of the game, change the bowlers to stop them getting tired, manipulate the field to specific batters and keep the game under control.
A good captain with good senior players can do all that without giving up the traditional role. It doesn't need to be a formalised dropping of the captain, just a captain who can has enough trust in his or her players to give them that extra responsibility.
Want to be a better captain? Learn from the best with the interactive online course Cricket Captaincy by Mike Brearley.
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ha ha
Agree that this is a positive move and one that I have used in my time as a rugby coach, it is also similar to the approach my current cricket time use, the captain is also the wickie and deals with the usual team relations, selection, batting line up but in the field just watches to bowlers and batsmen for weaknesses. The vice captain stands at mid off and deals the field settings, bowler motivation and often bowler changes.
Fielding motivation, conversation and warm ups are dealt with by one of the other fielders and myself, both rugby coaches and the best fielders in the side. Together we create a more professional approach to the side. It works very well for the team as every one works to their strengths and the whole field view can be seen as opposed to just the view from mid off or the slips.
Interesting approach. I would think that such a dramatic split could be problematic if the different players disagree. I would see like to see someone with overall control.
It helps that the Captain and Vice have played together for a long time and have coached or played with most of the players from a young age. There is a level of trust and a respect of authority, if the captain tells me not to talk to the incoming bat then I dont, if I thing that a close fielder is needed but the vice doesnt I go where I am told and dont sulk, same to the rest of the team.
I dont think the system would work with a new team or even a young one but can work well with a settled team that knows and respects each other and their roles within the unit.