NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Cricket Interview/Anshuman Gaekwad

'Azhar is a very relaxed guy, today...'

Follows, excerpts of an extended conversation with Prem Panicker:

When you think of the side you took charge of, after Madan Lal's ouster, and you look at them today, what strikes you the most?

Their mental outlook. When I took over, this side was down and damn near out, they were losing close to everything, morale was as low as it could possibly get.

You know what our Indian mentality is like, when things are going good for us we are the best guys on earth; when things begin to go wrong, we are the worst. Complaining, griping, perpetually cribbing... that was pretty much what the mood within the team was.

Today, they have toughened up, fused together as a unit, become very competitive, and this in turn has produced the results.

You took over a losing outfit -- and the losses continued during your early days as coach. Were you conscious of any apprehension? After all, longevity is not a quality associated with the position of coach...

Apprehension? No, not really. In fact, I was quite confident when I took over. I knew the boys were good, they had the potential and the skills, it was merely a matter of putting it all together.

In a sense, I guess you do wonder if you will have the time to get things done, whether you will last long enough in the job. As far as the earlier coaches were concerned, Sandeep Patil, Madan Lal, well, I felt that they had too little time. I am not saying this now, because I am the coach in question -- even during Madan's tenure, I had repeatedly said that the coach should be given an extended tenure, a minimum of three years in the job.

Irrespective of results? Three years, win, lose or draw?

Yes, put that way, it might sound self-serving. But the thing is, a coach needs time to settle in, to get to know the players individually, to familiarise himself with their individual idiosyncracies and, at the same time, to get them to accept him. Another major danger is that if you keep changing coaches, the boys won't take whoever it is too seriously -- they tend to think, oh well, he will say one thing now, three months later he will go and someone else will come along and say something else...

You say it takes three years to show results. The team was losing when you took over, it was losing during your first few weeks in the job but it is winning just about everything now. So how come you achieved results this quick?

First up, results should not be seen merely in terms of tournament wins. For a coach, 'results' go beyond that, it extends to such intangibles as team spirit, the quality of the bench, the overall improvement in strategy and tactics... So yes, we are achieving results now, but there is a lot more to do, much more to achieve, and it helps not to lose sight of that.

As to what caused the transformation, one thing was always obvious to me, even before I accepted the assignment. And it was that there was nothing really wrong with the team, cricket-wise. I mean, man for man, they are as good as any team in the world today. What was missing was the cohesion, the collective spark. And this is what I saw as my first job -- to bring everyone together, to weld them into a team.

Sounds simple enough, but how, in practise, is this done?

Actually it is basic man management. You first analyse the individual strenghts and weaknesses, then you think of the collective. Then you convey your thoughts to the boys. For instance, if you think -- I am citing hypothetical examples, here -- that some people are not mixing enough, then you talk to them about it.

There are things you tell the team, collectively. There are other things you tell them individually, or in little groups. The principles are all basic -- you know, like, you always praise someone in public but if you must criticise, you take the individual aside and criticise him privately.

Like I said, basic stuff, it was just a matter of figuring out what was required, and doing it.

There was a lot of apprehension about how the system of dual coaches would work. Did you share those apprehensions? What were your thoughts when Bobby Simpson was appointed consultant?

Well, actually, Bobby and I were named at more or less the same time, so it wasn't like I had been in charge for a while and suddenly, someone new was being foisted on me. So no problems there. As to the rest, well, face it, Bobby has vast experience of the game, both playing it, and teaching it, and it makes sense to make full use of that experience. One thing we need to remember is that you never stop learning, when it comes to cricket, no one can ever claim to know it all... so as far as I was concerned, Bobby's appointment was no problem.

When a person is offered a key job, he tends to assess his own abilities, figure out if he has what it takes. When you do such an assessment, what, to your mind, are the advantages, the qualifications, qualities you possess?

As far as being a coach goes, I think the person needs to be a good student of the game. Further, he should be able to handle people with firmness tempered by understanding, he should be a good communicator, he should be fair and unbiased.

Besides that, I think I had one other advantage. Till 1992, I was playing first class cricket. From then on till 1996, I was a selector (in the committee chaired by Gundappa Vishwanath; interestingly, team doctor Ravindra Chaddha was one of Anshuman's colleagues in the selection committee at the time). And now I am coach.

Having performed all three roles gives me an advantage. As a player yourself, you know what it feels like to be dropped, to find yourself out of the team for no reason that you can think of. As a selector, you know why some decisions are taken. Let me put it this way -- there was a point in my career when I thought I was unfairly dropped. Then, during my days as selector, a similar situation happened, with one of the current players of the time. He was dropped, as I was during my time -- only, being a selector, I understood the imperatives behind the move.

Having been on both sides of the fence in the past makes my work easier today. I can see things from the player's point of view, and also, I can make the players see things from the selectors' point of view, I can help cushion the blow when it falls.

To stay with coaching for a while, you mentioned a while back that players tend to have this 'he's here today, gone tomorrow attitude' towards coaches. Obviously, continuity of thought becomes a casualty in such a situation. Could the solution be to follow the football model, have an assistant coach who later takes over? Like, for instance, Zagallo taking over as Brazil's coach after being Carlos Alberto Perreira's assistant in the previous World Cup?

Personally, I think that is a very good idea, it will provide the element of continuity. But then, it is not dependent on me, I can only go with the system that exists.

You mentioned your own stint in the selection committee. The committee that succeeded the one you were part of, though, has had its fair share of controversy -- judging from your experience, what seems to be the problem? Why is every exercise in team selection greeted with such adverse publicity?

To be fair to everyone concerned, I wouldn't want to discuss team selections that happened before my tenure as coach began. During my stint, thus far, I must say that the interaction between the coach, captain and selectors has been very good. We discuss things very openly, both Azhar as captain and I as coach give our views on team requirements and composition, and our views are heeded.

You mean you have been getting the teams you want?

Look at it this way, if the captain and coach gave a list of 14 and the list was accepted, then why do you need selectors? Of course there are changes, there are times when we might think of one player and the selectors might think of someone else -- but the bottomline is, these decisions are discussed with us, and the selectors do convince us of what they are up to.

Anshu, one thing I noticed during this camp is the way Sachin Tendulkar is being consulted on pretty much everything, though he is not officially part of the team management...

Right, he is not part of the team management but yes, we consult him about pretty much everything. It's not just here -- when we have team management meetings during tours, convention is that it is the coach, captain and vice captain, but we invite Sachin to join us as well.

He is a shrewd cricketer, and a very committed, driven individual, so it makes sense to tap into his mind as well.

Anshuman Gaekwad Interview, continued