By Gokul
November 1 2006

Some of us fans have been arguing against the services of a coach at this juncture. What is a coach expected to do with players at this level? Teach them how to rotate strike? Bowl a common-sense line and length? Some from the classical school of thought will reason that once you reach a certain level in standard –- which is where you are expected to be fairly polished in your skills and technique -- it's all about mental toughness. Guidance from there onwards comes from an older generation and past/present contemporaries. These resources are always available when it comes to making adjustments in technique to iron out chinks.

So why exactly do teams need a coach? Strategy and tactics can be discussed by a core group. The arrangement of practice facilities and drills can be delegated to someone with the skills to facilitate such activity. Physios and trainers take care of injuries and to maintain fitness standards.

Really, what can the coach do that a few mentors can't? It can't be to motivate them, can it? What greater motivation is there than representing a country of billions? Coaches cannot guarantee success or even consistency in performances. Even for the most seasoned professionals, fallibility is just a widely bowled delivery away or a careless slash outside off stump to trigger a chain of failures. Steve Harmison is one such example. Even Sachin Tendulkar is not spared.

I look back at the team that won the Cup in 1983. There was no coach at that time. But the presence of seniors like Gavaskar, Madan Lal and Mohinder who had been around since the late 1960s along with the established players like Vengsarkar, Sandeep Patil, Srikanth and Kirmani, definitely aided Kapil Dev who, at 24, led magnificently from the front.

One can see the core group that was formed then and this is something that Gaurang wrote about in one of his articles - such a core is missing in this Indian team. One of the reasons is the much-vaunted experimentation: rotation of players, hardly giving them time to settle.

Interestingly, all the above mentioned players from 1983 were captaincy material, having skippered either their country or state at some point in time. In fact, if you were to take another look the squad of 1983, every one of them (not sure about Sunil Valson), captained India (at least 5 including Vengsarkar and Shastri) and/or other teams at the national level later on in their career quite successfully.

This brings to mind another proven axiom that was elaborated in the Jim Collins bestseller, "Good to Great." Collins researched a few American companies that had their roots in the old economy. One of the conclusions was that good companies became great because the founders and CEOs of these companies hired people who were future founders and CEOs.

One can therefore see a parallel with this truth and with the composition of the 1983 World Cup-winning squad.

At both high and in-depth levels, the 1983 Indian team has become the benchmark standard of sorts for all countries to pick their one-day squad - an inspiring captain who performed with both bat and ball, world class opening batsmen, a solid middle order backed by two genuine allrounders other than the captain, a fine wicketkeeper batsman and reliable reserves to call upon. This is the team that rose from good to great at Lords. There was no coach for this team; neither was there a coach for the faster-paced and more competitive B&H championships in Australia in 1985. This too was won by India with more or less the same squad.

While the current Indian team is no doubt a batch of talent, experience and athleticism, some vital ingredients are missing, so are some key players. As always, one is tempted to ask the question: does the current ODI squad measure up to the class of 83?

Surely, something to think about for Dilip Vengsarkar, chairman of selectors, and one of the first 14 Indians to hold the 1983 World Cup.