The Kohli Kumble Conundrum

Anil Kumble is my most favourite cricketer ever. Virat Kohli is not even in my top 5 or 10.

Now that my bias has been declared, let me wade into this matter with my genuine, piercing, earth-shattering insight which will force you to reconsider your basic assumptions on life. Well, no. Anyway.

The role of a coach in the game of cricket has gradually been on the rise. Prior to the Indian team’s remarkable rise in the Ganguly-Wright era, people would hardly hear of Anshuman Gaekwad’s great exploits as coach. Kapil Dev, Madan Lal, Ajit Wadekar — all big names in the 90s as coaches but there was not much public traction they carried as coaches.

Not many among common people knew who coaches of various teams were except for instances like Dav Whatmore being given much credit for Sri Lanka’s rise.

Profuse praise for John Wright from both players and experts sealed the position of the coach as the second-most important job in the team.

The subsequent Greg Chappell fracas sealed it as the job that was rivaling with the captain’s for the tag of Number 1. However, Kirsten restored some sanity and subtlety to it, and yet again did a John Wright Part 2 by winning praise from all quarters.

The current issue is deeper than the personalities involved. Yes, Kohli could be over-sensitive and petulant. Yes, Kumble could be overbearing and exacting. But it’s not merely a clash of two personalities known for a never-back-down sort of remarkable mental strength.

The real issue is the muddled job description of a coach in cricket. Is he, as Anil Kumble says, someone who holds a mirror to the team? Is he a decision-maker for key decisions in the team a la football? Or is he a facilitator and more of a sounding board for ideas? Should he have a say in questions such as say, who will bat where, who will play in the eleven and who won’t and more importantly, should he have a veto in any of these?

Some have also turned around and raised doubts on the job description of the captain himself. Should the captain have a say or even a veto in who the coach will be?

Beyond the juicy clash of personalities there’s just chatter and no real clarity on these questions.

Sunil Gavaskar’s characteristically strong comments after Kumble’s resignation are welcome, not because I necessarily agree with him but for his honesty in taking a stand on the above questions. Look beyond his appreciation for Kumble as an all time great who was treated shoddily and you will see he thinks the job of a coach is of an authoritarian (not necessarily authoritative) figure around the team who disciplines the young guns.

Personally, my take is that a coach’s job in cricket has been overhyped. His job must be to provide insights on the game and strategic inputs but no veto on anything. It is the captain who goes onto the field and takes on opponents. It is the captain who gets pilloried for the loss. It is the captain whose career is on the line. So, only he gets to take decisions on everything starting from which eleven should play to who should play where and how.

Naturally, in this recent issue too, I have to say irrespective of what Kohli or Kumble have done, a player who will still play for many more years and has much to offer to the team has more “skin in the game” (NN Taleb, thank you) and his opinion must be favoured over that of the coach’s.

As of now none of us have a clue which specific ‘style’ of Kumble’s working Kohli had a problem with. And with BCCI bigwigs probably asking Kohli to desist from comment, we won’t know it soon either. In case Kohli has repeated spats with more coaches there may be a case to be made against him.

If one has quibbles with Kohli’s unimaginative captaincy, like me, that is tangential to this issue. Even if Kumble had such quibbles, surely he would have had the platform to express them. But as of now, just because Kohli has a reputation of being passionate and visibly over-the-top as opposed to Kumble who’s always been more classy and suave, one cannot conclude Kohli has been arrogant and caused this fallout.

When two strong personalities are at the fore and when one’s job description is not in black and white terms, such friction is bound to occur and I’d often (and this time), but not always, back the man whose effigies will get burnt if the team performs badly on the field.