The perennial sports conundrum – is the captain or the coach the boss?

Anindya Dutta Roar Guru

By Anindya Dutta, Anindya Dutta is a Roar Guru

Tagged:
 , ,

36 Have your say

    This has all the makings of a future blockbuster that you and I will pay to watch at a multiplex in ten years’ time.

    The captain Virat Kohli speaks to the ‘Three Wise Men’ of Indian cricket (Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman, members of the Cricket Advisory Committee), individually, to convey that he and the team have serious issues with the coach, Anil Kumble.

    The timing is immaculate for the coach’s contract is almost at an end, and it is the trio who are tasked with finding or indeed re-appointing the coach.

    Someone within the BCCI (which has just been added to Roger’s Thesaurus as the best example of a ‘leaking sieve’) promptly informs his friends in the press. The captain then publicly rubbishes the fact there is a problem within the team. The team leaves for the Champions Trophy in England with the coach’s contract slated to end with the tournament, and rumours of this conflict hanging in the air.

    During the course of the tournament, the coach’s contract is extended for a few weeks to cover the tour to the West Indies that follows the tournament. The team storms into the final and then capitulates meekly to a team that plays out of their skins on the day. Two days later the team leaves for the West Indies, but without the coach, who, as the Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee, stays back in London for a meeting and says he will join the team later.

    Not long after the team’s flight takes off, the seat belts are off and the drinks on board are being served, the coach announces on Twitter that he is resigning from his post immediately and attaches a carefully prepared statement that cites his position as untenable in the light of the captain’s views, which he claims have just been conveyed to him by the Board. This in itself is bizarre given the visibility the spat has had for the better part of three weeks or more.

    Virat Kohli runs after hitting a drive

    (AP Photo/Rui Vieira)

    A heated social media debate erupts with overwhelming support being expressed for the coach, who also happens to be one of India’s cricketing heroes from the past. Commentators, past players and columnists have a field day filling up the ether with ever stronger castigation of the captain.

    Some foreign journalists react with glee that the Indian cricket’s ‘Captain versus Coach’ conflict has now claimed one of India’s own and all within a year, rather than a poor misunderstood foreigner who once wanted to control India’s superstars but was sacked after two years for his honest efforts.

    It is still unclear what those ‘irreconcilable differences’ are. Speculation is rife about the trigger. And why, two men, Anil Kumble and Virat Kohli, both intensely competitive and intelligent human beings who wear their national pride visibly on their sleeves and want to win every time they step out on to the cricket field, would not be able to have an intelligent conversation. A conversation that would either sort out differences, or indeed if they were irreconcilable, then part ways amicably rather than subject themselves to a media and social media circus.

    As Gaurav Kalra writing in Cricinfo correctly points out: “As an unabashedly ambitious captain and batsman, it is certain Kohli has targeted overseas series wins in South Africa and England next season, and in the 2019 World Cup. How did he come to be convinced Kumble wouldn’t be an ideal ally in accomplishing those goals? We often hear that a winning team is a happy team, then why is it that after their combination delivered so much success in these last 12 months, there were rumblings of discontent? In what ways was Kumble “overbearing”? Why was the dressing room “intimidated” by his presence? In every interview he did after being appointed coach, Kumble insisted the captain was the boss of a cricket team. Did he not actually operate by that dictum?”

    These are important questions that can only be answered when Kohli is allowed to tell his side of the story.

    Be that as it may, this drama will sort itself out in the coming weeks, India (as things stand) will have a new coach, the captain, in this instance, will have prevailed, and life will go on.

    What this does however, is that it begs the eternal question in sports, in such a conflict, who should prevail – captain or coach?

    The search for this answer cannot merely be confined to cricket, for this dilemma is not unique to one team sport or another, and Kumble and Kohli are not the first to have ‘irreconcilable differences’. But it is perhaps worth spending a bit of time first looking at some cricketing experiences before we move on.

    The Greg Chappell versus Sourav Ganguly story has been done to death, the contrasting views of both actors in thing particular drama have been heard, the damning evidence of other Indian players presented post facto in their autobiographies has been registered, the notable silence of others have been noted. The guilty verdict has been passed, and the coach in question has not had another major coaching assignment in the intervening years, national or international.

    Greg Chappell will put his selection cap on after the departure of Rod Marsh (Cricket Australia TV)

    (Cricket Australia TV)

    And indeed India has not been the only country that has had a problem retaining cricket coaches. Across the line of control, it has been no mean task managing the volatile temperaments and mercurial personalities that bring forth the flashes of stunning brilliance between bouts of abysmal performances, that the Pakistan cricket team has taught us to expect. It is clearly not a team that believes in doing anything in half measures. And while conflict between captain and coach may not have been the culprit every time, coaching this team has often been a rewarding challenge and a hazard at the same time.

    Whenever Pakistan has attempted to bring in a former great as coach, as they did with Javed Miandad, or with Waqar Younis, the story has not ended well. The thinking there has emerged that given the complicated chain of command in a cricket dressing room, perhaps it should be the captain who should be the boss. Or should it be the coach? The debate there continues.

    Perhaps the most dramatic moment in Pakistan’s chequered history in this regard came at Kingston, Jamaica 10-years ago when its coach Bob Woolmer was found dead in his bathroom the morning after an embarrassing loss to minnows Ireland at the Cricket World Cup, which late Irish journalist Con Houlihan called “the biggest sporting sensation since North Korea beat Italy in the football world cup of 1966.” The loss knocked the former champions out of the World Cup.

    As James Fitzgerald writes about the reaction of this loss in Pakistan and its effect on Woolmer in his excellent investigative feature, ‘The Woolmer Files’ in The Cricket Monthly, “A mixture of despair and anger spread across the country, fuelled by a hysterical section of the media. Effigies of Woolmer were burned on the streets of Lahore – the team’s homecoming was not going to be pleasant. That night, as he contemplated an early return to Pakistan, Woolmer had a drink in the Pegasus bar before retiring to his room early, ordering room service and polishing off a bottle of Moët Chandon. It was one of two such bottles given to him by Pakistan’s non-drinker assistant coach Mushtaq Ahmed, who had been gifted them by a fan. The defeated coach sat alone in his hotel room, eating lasagne, apple pie with ice cream, and sipping champagne, wondering what to do after his inevitable and imminent sacking/resignation.”

    After 10-years of investigation, it appears that Woolmer may have been unable to manage the stress, and in a proverbial case of the straw that broke the camel’s back, died of a massive heart attack aided by the mix of the champagne and his strong diabetes medicine. A sad end to one of the best cricket coaches in the world. Fortunately, not many coaching assignments end this way.

    How does one tackle this contentious issue? Is there indeed a ‘one size fits all’ solution? It’s worth taking a look at the experiences of other sports before coming back to cricket to see how it could pan out.

    Analysts and gurus expressing their opinions on the Kohli-Kumble saga have been liberally throwing around the example of Manchester United and how Alex Ferguson dealt with David Beckham. The conclusion drawn is clearly that superstars are not indispensable, and since the coach is responsible for the greater good of the team (and the shareholders in the case of ManU), the same principle should be applied in Kohli’s case.

    Not only is the analogy ill conceived, but comparing the two is like treating apples and oranges alike, which, as they taught us in school, is clearly a bad thing.

    First, what applies to a club, cannot apply to a nation. A football club is local institution (in the case of ManU a very cleverly globally marketed local institution) with a myriad collection of multi-national talent who need to gel together as a team, and a coach has a far greater role to play in this than the captain who must execute the plan strategised by the coach, on the field.

    The captain of the Indian cricket team on the other hand carries the hopes of a nation of 1.3 billion on his shoulders and is a leader on the field and off it of players who are representing their country. The coach can guide and strategise and help the players with their game, but is rarely as central to the result of a match as a football captain is.

    Second, the captain of a football team (more so for a club team) may not be the most talented or effective player in the team but usually plays a central and leadership role in how the team operates. His match performance is judged based on the result.

    On the other hand, the performance of an Indian cricket captain, more often than not, is central to the result of the team, and any bad performance in a match is seen as a failure, regardless of the result of the match. Hence the pressure is not the same, and naturally, the importance of the role cannot be the same either in the two cases.

    Finally, both the coach and the captain of a club football team have many options to choose from if they are either sacked or resign. For the national cricket team, in this day of growing international cricket, while the coach does have that option, the captain does not. Hence the stakes for the captain are much higher.

    If, as in the case of Kohli, a man of no mean intelligence, knowing the stature of Kumble in world cricket, he has chosen to join this fight with enough maturity that his first step was to approach the ‘Three Wise Men’ with his grievances, knowing they have each played with Kumble for more than a decade, one perhaps needs to step back a bit before passing a guilty verdict before a trial is initiated.

    Staying with football, in our quest for an answer to this conundrum, what is a much more interesting and meaningful analogy is if we go back to 1992 to see what happened with Denmark as they were trying to qualify for Euro 1992.

    Richard Moller Nielsen, the Assistant Coach of a talented Denmark side, gets the top job on rebound after the team of superstars Michael and Brian Laudrup and goalkeeper Peter Shmeichel among others, fail to win matches as a team. He is a disciplined coach and wants to build the team to win consistently even at the expense of free flowing football.

    The players are unwilling and unable to adapt to his style, or indeed take him seriously from his previous stint as the assistant coach, and Denmark fails to qualify. The Laudrup brothers refuse to play under him and walk out of the team with an accompanying media blitz pillorying Moller’s coaching style. Sounds familiar so far?

    Fate intervenes however and political sanctions (including sporting) are imposed upon Yugoslavia who have qualified, and with 10-days to go for kick off, Denmark are invited back into the Euro to join perhaps the toughest group in the competition which includes Netherlands and France.

    Moller puts aside his ego and personally invites Brian Laudrup, the younger and less glamorous of the two brothers to join the team on Moller’s terms, to play for his country, but to play to the coach’s strategies. Brian accepts.

    In a desperate final group match, doggedly playing Moller’s strategic plays, Denmark beats France to reach the semi-finals, having lost to Sweden and drawn goalless with England earlier.

    At this point, the coach plays a master stroke. Moller has a one-on-one conversation with his superstar where they clear the air, and he allows Brian Laudrup to play his natural attacking game while the team follows his lead with the discipline which is now ingrained in them by Moller’s coaching. Denmark beats Marco Van Basten’s Netherlands on penalties in the semis and then playing with passion and intense will to win, the team lifts the Euro stunning World Champions Germany 2-0 in the final. (The Danish film on this story, ‘Summer of ’92’ is well worth watching)

    There is a lesson in this for any coach-captain relationship. It is the lesson of mutual respect, which doesn’t always come with the job, but is developed over time as the two slowly realise that the end game for both is the same – the success of the team. Give and take is the only way to ensure that this relationship will succeed, and once that barrier of mistrust is breached, the team performance is assured. And it always begins with not only ‘hearing’ what the other person is saying, but actually ‘listening’ to them. In the Kumble-Kohli saga, this may well have been the missing piece.

    An equally interesting study is of the ‘Mighty Magyars’, the magnificent Hungarian national team that became immortal for its many victories starting with the 1953 win over the all-conquering English team and for pioneering a fluid style of football that would be adapted and perfected as the 4-2-4 formation by Brazil a few years on. The brain behind their game was its coach Gusztav Sebes, and the genius behind the execution, its captain Ferenc Puskas, two men who could not have been more different.

    Sebes was cerebral to the point that he would detain his team for over four hours at a stretch while he detailed plays on a blackboard. He was perfectly aware that football is not played on the blackboard and players need to execute it on the field. And in Puskas, he had a captain who never doubted his judgement or told him what to do, and indeed imbibed the broad strategy the coach was espousing, but executed the coach’s strategy in his own way.

    As Les Murray, a Hungarian-born football journalist was to say about Puskas: “He was a street footballer from small childhood. He had not much time for coaching or coaches. Every time Sebes would go through this ritual of drawing all sorts of squares and diagrams on the blackboard in the dressing room before a game, he would lead the team out, and in the tunnel he would tell them to forget all that nonsense and play the way they normally played. And they would always win.”

    And if that gives the impression that there was problem between the coach and the captain, here is what Sebes himself said about Puskas: “Puskas had a brilliant sense of tactical requirements and in the ability, in a matter of seconds, to realise what was necessary to surmount a problem…..He was never a selfish player, despite his own abilities, and didn’t hesitate to lay off the ball to a better-placed colleague. He was the real leader of the team on the pitch, encouraging and driving others on.”

    This is what a coach-captain relationship should be like. Mutual respect in plenty, but the ability to let go and admire what each brings to the table. And then go out and do the job with all the passion and skill that has brought the team to the position they are in.

    When one sees Virat Kohli on the field, there is no one who can doubt his passion, his hunger to win, his commitment to the game and the pride that he takes in representing his country. Relationships don’t always work out as envisioned, or else the world would have no divorces and no need for divorce lawyers.

    And the fault is rarely entirely attributable to one party or the other. Mutual respect for abilities is not enough. Adequate two-way communication and the ability and willingness to step back and let the other play his role in this cricketing marriage is the key to success.

    Indian cricket needs to move on and people need to stop taking sides and castigating one or the other. There is no one correct answer to this dilemma. What is important is that whoever is the new coach, comes in with his eyes open that this is the second highest pressure job in world cricket. He must find a way to work well with the man who holds the highest pressure job, the Captain of the Indian cricket team. With the two working hand in hand, there is little to stop this talented Indian team from conquering every peak in world cricket.

    Be sure to head to the second ODI between Australia and England this Friday at the Gabba, and don't forget to be wearing your XXXX Goldie to be in with a chance to win $10k in XXXX GOLD’s crowd catch competition.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (36)

    • June 25th 2017 @ 9:56am
      AGordon said | June 25th 2017 @ 9:56am | ! Report

      At this level, coaching is primarily about managing egos and in Kohli, you probably have one of the biggest egos in world cricket. As an outsider looking in, I get the impression with him it’s a case of “my way or the highway”. You could have a hundred Tendukars, Laxmans, etc coaching this side, but if Kohli wasn’t in tune with their approach, they’d be the first to disappear.

      A similar episode happened not so long ago in Australian cricket with Mickey Arthur versus the players and we know the result of that. In an ideal world, there would some sort of independent arbitration where both parties could air their grievances, hopefully resolve these and move on. The problem is of course – EGO.

      I fear for Indian cricket while Kohli is captain. Yes he is fiercely competitive, but he doesn’t seem like the kind if captain who is really prepared to listen. If I’m right, the national coaching job will be a revolving door for the next 5 or 6 years at least, and Indian national cricket will be in disarray.

      India’s best captain by a street has been Dhoni because he managed both his and his players egos extremely well. This is the level of people management Indian captains need to aspire to achieve. Unfortunately for most, their egos will not let them get close

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:31pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:31pm | ! Report

        Fair points Gordon. The ego is a huge factor in this relationship and success lies in channeling that ego into positive communication and results. I don’t necessarily agree with your views on the future of Indian cricket because of Kohli because I think the hunger and the passion is more important for Indian cricket. Kumble in my view has had a communication problem as well. So let’s see how the future holds.

      • June 26th 2017 @ 12:35am
        Ritesh Misra said | June 26th 2017 @ 12:35am | ! Report

        Is it just a gut feeling that Kohli is one of the biggest egos in world cricket. Why the impression of “My way or the highway”
        Maybe it was Kumble who had the ego and the my way or highway attitude

    • June 25th 2017 @ 11:29am
      Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 25th 2017 @ 11:29am | ! Report

      A terrific think-piece, Anindya and a good response by AGordon.
      My question: Do we need a coach in cricket at international level? Should not the best 15 or so cricketers in a country work out their problems themselves? Should not Bumrah teach himself not to bowl wides and no-balls without a coach telling him what to do?

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:34pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:34pm | ! Report

        Thanks so much Kersi. And a very fair question, that. The team already has a batting and a bowling coach who should be mentoring Bumrah, a young man at the early stages of his career on a big stage. Maybe we don’t actually need a “Head Coach” so to speak. And curiously, everyone, including the coach in cricket, is referred to as “support staff”. So does the captain v Coach conundrum actually exist?

      • June 26th 2017 @ 12:37am
        Ritesh Misra said | June 26th 2017 @ 12:37am | ! Report

        I agree Kersi. I believe that A Man manager is more the need of the hour. an elder brother kind of person. By the way Kumble as such is not a coach and has no qualifications to be one. I personally believe he should have been called Director, as was Ravi Shastri

    • June 25th 2017 @ 12:13pm
      Duncan Smith said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:13pm | ! Report

      Ian Chappell had a very low opinion of cricket coaches. He said the coach’s job was to make sure there were plenty of bats and balls at net practice, and that’s about it. He hated Bob Simpson’s power over Australian cricket during the Border era.

      But that’s Ian Chappell – a rebel and anti-establishment man to the core. The 70s were very different days as well.

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:37pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:37pm | ! Report

        Interesting Duncan. But I can see that coming from Ian Chappell! But as I wrote above in my response to Kersi, with the kind of support staff we have traveling with the teams today, including batting bowling and fielding coaches, perhaps you don’t need a Coach.

        • June 26th 2017 @ 12:39am
          Ritesh Misra said | June 26th 2017 @ 12:39am | ! Report

          Well Annidya, even with the batting, bowling and fielding coaches, u need a coordinator i feel. Call him the Director if u want

    • June 25th 2017 @ 12:27pm
      Johnno said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

      Good article, you know what I’d say, I’d say it’s situational “horses for courses”. Sometimes the coach is the boss other times the captain, and other times a power-struggle.

      Examples coach the box: Fergie at Man U/Guzz Hiddink at socceroos. I remember when Hiddink was in charge of Roos, he was so in charge the players followed every call and wouldn’t dare step out of line. A commentator said at 2007 Asia cup, if Hiddink was still coach the players wouldn’t dare step out of there formation and do there own thing, which rings some truth if you ask me.

      Other times the captain is in charge, and can be petulant e.g. Brian Lara was for a while petulant, maybe KP was to with Peter Moores.

      Power struggle example was Andy Flower and KP, 2 brilliant batsmen but having endless power struggle between each other in captain coach role.

      I’d say the best teams are when there is a happy middle ground where both the captain and coach have mutual respect and what to share the power. Malcom Marshall seemed a good coach at the west indies, he was respected but he also let the captain Brian Lara or Jimmy Adams have a say. Zidane and Ronaldo seem to be working a good combination at Real Madrid, Pepe Guardiola seemed to work a good balance at Barcelona to.

      So I’d say the best teams are when there is a sharing of power between coach and captain but there’s mutual respect there e.g. Malcom Marshall-biran Lara, not teams where both coach and captain are fighting to be top dog, or where one coach or player have more power than the other.

      What’s also interesting is when 2 star teammates can’t get on. Wasim Akram/Waqar younis had endless power struggles within the team both wanting to be captain, to big egos. Viv Richards and Brian Lara didn’t get on that well when Lara was in his prime.

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:45pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:45pm | ! Report

        Thanks Johnno. And absolutely, that was the point I was trying to bring out. In case of India, Kohli has been asking for Shastri who is not much of a strategy man but behaves as “one of the boys” and gives good motivating speeches. I don’t get the reluctance in having someone like that if it works well. And honestly, before Kumble took over, Shastri had brought the team together and worked well with Kohli after the Duncan Fletcher era which just didn’t work for India as it did for England earlier. Horses for courses as you say.

        • June 25th 2017 @ 1:18pm
          Johnno said | June 25th 2017 @ 1:18pm | ! Report

          Exactly. I think the point is here, some coaches and players bring out the best in someone it doesn’t mean the other is bad. Kumble may not be the bravado “one of the boys” type coach but he offers intelligence and technical style. Some players respond to technical type coaches, others respond to bravado types.
          What was intesresting was the different comments about Shane Warne and Mike Hussey made about John Buchanan. One of the boys type players shane warne said , Buchannan gives team plans by spreadsheets not passion, where as Mike Hussey said he had no complaints with Buchannan. I’d prefer a technical style coach, bravado and passion never bring out the best in me in a sports environment. So maybe Kholi wants more bravado. But in saying that I do find it very surprising these bravado type personalities in cricket complain about technical minded coaches when cricket is such a technical game rather and technical competency is required e.g. from how to grip a bat/to fielding/to how to grip a ball, guys like Shastri/warne/fintoff/KP/Kholi etc bravado types had to learn technique and technical stuff from somewhere.
          I think many players in the Indian set up would have responded fine to Kumble, and would have craved that technical style and hard work ethic. And once again that’s perplexing, Kumble is a hard worker, and Kholi works very hard to. In fact most players that get picked for India are very hard workers, so I just don’t get why he has failed to connect with Kholi on a professional level, it seems a bit perplexing.
          Maybe liking someone as a person is more important in cricket than I thought. But then again i’d debate that, Imran Khan and Javed Miandad never liked each other much but mostly had a good professional relationship 2 big egos, watching them in the 92 final step it up and be clutch was magic stuff. Clive Llloyd and Viv richards always got on well and were a good combination.

          • Roar Guru

            June 25th 2017 @ 7:51pm
            Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 7:51pm | ! Report

            Johnno – I think between these two there is a clear lack of communication. For me the best sign was Kohli clearly citing what his issue is with Kumble and Kumble flippantly replying “Those are non-issues”

            • June 25th 2017 @ 8:48pm
              Johnno said | June 25th 2017 @ 8:48pm | ! Report

              Well exactly “non issues” and there’s a communication breakdown. And I’m perplexed why the BCCI did not try to resolve this, any competent admin would not just cast aside someone of Kumble’s coaching quality.

        • June 26th 2017 @ 12:43am
          Ritesh Misra said | June 26th 2017 @ 12:43am | ! Report

          I agree about the horses for courses. I personally feel that there was no need to boot out Shastri. He helped Dhoni take an out of sorts Indian team to semi finals of world cup, that too at Australia. Even in the T20 World cup the team entered the semi finals didnt they , and it was only no balls and Lendl Simmons knock that helped est Indies chase 190 or so
          So why was Shastri booted out?
          and wasnt Kumble not having the qualifications. and was chosen only so that if a big name is chosen then people wont scream.
          sadly now too that is being done, and sehwag asked to apply so that people will not scream

    • June 25th 2017 @ 12:36pm
      David a Pom said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:36pm | ! Report

      Cheeky last sentence there, Anindya. 3 key overseas tours coming up for your boys: Saffers, England and Australia. What gives you confidence you’ll win those? The only one I think you could win is against the Aussie flat trackers, of which you’ll have us to thank after we’ve dented them in the Ashes.

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:41pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:41pm | ! Report

        Haha David. Here we go again! Recovered from the Indian tour already? 😜 More seriously, I am not suggesting they will win everything, but I think with a fully functional dressing room, India has the front and bench strength to do well in the next couple of years. They might not win everything and beat everyone but they will hopefully leave a good account of themselves.

    • June 25th 2017 @ 12:42pm
      GD66 said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

      The coach is really a manager these days. It is hard to fathom that Kumble, one of the most intelligent of cricketers, could not find enough common ground with Kohli to form a strong alliance based on the common goal, and in limited-overs form with Dhoni in the mix as well : on paper, a most formidable trio of opponents.
      I think Kohli may have been swept up in his success portraying the pantomime villain, and the opportunity to join forces with Kumble and Dhoni, both of whom are adept at keeping things calm, now appears lost. And their opponents in the cricketing world breathe a sigh of relief…

      • Roar Guru

        June 25th 2017 @ 12:49pm
        Anindya Dutta said | June 25th 2017 @ 12:49pm | ! Report

        @GD66 I think the issue was more of communication than native or cricketing intelligence. That’s what it seems like at least from million miles away (for all practical purposes).

        • June 26th 2017 @ 5:12am
          Ritesh Misra said | June 26th 2017 @ 5:12am | ! Report

          I agree that lack of communication is the reason probably. I will give an example. It seems kumble had made lots of individual video recordings and elaborate notes on each player. One day he slipped them in each players room late night. After 2 days he found out than many had not read them and apparently he lost his cool
          Now what was stopping him from simply calling up the players and saying “Hey mate, this is a technical problem i feel has crept in, what is your opinion”?

    Explore:
    , ,