mapoui wrote:coaches mus' be part of a process of development...not the locus and driver of that development.
You see Andy Flower being the focus and driver of any development - stewps.
what the hell are you talking about?
do yu understand whats going orn?
the english apparently had adjusted after Duncan Fletehcer r and the bruhaha with Pietersen and Moores.
Flower is working fine getting along by not imposing himself as Fletcher did and Moores started doing which pissed off Pietersen.
now I dont know who did that adjusting..if it came as directive form english authority or it just flows from flowers attitude and smarts.
but the power relation is still there..the concentration of power in the hands of the coach. and as lon as its there so is the corruption or the potential for.
but the flower phenomena is one in a sea of crap with head coaching. and flower will no be there forever.
the key in the equation is whether the relation gets the best out of the sitation for the nation, for the cricket development?
the key is coachng itself its function and benefit..how best shud coaching be used in the edevelopment of cricketers.
back in the day few of our players great players were selected and coached from day one, they learned their cricket however, were naturals who often rubbed shoulders with our greats who were always around.
the company they kept helped immensly. by the time of Kanhai and Butcher Walcott was a coach but it is how Walcott coached is the key. Walcott appeared hardly ever to be telling players what to do. he let them flow and intervened only when he felt he had to..if ever.
being there as coach was indentifying talent and helping it to come forward by opportuity, encouragement but hardly ever interference with styles.
coaching can ruin players with talent if cochng des not know how to deal wth the development of players. he has to incoprate their private lives and how it shapes them into his coaching..not by talking with them about that part of their lives with the youth..that is not eh coaches business in that way.
but knowing that such is the nexus of personailtiy, that youth is still forming, developing their nature and that hei not to interefere bys strick coherene to manuals etc but to let the kids flow, not to be another source of stricture in their lives but to let them play.
a coch might ask a player why he played across and got bowled or caught?
if the player does not know the coach might say look here are the mechanics..playing across can mean this and is not advisable. but if yu like to play across it can be very profitable becase he opistion does not expect you to do that and so set fields in expectation that you will play straight. so hers how you can do it with max chances of getting runs
so yu tell him and leave him alone..or practice him in the net to hit across..play straight etc. but yu have to be careful to allow freedom for the development of the full style and nature of the player.
that what I mean by coaching must be part of the overall development plan for the game in the jurisdiction..or nation. and thats all coaching/coaches must be. coaching as head and all powerful is a conflict. and such a conflict has resulted in real loss and scandal for al sports.
so it does not come down to one successful coach... flower in england. we are talking about a relation that is unnecessary and corrupt from the start that must be eliminated..while coaches/coachng must be structured as it should ..as discussed above.
I have no idea wats wrong you this mawning armick. eat your porridge before you post or something