How much did Bob Woolmer's murder play on Chappell's mind when he decided to quit as coach, is a question we will know only in time; when Chappell decides to open up again to the Indian media. I don't blame Chappell at all for deciding to quit for fear of his life. Who would want to coach in the region of match fixers and coach murderers?
If the decision however was not motivated thus, I am disappointed with the way we lost the services of a passionate, bold and no nonsense cricketing brain. Chappell promised a lot, dared to show us a vision, brought in fresh blood but eventually crash landed, which I believe was due to his failure to collaborate, partner and negotiate with Dilip Vengsarkar, "the seniors" in the team, and Rahul Dravid. With a little bit of "coaching" for himself he would have been a great asset to India.
If we stick to what is true or false as opposed to the rights or wrongs, in what has emerged lately, it is clear that there are no villains or heroes in this story. The media may paint a black and white picture of the roles people played in this messy epic, but then that is the nature of reporting in Indian media. Stories with black and white characters are simple and they sell. It is much simpler for everyone to understand situations after separating the bad from the good.
Chappell on his part for all his knowledge seemed to be upset or unhappy with the team he got. Of course we will never know (or may be we will) what he wanted but that is beside the point. As coach he is being paid to coach the team that is given to him. As coach he gets to be at the table and recommend candidates for selection in Team India. As a coach he gets access to selectors and an opportunity to influence; but no more. And that is how it should be. The "I could do better if I had a bigger say in selection" is an argument that takes the sheen off any professional coach. It is like saying that I would invariably succeed if I controlled all the variables and things happened my way.
Chappell, in this current maturity as coach, would be more successful in a setup where cricket is run more professionally. If he has to succeed in more chaotic environments like the sub continent, he needs to develop broader perspectives and learn to fit in the sub continental setup as opposed to imprinting and force fitting Australian solutions for team selection, management and motivation.
What drives Indian cricketers, even the greatest ones like Kapil, Sachin and Gavaskar, is pressure and insecurity. What motivates them is loyalty and monetary security. India is a land where Olympic medalists are known to hawk on streets named after them; a country capable of bankrupting Dhyan Chand; a country where even past cricketing greats are known to depend on public funds and charity. The current economic conditions in India may be much more favorable to failed, retired or average cricketers. Today there may be more opportunities in a flourishing economy; however the security that the economy gives will take time to make current cricket stars make the right %u201Cattitudal%u201D adjustments.
As of today Indian cricket teams need leaders; either in the form of a coaches or captains; like Imran Khan or Saurav Ganguly. Leaders, who first build individual trust, establish a personal connection, focus on individual achievements as opposed to "team work" for motivation, leaders who "fight" for you against the "big bad and ugly world of Indian cricket" and then take complete ownership creating a team concept.
Romantic concepts like %u201Cteam work%u201D won%u2019t work in an Indian context; at least not today. While a team like New Zealand can work in a team context, to pursue team goals with members motivated by %u201Cthe good of the country%u201D and roles assigned to them; India and Pakistan thrive only in situations where team goals are sought without diminishing the contributions of individuals. At the end what sticks in public and corporate memory is the number of centuries Sachin scored. No one cares how many matches Sachin helped win; and I believe that is sad for someone like Sachin because Sachin has helped India win more matches than the matches where his own individual performances have stood out. It is not that Indian cricket underestimates the power of %u201Cthe team%u201D, but it cannot be seen to diminish or replace individual brilliance.
India is truly a global team, a financial super power in the game, an engine to secure the future of the game, globally. It is in the world%u2019s interest that Indian cricket thrives. This is a global problem and it is the ICC that should demand a stake in solving this. Problem solvers, thinkers and experts are needed beyond the pool available to India. We need the Alan Borders, Bob Simpsons, the Imran Khans, the Steve Waughs and everyone else including the television channels and the cola companies.
However, the solutions to India%u2019s cricket problems need to be local. Global perspectives need to be customized for local inefficiencies and customs. Demanding that the local variables, attitudes, processes and customs change before implementing a solution; will simply not work. We will need the Gavaskars and the Shastris to challenge Australian, English or Bangladeshi solutions to Indian conditions.
What we needed was %u201CThe Chappell Way %u2013 Indian Edition%u201D. What we did not do with Chappell or what Chappell did not seek was access to local knowledge.
My fear is that the BCCI is acting in haste without much thought. Being run by politicians; its solutions are aimed to manage public opinions and perceptions. Frankly I am sure courts in the land will rule against BCCI attempting to limit endorsements. The BCCI may be crossing the limit here. And frankly endorsements are not the problem. You limit endorsements and you play on the insecurities of young stars.
