Greg Chappell is India's former coach, what more do people want?

A little less than two years after he was named India's coach, replacing John Wright, Greg Chappell chose to not seek a renewal of his contract, ending speculation if the BCCI would sack him. In a sense, he has gone out on his own terms, rather than the BCCI confirming that they wouldn't renew his contract. Was it a case of his way or no way?

The next question is about who the BCCI will choose as the new coach. When the same question came up in 2005, I wrote about my preferred choice

I firmly think that the experience he has of coaching sub-continental sides would be his best trump card. I know that coaching Sri Lanka from being the no-hopers of world cricket to the World Cup in 1996 is totally different from handling India's players, who have certainly achieved a few things. It would also be very different from coaching today's no-hopers, Bangladesh (joint holders along with Zimbabwe).

Dav Whatmore has hinted that he'd be keen to pursue an opportunity if the job did have a vacancy. It is pathetic that Indian cricket keeps having this cycle every couple of years. Why should a coach/captain be appointed keeping a specific tournament in mind? If India, under Chappell/Dravid failed to get to the second round of the World Cup, does this mean they are a pathetic side? What will the tenure of the next coach be? Till the 2011 World Cup? Till the 2008 Champions Trophy? Till the 2010 Champions Trophy?

Mind you, when Chappell took over as India's coach, the side was ranked #7 in ODIs (97 points) and #3 in tests (107 points). Compare this to the rating now: #6 in ODIs (106 points) and #4 in tests (107 points).

So, Chappell hasn't done anything spectacular, purely in terms of the ICC ratings. Is that sufficient reason to doubt his ability? I can't think of any side other than Australia which has consistently remained in the top rung of the ICC ratings over the last two years. England were ~ #2 in tests for a while, but sunk to new depths during the Ashes and a few times before. It is only in the last year that South Africa have done well as a one-day side. West Indies, barring winning against India and reaching the ICC Champions Trophy final, have been as inconsistent as they've been for a decade. New Zealand, as usual, have been there or thereabouts, having an odd great series here and there. Sri Lanka have recovered marvellously from a walloping in India in 2005.

I'm not even for a moment suggesting that I'm happy that India is #3 in tests and #6 in ODIs or that it has been inconsistent or that it didn't get to the Super Eight stage or that it seems to have regressed in recent times. What this shows is that most teams, other than those named Australia, go through ups and downs. This happens when the team management doesn't plan well, and when players don't bat/bowl/field well or execute the plans well. If there was a sense of collective responsibility, which is what you'd assume given that everyone in the BCCI and the Indian touring party seemed to target the World Cup semi-final at the least, everyone ought to quit. Why Chappell alone?

Labels: 2007 world cup, bcci, chappell, coach, greg chappell, india, whatmore, world cup