|
|
||||||||||
|
 |
As the mutiny surrounding the Andy Moles saga dribbled to a limp end yesterday, it probably raised more questions than it did answers. Over almost before it began, Moles’ reign as New Zealand Cricket Coach was less than a year – just as long as his tenures at such cricketing powerhouses of Kenya and Scotland. It was obvious from the start that Moles was never the first choice for the job. What impact that had on his new charges may never be known, but it can hardly have been comfortable for either the players or Moles himself to know that he was almost there by default. Somewhat surprisingly, as his swift departure became common knowledge, Moles claims he was completely unaware of his team’s general dissatisfaction. Yet if things were really that bad, surely there must have been some fairly strong indicators that thing weren’t right. The fact that it was such a rapid swing of the axe gives the impression that not only did the team feel that Moles was not capable of performing his duties, but also that at some stage those feelings must have come to a head. Should that have been the case, you would have to wonder about his ability to pick up on some not so subtle hints. Yet we may never know who blew the whistle. Apparently the source of the information originally made public by Jonathan Millmow in the Dominion Post was not a member of the New Zealand squad. Logic would therefore suggest that it must have been someone close to the team itself. It may have been a Player Manager, someone in the ranks of New Zealand Cricket, a selector, or, for all we know, a Heat Pump Salesman. So now, in what could hardly be described as an ideal scenario, the New Zealand side looks to have a senior player as Coach, Captain and Selector – at least for the short term. Player Power was the winner on the day. Time will tell whether that decision was the right one. It goes without saying that most successful teams are happy teams. Of course it’s not always the case - some teams that have tasted success in the sporting arena contained rifts in their camp as wide as Oprah Winfrey’s undies. But they are few and far between, and general consensus seems to be that if you keep the players happy, the wins should follow.
But can it ever reach the stage where players have too much power? There is a school of thought that once a coach is appointed, a team must have the ability to like it or lump it. That’s fine when a coach with a proven track record is given the nod, but if he is clearly out of his depth, that thinking process is heavily clouded. In early 2008, Gary Kemble was effectively left with no option to resign as Kiwis coach when senior players publicly voiced their concern at his lack of coaching ability. His reign had been a disastrous one, to the point where even his captain, Roy Asotasi, felt compelled to potentially jeopardise his international career to speak out. Asotasi felt that the Kiwis would in no way improve whilst Kemble was at the helm, so he put self preservation to one side for what he perceived as the betterment of the game. And it worked – 18 months later, the Kiwis were World Champions. This mutiny, whilst mercifully brief, was a little more clandestine. There was no public outcry from the players, who have chosen (so far anyway) to keep mum. Yet behind closed doors there was obviously sufficient evidence provided by them to oust their coach. In a year’s time, there may be reason to suggest that the decision to remove Moles was the right one. But in the meantime, whilst the players themselves appear to have the result they were after, they have at the same time unearthed a bigger issue altogether. Nobody wants to take them on.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
©2006 Epoch Media. Sportsfreak is an Epoch Media site. |