IPL 2009 KKR's Multiple Captains !!! ???

This is really frustrating. John Buchanan retaliated to Sourav's claim that he wasn't informed before hand about the multiple-captains concept by saying that Sourav knew about such plans. Both these guys were one time at the pinnacle of their professions, Buchanan was the most successful coach for the Australians and Sourav the most successful captain for team India. Buchanan has a track record of being innovative, always coming up with new ideas and such. Not that these idea's were well received always; his idea's failed miserably while he coached Middlesex. Sourav has a track record of being daring and strong, a proven leader. He has been accused of being too head strong many a time in his career.

One thing I see which is against Buchanan is that he stated that he had extensively discussed having alternative captains, with Sourav during the last IPL season. It seems incredible that Buchanan discussed this with Sourav a year back and announces it now (if Buchanan had discussed this with Sourav when planning for IPL-2009, it would have been more appropriate).

Frankly both Sourav and Buchanan have been through so much rough-stuff in their careers that I see no point in trying to think who is speaking the truth. Much more of concern to me is the concept it self. It's interesting for sure. But leadership means to be in command; and with sportsmen with (often) big ego's will this really work? Now Chris Gayle might agree to this concept as its Sourav's roost that he will rule; but will he agree if similar thing were to be suggested by WI board to Gayle? Real hard to say. Gayle is known for his big-heart, but this might mean stretching things a bit far.

Look at current Indian team. Its performing famously under Dhoni; but all seniors are actively involved in on field strategy making (not just off field meetings). We often get to see a Sachin or a Sehwag advising Dhoni (remember the famous moment last year in Aus, when Sehwag asked Dhoni to continue with Ishant for a over more against Ponting?). Even though seniors all participate, its finally up to Dhoni, he calls the shots. This is vital for accountability.

Let us suppose Buchanan implements his concept and are in the semis; semi finals they play under Sourav and they win then in finals they play under Gayle and they lose. Now does this mean that they would have had a better chance if they would have played finals under Sourav? Is just Gayle to be held accountable? Who decides? Let us look at another scenario, first 4 matches they play under Sourav and they win, next three they play under Gayle and win; 8th match again under Sourav and they lose - now can't Sourav claim that part of the reason for the loss was because the command line got shaken or his captains instincts subdued due to Gayle captaining previous 3 matches?

And all the above I said doesn't even take into account the most strange aspect of the concept - during batting, there will be no captain and batting coach will call the shots; during bowling, well you can have a bowling captain, a fielding captain etc. Imagine how much confusion that is going to create - Sourav selects the bowler and now Gayle has to communicate with the bowler for field settings. We often see captains like Dhoni walk up to their bowlers to boost their confidence (remember Joginder Sharma's final over in the final of ICC World Twenty20 2007?); it really helps that the captain believes in you. Given Buchanan's concept who will do this? Will there be a boost-confidence captain as well? How about a captain for appealing and one for referrals?

All this is hypothetical. But it seems strange that a coach of Buchanan history doesn't understand that for any captain 'his boys' need to be 'his' and he needs to be in that 'captains space' always - physically and mentally and emotionally.

Buchanan is grossly mistaken if he wants to 'manufacture' four automatons who jump into 'captain role' when a switch is thrown and rest recognise them as such without a iota of confusion. In doing so Buchanan is under estimating the emotional part of sport. And this part is vital for winning. Does Buchanan ever wonder why armed forces follow a rigid line of command? Such rigidness is out of place in cricket, but having multiple-captains sound as a child's dream of yet another gadget. I have no doubt about Buchanan's sincerity, but this idea is will not make much difference at the best and will affect the team drastically at the worst.