Greg to Gary

There is nothing in Gary Kirsten8217;s playing or coaching record for anyone to doubt that he will not be up to the job of coaching India. As a South African cricketer, he is well steeped in a rigorous work ethic that India desperately crave. As a member of the side that was jolted by the Hansie Cronje matchfixing scandal, he came through with his integrity above the slightest of stains. And as an opening batsman, he showed a balance between flair and restraint that could bring to his coaching a respect for a healthy mix of application and individual punch. The worry, therefore, is not Kirsten8217;s suitability to shift the national team out of the current ad-hocism. The question is, has the board learnt the correct lessons from the Greg Chappell episode?

Look at the way the support staff to the team has been put together in the months after it fell apart at the World Cup, on the field but mostly off it. Coaches are in place for bowling and batting. This is good, and it is hoped that the practice will be sustained. They are not substitutes for a national coach, but their services are needed for a coach to get on with his job. But the way in which the team has kept up a respectable playing record this past year is by banking on the immense experience of its senior players. Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble, Sourav Ganguly and even V.V.S. Laxman are looking at the closing stretches of their playing lives. Any coach at this point 8212; as Chappell was more than aware 8212; has a responsibility to build bench strength to meet any vacancies that may suddenly appear.

The system defeated Chappell in this attempt. And there is, by recent evidence of selection and other decisions, too much reason to believe that the board may not be willing to give the new coach more power than his predecessors had. In fact, the board may err on the other side and be cautious on this. In that case, if we get another Chappell-like situation, don8217;t blame the coach.