Sri Lanka has been a happy hunting ground for Australian coaches prior to wearing their flying wings. The story began with Lankan born Davenell Whatmore coming over to guide the Lankans in their quest for the 1996 World Cup which was played in the Indian sub-continent.
As the tournament’s dark horses, the Lankans not only won the trophy, but did not drop a single game in the process. This bloated Whatmore’s credentials from obscurity to celebrity. From that point onwards, barring a short period with homegrown Roy Dias, it has been an all-Australian affair.
Bayliss became the fifth coach from Australia to take charge of Sri Lanka since 1995. Dav Whatmore had two stints with the national side. He was followed by Bruce Yardley, John Dyson and then Tom Moody.
Arguably out of the five coaches, Australia’s batting all-rounder, Tom Moody was the most effective out of the stock and hit a grand-alliance with his assistant, Englishman Trevor Penny, who also decamped at the same time.
All this came in the wake of Sri Lanka once again, against all the odds, entering the final and emerging runners up to Australia in a final that was marred by poor umpiring in semi-darkness.
Maybe a month later, on Moody’s recommendation, Bayliss took over the reins for two years to guide the Lankans’ destiny and then got an extension until the 2011 World Cup.
However besides the Moody-Penny combination along with the initial stint of Dav Whatmore, none of the other coaches have been effective enough or have been able to address the needs of the Lankan cricket cause, one hundred per cent.
 |
 |
| Bayliss says he wants to be with his family after the World Cup. |
Can Roy wear the coaches hat again? |
As one insider put it, out of the five coaches who handled the Lankan cricketers, Bayliss, who is considered a very good gentleman, was the least effective and some of the senior cricketers who were frustrated at one point had asked the management for a change in the coaching staff.
Now the question is how effective foreign coaches are in a typical Lankan scenario and how can we maximize the input of the coaching staff for the benefit of local cricketers? At this end we reliably understand that the language barrier is a huge concern. Someone commented, “So and so in the Lankan side who has hailed from a village background is in the blues about the explanations of the foreign staff and he is almost out of the head count at the moment.”
The other area of concern with foreign coaches is their commitment to Lankan cricket and its well being. It is pointed out that the moment there is a break in international engagements the foreign staff request for home leave. But insiders feel that this is the time that they could spend quality time with the cricketers especially those who have hit stumbling blocks in their given field of activity. They say, “During this time they can take them to the nets and spend time rectifying their faults and bring them out of their predicaments before the next international engagement, but what really happens is that they go back home to spend time with their kith and kin and come back, maybe just in time for the next session of preparations. So is there any time for them to genuinely correct a fault of a cricketer?”
Davenell Whatmore was effective in Sri Lanka because he had that oriental background and he knew how to interact with the local cricketers and that brought in a lot of results for him. But the other foreign coaches who did not know exactly how to interact with the local cricketers – especially with those cricketers who belong to a rural back ground- sometimes failed in their quest, while the local coaches in this respect were more successful.
The best example is the Champaka Ramanayake affair. Since taking over from his predecessor Rumesh Ratnayake he brought out a string of effective fast bowlers but some know-all who headed Lankan cricket at one point thought otherwise and the result was the fast bowling coach was sent away to Bangladesh.
Within months this discipline, which was once flourishing, caved in badly until the cricketers themselves prevailed upon the management and wanted him back, but now the question is whether Ramanayake could re-do the badly dented department before the next World Cup.
Now it could be argued that it is high time that Sri Lanka looks at home grown talent to take them to their destiny beyond 2011. For the past one and a half decades the local coaches have worked with foreign coaches and have understudied them. At the same time the Lankan coaches also have qualified abroad and there are so many who have obtained the highest qualifications in this field of activity.
The argument that goes for them is that they are homegrown and they understand the local players better than any ‘rolling stone’ that could come here so that they could make a name for themselves, as no high profile Andy Flower, Greg Chappell or a Gary Kirsten would consent for an extended term in Sri Lanka.
The home grown coaches have the ability to communicate better and identify the best from the Lankan talent. At the same time they would be on hand for the cricketers even when the Lankans are on a break from international engagements, so that they can work together.
In the specialized sections, persons of the caliber of Champaka Ramanayake and Ruwan Kalpage have proved their worth. In the bigger picture comes the names of Roy Dias (who already has done the job once) and Rumesh Ratnayake who is now working with the ACC.
We at this end feel that working with the home grown talent has more benefits for Lankan cricketers.
The true picture was explained by a national cricketer: “Generally coaches make cricketers, but in Sri Lanka the Lankan cricketers make coaches out of foreigners.” |
E-mail
