When Gary Kirsten, former South African cricketer and accomplished coach, landed in Dhaka, hopes soared within the cricketing circles of Bangladesh. There was a sense that Kirsten’s presence would herald a shift in the Tigers’ fortunes—perhaps in the form of a new head coach or a rejuvenated approach. However, his role remained ambiguous from the outset: was he a consultant, a director of coaching, or an independent strategist? As the days passed, it became clear that Kirsten was merely serving as an auditor for the senior team—a concept alien to many cricket boards, especially in Bangladesh, where such nuance is often lost amid heightened expectations.
The idea that the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) required external consultancy just to recruit a coach speaks volumes about the administrative disarray within the system. The paradox here is glaring: a cricket board that has achieved notable success on the international stage still finds itself dependent on outsiders for tasks that should fall well within the remit of its own governance. Whether the reluctance to rely on homegrown talent stems from corruption, mismanagement, or an inability to foster professional collaboration, the result is a persistent inability to create a self-sustaining cricketing ecosystem.
Among the few notable recommendations Kirsten made was the idea of assigning separate coaches for different formats. On paper, the suggestion aligns with best practices in cricketing powerhouses such as Australia, England, and India. Yet, Bangladesh’s reality complicates such strategies. With a limited pool of quality players and an underdeveloped infrastructure, the logistics of managing three distinct coaching setups seem implausible. Furthermore, if Bangladesh struggles to manage one high-profile coach, how can it reasonably expect to handle multiple, each with their own demands and expectations? The professional environment necessary to implement such a vision simply does not exist.
The recent history of Bangladesh’s coaching appointments offers a sobering lesson. The departure of Chandika Hathurusingha, who orchestrated one of the team’s most impressive periods of growth, serves as a case study in the challenges of managing foreign expertise. Despite being the architect behind Bangladesh’s resurgence, Hathurusingha was relentlessly criticized, often unfairly, by sections of the media and fans. This wave of hostility—fueled by unfounded rumors and amplified across social media—eventually drove him away. Some speculate, albeit without concrete evidence, that even players within the national setup might have tacitly supported the smear campaign against him.
The saga reflects a deeper malaise: Bangladesh’s cricketing ecosystem seems to foster internal discord rather than unity. In stark contrast, smaller cricketing nations like Zimbabwe have managed to appoint experienced professionals such as Lalchand Rajput with relatively little friction. Yet, despite Bangladesh’s far superior resources and recent successes, the search for a head coach continues to flounder. Various reasons have been cited for this failure, from the financial allure of franchise leagues to difficulties in contract negotiations. However, one fundamental issue remains conspicuously overlooked: Bangladesh’s cricketing environment has become toxic, driving away the very professionals it seeks to attract.
At the heart of this toxicity is the undue influence of sections of the media. In Bangladesh, sports journalists often gain unchecked access to players and officials, blurring the lines between professional boundaries and personal relationships. This creates an unhealthy environment where stories—true or not—are spun into narratives that undermine team morale and disrupt coaching efforts. The intrusion of media into the sanctum of the dressing room is not only unprofessional but also detrimental to the team’s cohesion. Such behavior is tolerated, if not encouraged, by those within the cricket board itself, resulting in a system where rumor and propaganda flourish at the expense of stability.
No professional coach, however experienced or capable, would willingly work in such an atmosphere. The seeds of discord, sown by media figures with vested interests, continue to bear bitter fruit. If the BCB genuinely aspires to recruit a competent head coach, it must first address the structural and cultural flaws within its own organization. Governance reforms are imperative—not just to reduce media interference but to foster an environment where cricket can thrive without unnecessary distractions.
Until Bangladesh cricket confronts its internal demons, the search for a head coach will remain a futile endeavor. It is time for the BCB to clear the cobwebs from its own house. Only by eliminating toxic influences and cultivating professionalism can the Tigers hope to attract the leadership they need to realize their potential.
Faisal Caesar
No comments:
Post a Comment