As coach, Gautam Gambhir must remember the virtues of the middle ground

Perhaps, Pant could have controlled both ends, instinct and outcome. He could have consigned an abominably loose ball to the fence as well as contrived to not hole out to the lone outfielder in the postcode. That is, if he had hit the ball along the grounds, the less riskier, more sensible scheme of things. He could have punished the loose ball as well as not gifted his wicket away. This was the middle path that could serve Pant, Gambhir and Team India in their renaissance bid in the coming days and months.

To flow with the modern ethos of batting, India’s batsmen could continue to be aggressive, but sensibly and selectively so. All great teams over the years have had attacking batsmen. The West Indies had Gordon Greenidge, Viv Richards and Clive Lloyd in the peak; Australia boasted of Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting and Mark Waugh; England, during their best years, possessed Kevin Pietersen. All of them had sturdy defensive techniques too, besides immaculate game sense and the intuition to sense the game’s drift.

Theirs, or that of any successful attacking batsmen, was not blind, hedonistic aggression, but a way of batting that married their natural impulses with the requirements of the team and the peculiar demands of the situation. A more striking example is AB de Villiers who stonewalled against India on a Kotla snake-pit. Gambhir himself could block and buccaneer as the situation demanded.

So he would know he cannot make Pant bat like Cheteshwar Pujara, or vice versa. There is no crying need for it too. But he could help Pant and others harness their gifts more resourcefully for themselves and the team. Pant could unbox the broad spread of his attacking shots, but in the opportune moments, in situations ripe for such devilry. He needn’t try to reverse-scoop every ball into the streets, or glide down the track for every ball. Such discretion comes with age, experience, mistakes and timely guidance.

It’s where Gambhir could play an influential role, in letting players be themselves but in the framework of the team’s culture, in allowing players to play their natural game but with the priorities of the team at the forefront, in realising that a one-method-for-all approach doesn’t work. The best coaches find the right balance between being tough on players and being sensitive to their needs, understanding their feelings and frailties and showing empathy, but also cajoling and demanding the highest standards from them.

Gambhir could also learn from his predecessors Ravi Shastri and Rahul Dravid. Shastri keenly studied the nature of his men. He knew the players that needed a few nudges; those that required cajoling, those that performed better after a few dressing downs. Dravid showed a genuine interest in players’ lives, built a trust and connection that helped the team overcome crushing defeats in finals (WTC, ODI World Cup).

The head coach’s role, at this level, is more of a guide and mentor, rather than someone trying to overhaul players’ technique or conceive a team strategy. So even when trying to discipline his team, Gambhir should not veer to the extreme of being despotic, or being a taskmaster, trying to impose his ideals on the team, or “making them play the way he wanted them to”, as he supposedly said during the post-match team talk in MCG. Otherwise, he would go down the Justin Langer way. Under him, Australia were incredibly successful, but he was such a stickler for discipline that players soon grew disgruntled.

Perhaps, Gambhir and his support staff will feel more comfortable when the seniors retire and they have a younger group to work with, where the shadows of the past and the debris of their ego wouldn’t impede them. Maybe, he waited until the MCG Test for the dressing down, because he knew there were adequately experienced cricketers to handle the situation. Shastri was fortunate in that his time arrived after luminaries of the past generation had quit, and at his disposal was a fiercely ambitious captain like Virat Kohli. It is one constant in triumphant teams over eras — a coach needs the support of the characters that run the dressing room.

The next few months will present a clearer picture of the path Gambhir and co. will take, whether he would be bold enough to take the tough calls, whether he would piece together a winning combo from a seemingly disparate bunch of individuals. In moments of confusion — and it could be a frustrating period — he can always revisit the Pant dismissal in the second innings in MCG, and be reaffirmed of the virtues of choosing the middle path.

sandip.g@expressindia.com