Those calling for the heads of contemporary cricket’s two most influential coaches, India’s Gautam Gambhir and England’s Brendon McCullum ignore that the metric by which success is measured might be changing. England lost the Ashes series in Australia while India’s recent loss to New Zealand followed losses at home and away.
Sometimes it seems that today’s coaches are not judged on results alone — although Gambhir must hope that India win the World T20 next month so he can breathe more freely. They are judged on team culture. Are the players happy? Are they improving? Are they expressing themselves?
McCullum has said he is not for “being told what to do.” That sounds like something Gambhir, less articulate and more aggressive, might say too.
A consequence of the modern game’s formats and data-driven approach is the modified role of the coach. The cricket coach once existed in the margins. He was there to oil the machinery, not redesign it. The captain ruled, the selectors ordained, and the coach was merely the man in the background, often in a floppy hat, occasionally blamed when nothing else worked.
The modern coach has moved from the shadows to the centre as strategist, psychologist, data interpreter, public speaker, and damage controller. In the amateur era, coaching was considered unnecessary. Great players were assumed to be self-explanatory texts. A coach, if appointed, was often a senior figure whose authority came from past deeds rather than present ideas. He was there to nod wisely, occasionally say “well played”, and ensure the nets were rolled properly. The captain decided the team, the batting order, and the tactics.
Curator of knowledge
Video analysis, fitness metrics, opposition data, and the tyranny of spreadsheets have transformed the coach into a curator of knowledge. Someone had to connect the numbers to the humans. The captain still led on the field, but the coach now shaped strategy. Preparation was power. T20 compressed authority. The coach, who lived in the future, suddenly had more influence than the captain who lived in the present.
Players are brands, investments, and fragile assets. They are managed across formats, franchises, and national loyalties. Someone must coordinate all this to keep chaos at bay. Welcome, the McCullums and the Gambhirs.
The relationship between coach and captain is crucial, but they are human beings, with egos and failings. When tensions arise, it is unclear who ranks higher. This ambiguity is new, and cricket is still adjusting to it.
A Virat Kohli as skipper is unhappy with an Anil Kumble as coach, and the latter loses his job. A Gambhir possibly has issues with Rohit Sharma, and out goes the captain. Gambhir is the closest cricket has had to a football supremo. This has to do as much with his cricketing credentials as his political ones as a prominent member of the ruling party.
England’s coach thinks up a system first and then squeezes his players into it. Bazball is not everybody’s cup of tea, but it was successful. Many who supported it initially are its biggest critics now. This might qualify as bad faith, but critics are human too. If McCullum loses his job, what made England cricket so attractive might be jettisoned.
Skipper Ben Stokes has been supportive of his coach. Indian captains rarely express opinions beyond the ‘official’, so we don’t know what they think.
Losing coaches often say that a coach is only as good as the players under him. Had India won the last Test series in England (they drew 2-2), both debutant skipper Shubhman Gill and coach Gambhir would have received credit, although how much each got is not easily calculated.
And that’s the issue. You can’t put a number on team spirit, culture etc. except by the old metric. Team spirit leads to wins. The culture in a winning team is fine. Sometimes the abstract is easier to understand than the concrete. Those asking for the heads of McCullum and Gambhir are saying in effect that only results matter.
Reality in cricket has moved beyond the methods to calculate it. The important question belongs to the old metric, however: Did the decisions lead to victory? McCullum and Gambhir are caught in the cleft between process and outcome, between the old and the new.
Published – January 21, 2026 12:35 am IST
