Why India needs a director of cricket

The biggest reason why India needs a director of cricket (DoC) is that, to use a term from the corporate world, there are many "verticals" in the national structure. We have the Under-19 team, India A and the national team. And there's domestic cricket besides. You need one person who is in a position to understand the dynamics of all these verticals and the relations between them, who can take informed decisions and prepare a road map for the national cricket apparatus as a whole to best serve the national team.

What is the idea behind having U-19 or Emerging or India A or domestic cricket set-ups and teams? They exist to make the national team strong and competitive against all oppositions and challenges in world cricket. For that to happen, it is very important that you have a director of cricket who oversees all the various components that make up Indian cricket, someone who is empowered by the BCCI leadership to take decisions and be answerable for the performances of all these teams.

That unified oversight is lacking now because there are so many verticals, as we have seen, and there are different people looking after each of those. Those people do not all report to one person who is in a position to take decisions from the point of view of the good of the national team. That means there is confusion instead of accountability.

For instance, whom are the senior men's national selectors supposed to report to? They currently report to the board secretary, which is an honorary position. Instead, there ought to be someone who can be an intermediary between the BCCI top management and the different verticals of Indian cricket. Make the director of cricket accountable and answerable for the performance and progress of the teams. Right now, as I see it, VVS Laxman, who is the head at the National Cricket Academy, talks to the national selectors and talks to Rahul Dravid, the India men's head coach, about the progress of various players, and about who might fit in what slot in the Indian squads, but no one seems to be in charge of the project as a whole. (Coincidentally, I think both Dravid and Laxman are ideal choices for the DoC role.)

If there is a director of cricket for India, he should be in a position to say that for the next two years, we need to make a plan for the World Test Championship cycle: How does succession of players take place? What is our plan for progress? What kind of set-up do we have in mind? What are the challenges we might face? These questions involve monumental decisions, and if you don't have one person who is responsible overall, it becomes difficult.

Many of the other Full Member countries have a full-time DoC, a role that might be labelled as performance director or managing director of cricket. The people in those jobs serve as catalysts in enhancing the performance of the national team and the stature of cricket in those countries. In India, the DoC is a position that has not been filled long-term. Ravi Shastri was the DoC for a short while, in 2014 and 2015, but his brief was restricted to managing the senior Indian men's team.

England is a prominent example of a set-up that has had a sustained relationship with the director-of-cricket role: former England captain Andrew Strauss transformed the England set-up during his two stints as managing director of cricket, in 2015 through 2018 and then in an interim role in 2022. He was responsible for picking the selectors, the captain, the coaching staff, and he also influenced England's playing philosophy. His involvement played a role in the team emerging from the depths after the 2015 World Cup and winning the next tournament, and then the 2022 T20 World Cup.

I am not saying the system India now has in place has not worked well, but there is often the feeling that the team is not doing as well as they should in world tournaments. Why is that so? India ought to be dominating world cricket, with the resources it has, but why are they unable to achieve that kind of success? Why do they only have sporadic success at ICC events? Why do they have to fall back on preparing spin-friendly pitches to reach the World Test Championship final? Why can't India take a decision that, in order to prepare for a WTC final scheduled in England, they need to play on pitches that simulate English conditions?

That is where a DoC can step in and say: "Listen, guys, I've heard all of you, but this is the way forward. I can understand winning is important, but we need to win in a way where we can eventually win the WTC final." So in bilateral series, simulate conditions based on where the WTC final will be played. Two years ago India erred similarly: they prepared spin-friendly pitches against England at home early in the year and the WTC final was played in overcast conditions on a seamer-friendly pitch in Southampton in June. Also, India's team selection in both WTC finals was questionable. There needs to be someone in a position of authority who can challenge that sort of decision-making.

One of the most troubling issues currently facing India's Test cricket is the depletion of the fast-bowling pool, which was overflowing only a few years ago, with about eight or nine aspirants. Less than a handful of India's top fast bowlers are fit right now. Why is this? Rohit Sharma even made public his frustration about players always seeming to be in rehab and unavailable for long periods. Who can take a call and say, "This is how we want to monitor our pace bowlers"? If a DoC is in place, he will need to communicate to state associations and explain why a bowler's workload and conditioning need to be a priority because they need to be available for a big final or series.

A key component of the set-up is domestic cricket, which we keep saying is a launch pad for international cricket. How is domestic cricket in India being played now - is it actually a conducive environment for players to learn in and graduate to international level?

Over the past seven or eight years there have been huge changes in the way wickets have been prepared in India. Daljit Singh, the former head of the BCCI's pitches and grounds committee, did some great work. Neutral curators were brought in, who would travel to domestic venues for pitch-making. Tracks with 3-4mm grass on them became more common, to make conditions more helpful for fast bowlers. The Ranji Trophy was made home-and-away, and then played at neutral venues. Why, then, is it that when the national team plays Test cricket at home, we play on turning tracks? It is illogical.

If there was one person at the top who was accountable, he would ideally point out ways in which Indian domestic cricket can be made competitive, and be made a high-performance environment that produces the kind of players we want in the national set-up, who are used to playing on the kind of pitches that make for competitive cricket, and exposed in advance to the demands they are likely to face in international cricket.

One of the key tasks of a director of cricket will be to ensure there is a proper review of the national team's performance in every series it plays, regardless of whether it is won or lost. Ask hard questions of the team management and selectors in terms of decisions taken and in terms of performance.

Such reviews have occasionally been carried out by the BCCI, but they have been ad hoc. Under a DoC, it will be systematic, part of his responsibilities: to prepare a road map and to regularly interact with the selectors and team management. The director of cricket should oversee the reviews and then refer the findings to the BCCI management or office-bearers and suggest steps to be taken. It is not only about passing the message on, it is also about explaining the reasons for wins and losses over a period of time. And all of this would also be done for the India A and Emerging and junior categories.

Who will make for an ideal director of cricket?

The DoC is not a chief selector, to be clear. It's just that in connecting all the dots between age-group cricket and international cricket, he might appear to be one. Also, note that while I have not referred to women's cricket in this article, the same principles apply there as in men's cricket; there needs to be a separate director of cricket for the women's game in India.

The primary requirement for the DoC position should be that the person ought to be a cricketer with substantial experience, with in-depth knowledge of the game, both international and domestic; a good communicator; someone with a vision for the future of the game; someone who is deeply invested in creating and managing a structure that will lead to the betterment of Indian cricket. Having said that, it is not all about having played cricket at the international level for a certain number of years; it is also about having the vision and the ability to take decisions, to communicate, and to lead.

The director of cricket could be appointed for a three-year term. Needless to say, given the responsibilities involved, it will need to be a handsomely compensated position.

The DoC role will, I think, make a point of difference in making Indian cricket progress while building on its strengths.