Buchanan: A Captain on the Field Is Worth Four in the Hut

So, John Buchanan has decided to unleash one of his flights of fancy on the world of cricket. Is it about transforming the game once and for all, or is it just about the coach wanting to control the game? Did he finally want to put to rest the age-old argument that you can coach them all you want, but once the game begins, the captain is the boss?

I don't know the answer, but this move from him of having an overall captain, a batting captain, a bowling captain, and a fielding captain leaves me utterly confused.

Now, if I am an ordinary team member (this tribe will dwindle if Buchanan has his way), then I would think something like this: A is the captain for now, B will be the captain half an hour later, C will call the shots after that, and then I don't know who it will be when the game finishes.

God help me if I go to the wrong guy for instructions, especially when he has just handed the command over and is not too pleased about it.

What is the thinking behind this? Is it about taking cricket the football way where the coach is the real captain? Or, is it about getting Sourav out of the way? Is it about having a backup plan if Sourav fails to pull his weight?

Buchanan has an interesting lineup if this is the way he is thinking; McCullum, Gayle, Hodge, and, Shukla, apart from, of course, Sourav. Five captains in a team of, let's say, fifteen, and that's a tad more than one too many.

I wonder where this will take the game, and how it will split the team. To me, its utterly ridiculous. I don't know if Buchanan is inspired by the procedure initiated by India's political parties making coalition governments. There are states where the leader of Party A is Chief Minister for half of the term, and the leader of Party B takes over the reigns for the rest of the term.

In fact, Buchanan has gone a few steps further and has five captains (at the last count) for a forty-over game. Will he split it into eight overs per captain? Does he have a formula for captaincy if the D/L rule comes into play?

Some might say that I am reacting the way any purist will, and that I am against experimentation and change. Well, I am all for the change, but then, I believe that all change needs to be well thought out and sensible. This doesn't seem to be, and I am willing to be corrected if someone has a better understanding of what I consider outright repugnant.

One last question: Who will be Buchanan's captain for the drinks breaks?