THE idea of someone such as Kevin Sheedy coaching the Australian cricket team is not as crazy as it first sounds. Once you get over the initial reaction, consider the facts, the requirements for the position and the man.
While I have been accused of trying to orchestrate his removal from Windy Hill and something even more sinister — engineering a sequel to my book — the idea has merit.
Former Test batsman Dean Jones first floated it and although Sheedy clearly wants to keep going in footy, why couldn't he coach the Australian Test team?
The biggest challenge may be in adjusting to the life. Sheedy has marched to the tune of a 22-week season and a travel campaign that doesn't require a passport.
No, he hasn't played the game at the highest level, but he was a more than handy leg-spin bowler for Richmond in district cricket. Had it not been for Richmond Football Club, he would have played in a firsts final. So he does know a thing or two about the game. He hasn't played Test cricket, but neither did current coach John Buchanan.
Where Sheedy would fail is in the more technical aspects.
In football, you can survive despite technical blemishes; unfortunately, cricket will only highlight them and bring you down unless you have an exceptional eye.
Football and its coaches are more in tune with an instinctive type of coaching; the game moves more quickly and there is less time to break it down. But even Buchanan has been found wanting in this respect and has managed to be amazingly successful.
When Brett Lee had enormous troubles with the no-balling, that led to a breakdown, no one was able to straighten him out.
I believe you could appoint a Sheedy-type as manager-coach. Sheedy would be known to the players and have instant respect. He could set up a structure where he has the bowling, fielding, batting and fitness coaches reporting to him. These men are the technical brains behind the coaching staff. His need to deliver technical advice becomes minimal.
Sheedy helps devise the plan, but pulls back when it comes to the execution. Football people are aware of how this can work. This is not unlike the management structure at AFL clubs or other elite sporting clubs.
Sheedy's greatest strength would be the help he could give to Ricky Ponting. We ask too much of the Australian captain on and off the field. Ponting likes to call the shots on the field and that is his right as skipper, but off the field, the captain becomes the face of the team. It is a draining and demanding job. When it comes to handling the press, Sheedy is a master. No one does it better.
Sheedy would sell cricket better than anyone once he got his teeth into the job. The game's exposure would be boosted enormously.
More than that, he would push Cricket Australia to explore new frontiers for cricket here and abroad. Buchanan has been a dour cricketing figure, always appearing uncomfortable with a major public role.
Sheedy would also help Ponting understand his men better. His 26 years of coaching have helped him fine-tune his approach to men of varying backgrounds. There are very few situations he has not found himself in. For Ponting or any captain, he would be invaluable.
To many outsiders, cricket is a game that has evolved slowly because of its traditions. One of those being, for a long time it refused to believe it needed a coach. The captain assumed those responsibilities.
Some players, and they are fewer now, still seem reluctant to accept a different hierarchy. Although Shane Warne made it clear it's time to return to the traditional Test coach after the experiment of the left-thinking Buchanan.
A full-time coach has led to a greater level of player professionalism. Players are fitter, better prepared mentally and have a greater understanding of the game's strategies and nuances. Australian cricket pioneered this.
The rest of the world has caught on and maybe it's time for the game's leaders to be more adventurous and courageous. Australian cricket would never be the same.
