Coaches have become lackeys: Former NZ captain Glenn Turner

Exclusive interview with Glenn Turner, former captain, New Zealand

NZ ODIs not preparation for T20 World Cup, IPL right platform for it: Kohli India skipper Virat Kohli (right) with head coach Ravi Shastri | AP

Be it as player, coach or selector, Glenn Turner has been a fierce, lifelong critic of cricket administrators in New Zealand. In his latest book, Cricket's Global Warming, coauthored by senior cricket journalist Lynn McConnell, the 72-year-old puts forth a no-holds-barred critique of many aspects of cricket and its players. Even though the book, written over 18 months, largely deals with New Zealand, it also holds up a mirror to every cricketing nation.

Cricket's Global Warming: The Crisis in Cricket (Kindle edition) Authors: Glenn Turner & Lynn McConnell Publisher: TurnerMcC Publishing Pages: 267 Price: Rs 449


Turner argues that having boards dominated by people from non-cricketing backgrounds, or putting too much power in the hands of the players, both lead to a variety of problems, including a lack of understanding, wrong decision-making and conflict of interest.


The book is full of examples and anecdotes, and the authors do not shy away from naming names.


The first chapter takes on England all-rounder Ben Stokes, asserting that, in the 2019 ODI World Cup final against New Zealand, he deliberately obstructed the field while taking a run, which led to the ball hitting his bat and reaching the boundary. This moment, in many eyes, cost New Zealand the cup.


It is also clear from the book that Turner dislikes T20 cricket; he blames the International Cricket Council for messing up the ODI World Cup final by using a T20 method—Super Over—to decide the winner.


He also seems to condemn the decision to make Brendon McCullum captain. The talismanic 'Baz' made the team's style of play more daring and thrilling, which led to some destructive wins, but also dramatic losses. The chapter titled 'The McCullum Myth' is a warning of what lies ahead. According to the book, McCullum's batting and captaincy were “reckless, ostentatious and self-absorbed”. The authors list several examples to support the argument. The McCullum era, says the book, led to the creation of “leadership groups”, perhaps a polite term for coterie, and also impacted the selection of players.


Turner also criticises the shabby treatment of Ross Taylor, the country's highest run-scorer in Tests and ODIs, at the hands of McCullum and board officials.

However, the advent of Kane Williamson as captain seems to have given Turner hope. Williamson, he says, has made the team friendlier, happier and humbler, while also winning matches.


The book also discusses in detail the diminishing role of coaches in an era of strong captains.

Whether you agree with him or not, Turner does raise some issues that need to be debated, rather than being swept under the carpet as usual.

In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK from his home in Dunedin, Turner held back no punches as he talked about the World Cup final, T20 cricket, and his new book and its aim—challenge the status quo. Excerpts:


Most of New Zealand took the result of the 2019 World Cup final on the chin. How did you cope?

I do not get too emotional when I watch my subject; I try to analyse things. I just found it interesting to observe and analyse what went on particularly towards the end of it. I have recorded it on TV, [which] means I could look at each ball bowled and assess it. It came to light very quickly that he (Ben Stokes) deliberately came in the path of the ball.

Do you think the umpires erred in not declaring the ball dead when it went off Stokes’s bat for overthrows?

Yes. That is an obvious one. Normally, players do not take those runs, but if it goes to the boundary, the runs are awarded to them. If you ask any cricketer who has played for a reasonable amount of time, he would agree that it has become normal practice that, if you are under pressure, you would block the ball if it is in the line of the stumps, if you can.

Also, they have changed the boundary count-back rule, but why have Super Overs anyway? What happens in T20s should have no bearing on other formats.

But in other sports such as hockey, which you have played, there is the concept of extra time and golden goals. So, in marquee events, one would understand the need to have a single winner.

I am fundamentally opposed to that concept. I believe in cricket, we would like to think there is a result after every ball just like in baseball there is one after every pitch. The way society has evolved, it seems that we must have a winner.

Were you surprised by the New Zealand Cricket board’s decision to not make an issue out of the final?

No. The reason being that most boards do not have cricketing people on them, and then it is pretty hard to argue the case. I call them ‘alien’ boards. These individuals come from other walks of life, ‘alien’ to cricket, and because they happen to be lawyers or accountants, it is anticipated that they can govern. There are generic skills that help run anything. What I found over time is that challenging the status quo or questioning authority is not seen as [being] helpful and they tend to quash it.

You have slammed McCullum's style of captaincy and called the treatment of Ross Taylor poor. Has Kane Williamson's captaincy hit the refresh button on the way the team plays its cricket?

I would blame the administration. Power was passed to the strongest personality (McCullum) and what that caused was a lot of bickering, which should not be there if things are done properly.

When I was a player, professionalism in New Zealand cricket did not exist and the board wanted to retain the amateur ethos of the game. It has turned 180 degrees today. The board has pulled back and allowed senior players and the players association to run the game. And that means they decide the selection and who the support staff are. And if you are in a position as I was—a convener of the selection panel [without] the final say on selection—that is a major mistake. The conflict of interest and bickering came through strongly during the change of captaincy and when Ross Taylor was dumped out of nowhere. It should never have been allowed to happen.


I am a little disappointed about the bodyline stuff that is going on. Someone is going to get seriously hurt. But I think the laws are strong enough; it is just that they do not have the courage to stop it. I think that area of the game needs tidying up and Williamson, to some extent, is being drawn into that.

Is this the era of strong captains, with coaches having a minimal role?


Yes. I am hoping my book is recognised for [pointing out] that very reason. The power shift has occurred particularly in the last 10-odd years. It is important that the captains sit with the coach and strategise what happened in the last session and plan for the next session. Also, sports science people need to come in at a more junior level.

It is almost as if those from the past have nothing to offer. If you give younger people too much power, you are asking for trouble. Cricket appears to have gone down that path.

What do you think of Williamson's captaincy and persona?

The current lot seems like a decent bunch. And I think Williamson has got a bit about him. He is not only quite intelligent, but he also has some decent values. He has a cushy ride going right now, because he has decent players around him; there are no miscreant players I can see. He came in a scenario where the captain ran everything and the coach was a 'minion' and so you cannot blame him for what has been before. He is doing a pretty good job. He has got some humility and, when he talks, he is not spinning practised lines.

What were your observations about Virat Kohli and Ravi Shastri as Indian captain and coach during the New Zealand tour in January?

I know Ravi Shastri quite well. And he is a very likeable individual. I do not know Kohli; I can only go by what I see on TV. Such a strong personality indicates he would be in charge. I do not know what relationship they have, but I do know coaches now have become lackeys and that is because of the power shift and how boards have allowed things to evolve.

If you [want] a coach, you want one with experience as a player, like Shastri. Otherwise, a net coach can come in and out. Players [are] generally [reluctant] to listen to coaches and until you change that and educate younger players, I do not see them (coaches) being of great value.

In the time of a pandemic and financial stress, do you think players are more likely to choose club over country?

One argument is that we need T20 leagues, particularly the IPL (Indian Premier League) to keep players happy and to give them what they deserve. I call it entitlement. Top players need to get less, reduce international programmes and particularly reduce T20 (participation) so that it does not dominate. I think the global warming in cricket will only get worse as we have seen with the pandemic. I think we need a serious look at the game.

Do you think the sandpaper scandal has changed way Australia play?

If Australia were to change the approach, it would have changed by now. Australia have been guiltier of sledging and so called gamesmanship than other team. I do not see that changing greatly. Unless umpires have confidence and the backing of their bosses to rein them (players) in. Things have only deteriorated over time.