The house that John built

He felt his way around initially, drawing a blank with the administration, and soon learnt that in this part of the world he must rely on his instinct and relationships, not on a system to get things done. India’s cricket administration could be well meaning occasionally, not even that at most times, but it could never be relied upon to deliver simple things.

He couldn’t find a moment’s footage on Australia, for example, before their tour of India in 2001. It bewildered him that nobody else seemed bewildered by it!

He had to forge a working relationship with two key people, both very different from the kind of person he was. Ideally, I suspect, Wright would have liked to work with a Dravid or a Kumble or a Srinath; or even a Tendulkar or a Laxman. Like them he was an unassuming man with a very strong team ethic and liked to work with solid systems.

Indeed, he often spoke of his utter amazement that nobody ever considered that Kumble, a rock on the field and in the dressing room, could be a permanent captain for India!

Instead he had to work, first with Sourav Ganguly and in course of time with Jagmohan Dalmiya; two very strong willed people, who lived life by instinct and rather preferred a dictatorial style. Luckily for him, they had one other thing in common. They felt strongly about India doing well and that is where they found common ground; not a lot of it but enough to stand together.

Luckily for Indian cricket, Wright was quite happy to be the background man, the systems man who kept things going, put forward his point of view but was willing to accept that the captain eventually ran the ship. Ganguly liked that and as a result, while they had substantial disagreement on a few issues they were able to talk it over and indeed in private Ganguly spoke very highly of Wright’s role.

His major contribution, initially, was in the area of fitness.

That is, funnily, the easiest to implement but the last to be embraced in many cultures, including ours where batting comes first, bowling a distant second and fielding and fitness form specks on the horizon.

As India grew fitter, the performances became better and for about nine months from June 2002 to March 2003, India played inspired limited overs cricket.

Then the wheels started to come off and it must hurt Wright deeply that in the two years since India returned to where they were; a slow, lethargic side that depended on individuals for a win. He admitted that India needed someone else to provide the last ten percent; sadly that must now come to be associated with Test cricket for in one-day cricket India are unbalanced and dated.

Still, Wright turned the tide for India and, I believe, has laid the ground for another solid, hands-on ideas man to take over. I suspect he would have enjoyed coaching in a more organised environment and that may well be the challenge before his successor. India’s cricket goes from being inspired to insipid, from disciplined to disorganised, in the twinkling of an eye.

A coach can at best work out the systems, it is up to the players to believe in them. It is as true of John Buchanan at Australia and Duncan Fletcher at England as it is for Dav Whatmore at Bangladesh and Bob Woolmer at Pakistan.

A new coach would do well to speak to him, to use the learning curve rather than go seeking it himself. John Wright would only be happy to oblige.

Now he’ll put his feet up for a while, watch his children grow, play his guitar and enjoy his beer. But, as he admitted, he will miss the adrenalin and the excitement, the privilege of living up to the expectations of India’s public, the chaos and the frustration.

But he did well for India for he meant well. And I suspect made his successor’s job easier.