Taylor unhappy with cuts in coaching staff

[hhm]

I did take the bold IF into consideration, and precisely understood you to mean "it's ok for disgruntled employees to castigate their employers if they've tried the 'proper channels', they haven't worked, and they genuinely believe there's an issue that needs to be addressed.".

That's precisely what I was arguing. It's never ok under any circumstances. It amounts to a breach.

I'm of the view that a lot of guys here are very simplistic in their view of ZC. Because of what you've read, observed and believe etc, your opinions of ZC are misguided. They are lowly and simplistic. The fact that Zim is a poor cricket nation in terms of finances and ranking does not make it a mickey mouse organisation where it's employees can say certain things which employees of other organisations cannot. ZC is the governing body of cricket in Zimbabwe, similar to any other in Aus, Eng, Pak or India.

Whether you are happy with anything or not, no matter how genuine your concerns, even if you've exhausted all channels, you will never be bigger than the organisation. If they turn you away rudely or politely, that's that! Take it or leave it.

There's a bunch of guys complaining about non-payment form the BPL when the Players Association warned them. They continue to play and listen to promises, when they are not paid months after the BPL ends they will be making noises. You may have signed your contract, but so did others from last season who are still to tbe paid. Why did you continue to play instead of cutting your losses and legal fighting to get what you have played for? More so why cry to the media?

[Ming]

Whether you are happy with anything or not, no matter how genuine your concerns, even if you've exhausted all channels, you will never be bigger than the organisation. If they turn you away rudely or politely, that's that! Take it or leave it.

Zimbabwe, for all its faults, has labour laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that there is a prescribed legal process for dealing with conflicts with one's employer. Any lawyers out there to clarify what these may be?

[hhm]

I think this article sheds more light on how boards are entitled to deal with employees:
SL manager Senanayake to be replaced for Bangladesh series

"There are various reasons behind that decision, that we're not willing to discuss," Dharmadasa said. "But Charith has not been sacked, because he is still an employee of Sri Lanka Cricket. We will use him in whatever capacity we see fit during the Bangladesh series."

Senanayake ran afoul of SLC during Sri Lanka's recent tour of Australia, when he forwarded a letter from then-captain Mahela Jayawardene to the media, in which Jayawardene claimed he had "lost all confidence in SLC" as a result of a confidential document being leaked by the board. SLC then issued a statement claiming both Senanayake and Jayawardene had breached their contracts, and that their actions will be reviewed by the executive committee, but no official penalties were handed out.

"There was some speculation about this during the Australia tour when I sent Mahela's letter, but I had no idea that this was going to happen," Senanayake said. "I haven't had any official communication whatsoever about being replaced. Everything I know about it has been from the papers. I haven't been given a chance at all.

Points to keep in mind:
- ZC owes no one an explanation for their decisions regarding coaches. Simply telling Heath & Grant that they are excluded from the touring group is sufficient.
- Similalrly, players/employees should be content with with being given a notice. They have no right to question in.
- Players are consulted out of courtesy not because they are entitled.
- How ZC use Heath & Grant is at their disposal, as long as it's within the description of national bowling and batting coach.
- The media has no right to demand an explanation, neither are they entitled to be given one.

Mahela was wronged through the leaked letter, but even then, he had no right to express his frustration to the media. He should have expressed his discontent to the board. Whether or not they listen to him would still not give him a right to complain to the media.

[foreignfield]

It is not surprising that most boards want the players to just shut up and do as they are told. It's even less surprising if we are talking about boards in autocratic countries. There are other boards in other parts of the world, and in other sports too, that are more open towards critizism from players, even if it's through the media.

The analogy with the business world does not go the distance. The people in office in any sporting organisation are not the owners of a private company but caretakers, and the players are not merely employees but themselves stakeholders, as is the public. So of course the public, through media, has every right to question what the caretakers do, and the players should also have the right to voice their opinions, within certain bounds of course.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The analogy with the business world does not go the distance. The people in office in any sporting organisation are not the owners of a private company but caretakers, and the players are not merely employees but themselves stakeholders, as is the public. So of course the public, through media, has every right to question what the caretakers do, and the players should also have the right to voice their opinions, within certain bounds of course.

Absolutely.

[hhm]

...the players should also have the right to voice their opinions, within certain bounds of course.

That's all that counts in your argument. My question to you is what are those bounds?

[Jemisi]

Administrators the world over are notorious for being prickly about criticism. As if criticism of their behaviour is somehow damaging to the game of cricket. But the players get criticised left and right all the time. The adminstrators are privileged to be in the position that they are in, and should be servants of the game rather than precious and protective of their power.

[Boundary]

- How ZC use Heath & Grant is at their disposal, as long as it's within the description of national bowling and batting coach.

I'm familiar with the Zimbabwean way of debating: lots of huffing and puffing about minutia of legality whilst ignoring the morality of issues. Your statement should say: "How Butcher uses Heath and Grant at his disposal ..." because it is Butcher's job to win as many matches as possible. ZC's job is to hire and facilitate him in this regard. But you'd prefer to devote energy into whether Taylor should've gone public with his misgivings or not, wouldn't you? Indulge me for a moment, though. If the national coach and captain now want the batting and bowling coaches on tour (regardless of whether or not they were previously notified of this or whether they've since changed their minds, since (we're told) it's not a financial issue); if those two now want Heath and Grant, shouldn't they get them?

[Jemisi]

Pretty much, yeah. Unless it is actually a case of conflict or dysfunction between 4 seperate coaches, and then it is a matter for the higher ups.

[eugene]

If Butcher and Taylor want Heath and Grant they should get them. Those two are the best judges as to what the team requires to perform to the best of its ability, not some overpaid administrator.