No I like him for sure, he's a character. You can't be on the fence with him.
He had a lot to do with some of the players that are now coaches. He was dictatorial and it rubbed off on some of them. Some guys just can't pull it off. If you lack the passion then it's a non starter. He was always highly motivated and passionate and without that you're just a dick. Its a fine line though. He's produced some decent players. He was highly motivated to get black players breaking into what was white cricket in those days and it was tough and he did it well and was a hard task master and there was a common goal. That ship has sailed. I think there are still some guys congratulating themselves.
It's not a one size fits all. It's also a bit of a cultural thing. A white coach being tough on a black player doesn't go down well and vice versa. At age group level there's no getting away from the fact that black kids will respond better to a black coach and white kids to a white coach. The gap has closed, but it's there.
Some guys respond to being treated well and will get their backs up if treated poorly, especially the white boys, some of them are too precious. Plus a bit of it is lost in translation in both directions.
Some guys you give them an inch and they'll take a yard. I guess it's about reading the room. I'm pretty sure he's learnt some diplomacy along the way.
I just think there's a place for a passionate guy provided he knows what he's doing (if he still is, he might be tired.) Adapting your coaching to seniors when you're used to shouting the odds if need be is an adjustment.
At national level it's a different thing altogether as you're usually dealing with guys who know what they're doing.
The higher up you get the less coaches seem to be hands on, which is understandable. They assume a more advisory role. Again its a fine line, especially in our set up as there are guys that genuinely need work, technical, mental and in strategizing.
We've got guys who need hours of one on one. Most guys do their own thing and only ask for help when they feel they need it. Some guys go to a coach outside of the national set up even.
I don't know what guys like Chawaguta and Mangongo bring to the table at international level? They'd have to have seasoned players immediately buy into them and that's unlikely. You need to have an x factor extraordinaire without your own very good cricketing resume or a list of very good sides you'd successfully coached.
The good sides all have a nucleus of senior players that the others feed off. We're well short of that and it's THE major stumping block. Ervine and Williams are reaching the end and have had to navigate a shit divisive system for so long I'd guess they mostly look after themselves. Both are often injured or just not around for whatever their reasons.
Back in the bad days we had both Flowers, Houghton, Goodwin etc who were world class.
My 10c worth is that an unsuccessful (?) Houghton is always going to be a better option than Steve or Walter.
What are they going to do that Dave hasn't already done?
Shouting and cajoling won't work for the key guys, but it well might work on a few though.
It goes back to that very troubling statement- I've lost the change-room. There's the story. Maybe it was no more than they would lose crucial games and lost faith in their talisman Dave, but I think there's way more to it.
Coaches will always be the scapegoats. You take on Zim coach knowing that it's probably going to end in tears. Both Walter and Steve would/will be round 2 hoping for a different outcome in the same poor circumstances.
Houghton put Zim on the map. He's got more invested in our cricket than everybody else combined times 10. He is THE custodian of Zimbabwe cricket. Nobody left alive with the exception of Flower has done more.
If you're not going to make him chairman and CEO keep him where he is and add to his technical team if necessary.
Give him Mangongo to deal with the slackers. Give him Brent for the same.
Other teams arrive with 10 or 20 support staff. We arrive with 5.