Coach or a pimp?

By John Cheeran
After a slew of agency reports that have made use of extracts from the book John Wright's Indian Summers, I'm forced to wonder what exactly was the Kiwi's role with India's national cricket team.
Was he a corrective force within the team or was he pimp to the Indian players?
Pimps facilitate the game to the needy but does not indulge in prostitution. They are silent witnesses to the act, benefits from the act, and they can claim that their role has been limited only and they have committed no sin. They are above the muck.
And whenever they choose to break their alliance with the sluts, they can accuse them, "you did this, shame on you!."Just as John Wright hit out against former national selectors in his book ghosted by two others!
In each case, whether it was the selection issues relating to VVS Laxman and Mohammad Kaif or when England captain Nasser Hussain abused Kaif, Wright chose to keep his silence befitting a pimp.
I'm a baffled by Wright's account of the Multan declaration as put together by AFP.What Wright gives is a match report; not his stand on the issue.
Being a man incapable of decision making Wright says Sachin Tendulkar was right to be peeved with skipper Rahul Dravid's declaration which might have denied the Mumbai batsman another Test double century.
And immediately, Wright adds that "I should have convinced Dravid to declare earlier and he should have grasped that it's one thing to declare when a batsman's 170 or 180, quite another when he's 194. And Tendulkar should have pushed to get there quicker."
It is silly to hear from the Indian coach that he spent a sleepless night after Dravid's declaration. It was Wright's failure as a coach that Tendulkar went ahead and expressed his displeasure in public. As an astute man, Wright should have taken the initiative to assuage Tendulkar's wounded pride.
Coaches are there to guide and motivate players and remind them if need be, whoever it is, that cricket is a team game and what matters is only team's victory.
Wright failed in his basic role as the Indian team coach in Multan. None can deny this.
And it was left to skipper Dravid himself to clear the confusion with a man-to-man chat with the Indian batting supremo.
I find the way Wright defends Tendulkar's right to be peeved highly amusing. Wright says: "He'd been playing for India since he was 16; he'd stood up for his country in bad times and tough conditions, and often been the only man to do so. Having given so much for the team, over such a long period, he probably thought this was one time the team could give something back to him. Even the greatest have their goals and dreams and milestones, and a double century against Pakistan in Pakistan would have been a memory to treasure."
Tendulkar has played international cricket since he was 16, and that alone should have been enough reason that he should have come up with a mature response to the declaration.
It was Wright's responsibility to tell the prima donnas in the Indian team to get their act together. Now it has taken an Aussie to do what a Kiwi failed to do in so abject a manner.