Over the past week or so, a bit of a drama has been playing out in English cricket. First the captain of the national team, Kevin Petersen, made it known that he didn't like the coach, Peter Moores. Then he demanded that the ECB sack Peter Moores. Then the ECB sacked them both.
Along with saying something about the organisational talents of the individuals involved, I think it says something about the differences between captaincy in something like cricket and its equivalents in other sports. Cricket has to be one of the few sports where the captain could even get into a position of thinking that they might be able to ask for a different coach, mostly because it is one of the rare sports where the captain is making the majority of the tactical decisions. Sports such as Rugby or Soccer are too continuous to allow for real tactical imput beyond the calling of predetermined set plays, while other stop-start team sports, such as Baseball or American Football, seem to allow far greater on field input from the coaches.
It's unlikely that much will change in the wake of the sackings. The captain will still be in charge on the field, while the small army of coaches will continue to do what they want off it. Still, it goes to show that sometimes, it helps to take into account the personalities of the individuals involved before you appoint them.