"I know Tassie actually experimented with that a few years ago. One was doing the field placings and one was doing the bowling changes. So it just sort of lightened the load up on the actual captain and gave him a bit more opportunity to think about different things. I don't see there's a lot of problems with it."
I myself would never go to Ricky to get an opinion on anything. He has a point, though. Jonty Rhodes was saying pretty much the same thing earlier. The only question is, if there's a captain for bowlers and a captain for fielders, WHERE DO THE OTHER TWO COME FROM? A captain for shining the ball? A captain for disagreeing with the other captains? They should be cleverly assigned roles like this to make it less confusing.
Kumar Sangakkara is supportive of the idea but also a little more sceptical, as he should be:
"If it's a way to go forward and it shows results, why not? Hopefully, it's not a marketing gimmick. Something to create more interest towards that one franchise and to get the public to say 'Well, we'll follow the Knight Riders from here on.'"
Buchanan is fuming at this insinuation, despite it having been said in earnest. I don't know where Kumar's getting these ideas that the idea will make the public want to support the KKR. After the effigies Ganguly fans were burning in Kolkata, I think that's the last thing that's likely to happen.
Shittiest effigy ever, no doubt.