Two Fridays ago, the West Indies lost the opening game of the five-match one-day international series against England in Guyana by one run under the Duckworth/Lewis system.

To the surprise of many, when they were offered the light with the Windies on 244 for seven off 46.2 overs chasing a victory target of 260, and after looking to the pavilion for guidance and getting it, the home team's batsmen walked off the field.

It was an embarrassing moment for West Indies cricket. In fact, it was worse than that.

Armed with the Duckworth/Lewis calculation which showed the state of the game after every delivery at the start of the 21st over in the innings of the team batting second, it was amazing - and despite all the explanations that followed, by the captain and by the coach, it is still amazing - that any one in a leadership position could have made a mistake like that.

Some have said it was a miscalculation by the coach. It was, however, simply a mistake.

What was really surprising, however, not only to the fans but also to me, despite knowing ever since the coming of Bennett King that the coach runs things in West Indies cricket, was the fact that the person who called in the batsmen was not captain Chris Gayle.

The man who called in the West Indies batsmen, and, in doing so, handed the match to England, was coach John Dyson, assisted by manager Omar Khan.

Things have changed

Things have certainly changed over the years.

Once upon a time, the captain was in charge of everything to do with the team: it was the captain who planned strategies; it was the captain who, with a little help from his senior players, probably from the chairman of the selectors at home, and also probably from the manager on tour, decided on his 11 players; and it was the captain who called in his batsmen.

Today, starting from around the early 1990s when Ray Illingworth became the coach of England and did not get along with captain Michael Atherton, through the early 2000s when Duncan Fletcher, who got along quite well with Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan, called the tune, and down to Kevin Pietersen whose problem with Peter Moores recently led to the coach being fired and the captain replaced, it is not so.

Today, in most teams around the world, the coach is 'El Numero Uno' - the man who calls the shots, and almost all of them at that, including, in some cases, the order in which the batsmen go to bat.

Today, despite all the pre-match and post-match interviews, the captain is reduced to exchanging teams with his opposite number, to flipping the coin at the start of the match, and, because it would be inconvenient if not difficult to do otherwise, to changing the bowlers and setting the field.

Gayle disinterested

That probably is why, on that unforgettable day in Guyana, while Dyson and Khan were busy looking at the sheet and checking the calculation and the state of the match, captain Gayle was captured on camera sitting unconcerned behind them and looking totally disinterested in what was happening.

As an old-timer, as one who read about Warwick Armstrong's men (the invincible Australian of 1921) about Douglas Jardine's destroyers (England's bodyliners of 1932-33), and about Bradman's conquerors (the Australians who marched over England in 1948); as one who knew about Frank Worrell and Richie Benaud's West Indians and Australians of 1960-61, about Ajit Wadekar's Indians of 1971 to 1973; and as one who experienced the greatness of Clive Lloyd's men in the 1970s and the 1980s, the decline in importance of the captain and the lack of impact of the leader in today's cricket is disappointing.

And, it is disappointing not only because of what happened between Illingworth and Atherton in the 1990s - although it appears that the England captain wanted too much control; and especially so in this day and age, it is disappointing not only because of what happened between Pietersen and Moores.

Although I have always believed, as the Australians do, that the selectors, for example, should select the team with nothing more than an input from the captain, the change in control from the captain to the coach, is disappointing, and it is disappointing, not only because one wonders who will now call in the batsmen in the case of a declaration in the longer version of the game, but also because it appears, based on what is about to happen in the Indian Premier League, that it may not be long before the role of the captain is further reduced.

Change is good

In other words, in a short time, the value, the importance of the captain, may never be the same.

In a move that has frightened some, including South Africa's coach Mickey Arthur and former Australian great Shane Warne who believe that the very suggestion is ridiculous; in a move which has won the interest of others, including South Africa and Royal Challengers Bangalore coach Ray Jennings who believes that change is always good and that it is worth trying, John Buchanan, the coach of the Kolkatta Knight Riders, has stated that he will be using multiple captains during the IPL tournament which begins in a foreign country, in South Africa, on April 18.

According to Buchanan, Twenty20 cricket is entertainment, it is fast; the job of the captain may be too much for one man, and if the job is rotated, it will leave the player to concentrate, on his batting, on his bowling, or even on his fielding.

A 'new dawn'

On top of that, and according to Buchanan, there is a "new dawn" in cricket, and it requires a change in how we look at captaincy and leadership in cricket.

According to Buchanan, according to the coach with the power to do whatever he wishes to do, even though last season's captain Sourav Ganguly does not agree with him, he will rotate the job as captain of the Knight Riders among the Indian Ganguly, the West Indian Gayle, the New Zealander Brendon McCullum, and the Australians Brad Hodge and David Hussey.

Changes, some changes, probably most changes, are usually good. Who can tell, maybe years from now multiple captains will be the order of the day, and if and when that happens, Buchanan may be remembered as a visionary.

There are those, however, who believe that too many cooks spoil the broth, that in times of crisis there must be one to lead - one to whom the players will look for help, and the question to Buchanan is this: who, of his multiple captains, would that be and who will decide who it should be?

Would they toss a coin a few times to decide, or would they look to the coach, as the man in charge, as 'El Numero Uno', to decide who would carry out his instructions.