The IPL was interesting in that some of the best talent from around the world was on display on the field. It also had the likes of cricketing legends such as John Buchanan and Tom Moody presenting their talents in the way of team formation and strategies. Finally, there were the Rajasthan Royals, whom Shane Warne guided to victory in the tournament as captain-cum-coach.

Shane Warne and John Buchanan are nice studies in contrast. One is not ashamed to hide his genius, while the other has the more sober abilities of discipline and method as his mantra. While Warne believes that coaches should not interfere in the business matters of a team and that the players know what to do and how, Buchanan is a firm believer in processes being the winner over any individual brilliance, and in the coach being essential to making winners out of the available talent.

Warne was no great fan of the super-successful Australian coach, and made no secret of the feeling. It is, however, difficult to argue with success, and on that score, both Buchanan and Warne have a lot to back their views. In a matter of a difference of opinion between arguably the best coach and the best bowler (statistically second best behind Murali) in the world, is it possible that one has to be wrong in this argument?

Buchanan had a very ordinary IPL, even if not considering his own lofty standards. The Kolkata Knight Riders being bounced out before the semi-final stage itself, it was an interesting study in contrast to watch the team captained by the 'best Indian captain' and the 'best coach in the world' on the one hand and the team captained and coached by the 'best captain never to have led Australia'.

As coach of the Australian side, Buchanan worked with the best available talent. Most importantly, he and Ricky Ponting had a mental connect as far as the way forward was concerned. Comparatively, in his IPL stint, he worked with a side based on the crowd-pulling capacity and the monetary cost (or lack of it) of players. In Ganguly, he had a captain who couldn't have been more different than him, with Ganguly's strength always being his ability to spot and back talent rather than having any planning or process to back his success. Thus, the challenge with the IPL team was more than with the Australian team. In that sense, he proved the idiom that the coach (as also the captain) is only as good as his players.

'The captain is only as good as his players' - how often have we heard this statement? More importantly, how good can players be and how can the coach or captain get the maximum out of them? That is probably the difference between a coach and a good coach, a captain and a good captain. That is where Shane Warne came in for the Rajasthan Royals.

For a man who thinks low of coaches, the success of Shane Warne as a captain-cum-coach of the Rajasthan Royals is at the same time ironic and interesting. Warne is said to have been instrumental in getting the maximum out of a bunch of guys termed 'the cheapest team in the IPL'. From Day 1, when he gave the team a brilliant pep-talk, to the last day when he pulled his weight in a tight finish, he has talked the talk and walked the walk! Support staff, gutsy players and plenty of money apart, he is the guy who made it all fit together.

Personally I think it helped that he came without the baggage of being an iconic player of the IPL, since he could build his respect on the basis of his performance and deeds than because of a million-dollar cheque, and also that behind all the smiles and back-patting that is always present in Indian cricket, real respect is rare and counts for a lot. Also crucial is the fact that he was the undisputed 'numero uno' for his team - designated as the captain and the coach of his team, there were no two opinions in the team on who was in charge!

For the Kolkata Knight Riders, both Buchanan and Ganguly had an equal say in things, and two leaders with different styles of functioning can never exist in an organisation, the proof being the constant reports in the media of conflicts between the two. If either Ganguly or Buchanan had been given the sole leadership of the team, we might have been able to judge their leadership in the IPL, but today, any such judgment will have the inevitable ifs and buts around it.

In that sense, good judgements could be made of the leadership qualities of Tendulkar and Dravid, who had sole charge of their teams, which still ended up with no special results. While Dravid is no sacred cow and might find his 'responsibilities' slightly changed in the next IPL, it is very likely that with Indian cricket being what it is, Tendulkar will be the undisputed leader of his outfit in the next season, unless he himself decides to abdicate.

This IPL gave me proof of some things I have always believed in – a leader should be selected based on his leadership qualities rather than on his iconic status or brand value. Once this is done, back him in all respects, whether it be in terms of team selection, preparation style or match strategy. Let the lines of responsibility be clearly demarcated even if there are parallel bodies of power like a batting coach, bowling coach, fitness trainer and so on. When parallel bodies of power are present, clearly spell out the one with the veto power - the numero uno.

But why should all this be followed only for the IPL? Isn't it the way to go for the Indian national team too?