Sri Lanka Cricket has announced the appointment of the Australian Stuart Law as the assistant coach following the departure of Paul Farbrace who left recently.

SLC should explain: Why appoint an assistant coach? What assistance does the SL head coach need? SLC appointed Tom Moody, the previous coach who asked for an assistant when he started: Trevor Penny -a good fielding coach- with whom Moody worked at Warwickshire. This was a good fit as Moody was a very good international batsman and useful bowler. Moody looked after the batting and bowling with an adequate staff and Penny laid the foundation for a very good fielding outfit.

A country has to set up a coaching team based on the head coach’s attributes –not his wishes. If the Head Coach is a batsman you don’t need a batsman as assistant. And vice versa.

When SLC appointed Trevor Bayliss the situation changed. He has no international experience and was only a moderate batsman in Australian domestic cricket. His only claim to fame is his team winning two trophies in his first two years as a coach for NSW. Good teams win trophies – not coaches.

SLC needs to construct a coaching team to meet the actual cricketing needs of the national squad - not what the head coach, captain or vice-captain wants. A SWAT analysis would help. The team’s strengths needs monitoring and fine tuning. The weaknesses are the problem and these should be uppermost in SLC’s thinking when selecting an assistant.

There is no doubt that the batting has been a problem: both technique and the mental aspects – temperament, consistency, patience, partnership building. The bowling has been up and down. Fast bowlers are "coming off the belt" in good numbers but consistent performances are lacking. The fielding as discussed before is below standard and the wicket-keeping has been barely average.

With this head coach in position, the national team logically needs an experienced international batting coach (and not merely a mate of the vice-captain) as well as able support staff in the bowling, fielding and mental areas.

The bowling coaches have done an excellent job in the past few years in the pace bowling area - a good backroom setup is producing results. Spin bowling? The jury is still out on this as the over-reliance on Murali is preventing the good youngsters from being judged against international standards. And fielding coaching? SLC thinks that hiring an Aussie baseball coach at a million rupees for a month’s jaunt is enough!

With the above scenario how does the new assistant fit the bill? Stuart Law played in only one Test. In ODI’s for Australia his batting average is 26 runs and he took 12 wickets at 53 runs each. He is from Queensland and played for Essex and Lancashire in England. He left Essex in acrimonious circumstances and was released by Lancashire last year.

He apparently has no coaching background or qualifications and it will be interesting for SLC to publish his coaching credentials. Interim Chairman D.S. de Silva said: "We felt that Law, who has a good knowledge of cricket and conditions around the world, was more suited for the job."

Why the interim chairman? He is the chair of the cricket board and not an executive. Let us hear from the CEO or the chair of the cricket committee instead. However his choice of selection criteria takes some beating. Who doesn’t have good knowledge of cricket and conditions worldwide? What about the coaching job specification based on SWAT analysis?

Captain Sangakkara speaking as usual on squad matters when he shouldn’t said: "His recent playing experiences will be certainly useful for us." This needs explaining. Was Captain Kumar speaking personally or on behalf of the head coach, selectors or SLC? What "recent experiences" will help Sri Lanka?

Apart from being an Aussie which in some minds qualifies him for almost any job, what does Stuart Law bring to this coaching position that is so unique for an untried and inexperienced international player to be selected as a coach?

Maybe Murali, his team-mate at Lancashire has the answers. Murali apparently gave Law the reference that swung the selection Law’s way. Law certainly plays the game the Aussie way- hard and uncompromising- bending or skirting the laws and rules as far as they can.

Apparently Law is assisting Murali and other spinners to bowl better! Strewth - as they say in Oz. He can certainly teach our players to unwind after a match with refreshments. Law though, would not have equaled the world record set by his compatriot David Boon in drinking 52 cans on a flight.

Apart from the issue of Murali’s influence in cricket matters why would SLC allow SL cricket to be the montessori for foreign players to develop as coaches and then move on? Why not use proven ex players with specialist experience and knowledge?

There are some useful ex players that could be invited: Larry Gomes (the ex USA coach); Mark Ramprakash (Level 4 qualified); Stephen Fleming (that unflappable batsman and perfect gentleman). Why not use the experiences of our greats: Attapatu or Aravinda to assist the batsmen? Why use a baseball coach when Upul Chandana is a wonderful and experienced fielder of the highest class?

Is it because the captains and senior players are the powers behind the throne? Just as the Indian players destroyed their coach’s tenure a few years ago as did the West Indians and recently and so did the New Zealand players, are the senior players dictating to SLC whom to employ?

The senior players can give something back to their country by agreeing to cascade their experiences on the new players. Cascade learning is standard usage such as mentoring: where a senior player can "mentor a mate". Buddying is also used when a new bowler is "buddied" by a senior bowler; and a new batsman or tailender being buddied by a top order batsman.