How many captains to change a lightbulb?

Even by his own left-field standards, the concept of multiple captains leading by turns must rank as the most radical, and outrageous, idea John Buchanan has unleashed on cricket. His previous such notable one - the idea of training cricketers to be ambidextrous - never had the opportunity to take off because it relied on the willingness and ability of others; but this is a more implementable idea, and it is reasonable to assume that Buchanan has the support of his employer, Shah Rukh Khan. If nothing, Buchanan wins points for having the nerve to put his job and reputation on the line for an idea he believes in. He must be a brave man, too, to try it out with Kolkata Knight Riders.

There is a cynical way to look at it: as a clever ploy to ease out Sourav Ganguly, who in every way answers to the description of icon in the Knight Riders team. However, all the passion he generates in his hometown cannot hide the effects of advancing years and slowing reflexes. He is 37, no longer plays competitive cricket in any other form, and even at the best of times was never a fan of fitness routines. He has no particular love for this form of cricket, and he would not be the first man on the sheet for a Twenty20 team at most levels. It was his emotional hold over Kolkata that made him such a compelling proposition for the franchise.

This year there will be no matches at Eden Gardens. So crowd attendance, and consequently Ganguly's drawing power, aren't as big factors. He has one year left in his contract, but he will be 38 next year. If you want his loyal constituency to get used to the idea of life without him, South Africa presents the perfect opportunity.

But to think that Buchanan would conjure up plan so radical - and so outlandish - and risk his own reputation just to get rid of Ganguly would be stretching it. Yes, Ganguly's situation will have made it easier for Buchanan, but it is implausible that it is the reason.

So then, what's behind it? Why would he want to mess around with one of cricket's strongest and most sacrosanct institutions, and risk personal ridicule in the process? Opinion is divided in cricket circles about Buchanan's maverick ideas, but he is known as a man of method, not of whims.

He is a keen student of management practices, and the idea of collective leadership isn't new in corporate structures. It is known as a matrix, or horizontal, management system, as opposed to the traditional vertical system that is still favoured by most organisations.

The matrix format is considered as one of the most natural forms of leadership, based on influence and expertise rather than the power of position. It offers the chosen leaders the opportunity to work with a group of talented, but not necessarily similar-minded, peers to create goals, procedures and ways of taking the organisation forward. It is a process that focuses on the team, looks to build collective strengths, and relies more on a system than individuals.

I can see why the idea could have some appeal. Unlike national and state teams, an IPL team is an artificial coalition, bound not by geography, nationality, cultures or emotions, but by professional commitment. In that sense, it is closer to a corporate team than a cricket team as traditionally understood. Further, a lot of the players in a side are fierce rivals in the international arena, often in highly-charged circumstances. And lastly, there is no permanence to the teams: players can change sides, and not all of them are available to their team every year, or even through the duration of a season. All put together, it is a highly fluid and highly volatile environment, one where the coach can be a more permanent and more central figure than the captain.

Also, the creation of a collective leadership could be a tool to create a greater sense of belonging among the senior international players, who might not feel it otherwise. Of course, personal and professional pride is a factor, and the value of the players, which is the primary reason why most of them are part of the IPL anyway, is directly linked to performance. But loyalty and belonging are linked to emotions, and giving these players a sense of ownership could be an effective way of fostering these feelings.

In a sense, cricket already has a structure of collective leadership: the responsibility of managing a team is shared by the captain and the coach, and they work closely with the selectors. Increasingly, teams have specialised coaches, physios, fitness trainers and psychologists, who look after specific areas. But one aspect of leadership remains unchanged: once the team steps on to the field to do its business, there is only one boss. The coach might offer tactical inputs, but it's the captain who takes the decisions on the field.

And that marks out the cricket captain as distinctly different from a captain in any other sport. Cricket requires lots of decisions to be taken on the field, and ultimately these influence the course of the match. That's why the captain occupies a far more pivotal position than the coach. And it is on the field that I can see Buchanan's idea breaking down.

It can be argued that the short duration of Twenty20 reduces the scope of on-field strategy and decision-making, but at the same time it can be said that the decision-making needs to be far more precise because there are smaller margins for error. One bowling change, one good over or one bad one, one fielding lapse, one change in the batting order, can decide a match. The captain needs to be always alert, always sharp, and prepared to be flexible. And the team needs not only to know who is in charge, but to feel his presence. Not only does the cricket field require an unambiguous command structure, continuity is also paramount.

And not every man is cut out for the job. It was perhaps not a coincidence that the teams that made to the IPL final last year were led by two very singular men. I wonder if Buchanan would have mooted his idea if either Shane Warne or MS Dhoni were captaining Kolkata.

That said, Twenty20 itself presents the most persuasive argument why the game mustn't be shy of trying out new ideas. At the very least, Buchanan's idea must be given a chance to fail.