So Why Did Mickey Arthur Get ****ed Off???

[dymot]

There has really been negligible benefit and improvement with Lehmann in charge. The batting performance still shows that the majority are under performing potatoes with the irony being even in that pathetic display of batting Watson and Clarke were dominant.

There is a bigger problem in the side than the coach and something needs to be done about it. The bowling is fine but batting really needs to be looked at.

Arthur would have done no worse than Lehmann rash decision to sack him I feel.

 

[The Passenger]

micky arthur got sacked because james sutherland didn't want to get sacked.

no coach is going to teach this bunch of peanuts how to bat. certainly not in a few weeks.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

There has really been negligible benefit and improvement with Lehmann in charge.

 

[The Passenger]

fwiw i think we'll do better under lehmann.... but people really overestimate the effect of coaches at the top level imo.

the batsmen may get a few technical pointers here and there from coaches but they are just as likely to get the pointers from teammates too... from a bowling perspective they all know what to do... line, length, swing, spin etc,.

the improvement in both disciplines comes from players just getting out there and practising as much as they can, and then having the discipline and mental toughness to transfer that practice into games. no coach in the world can do the last part, entirely up to the player.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

fwiw i think we'll do better under lehmann.... but people really overestimate the effect of coaches at the top level imo.

the batsmen may get a few technical pointers here and there from coaches but they are just as likely to get the pointers from teammates too... from a bowling perspective they all know what to do... line, length, swing, spin etc,.

the improvement in both disciplines comes from players just getting out there and practising as much as they can, and then having the discipline and mental toughness to transfer that practice into games. no coach in the world can do the last part, entirely up to the player.

Rogers, Hughes and Khawaja all played just revolting shots. I'm sure Lehmann didn't advise them to play like village oiks at the local church fair match.

 

[King Elvis]

Arthur shouldn't been sacked a long time ago.

He absolutely should've been sacked following our disastrous Indian Tour.

Boof had what, two weeks, to get their shit together?

Hell of an ask, and yet another example of the total incompetence of Cricket Australia.

 

[maxlilly]

micky arthur got sacked because james sutherland didn't want to get sacked.

no coach is going to teach this bunch of peanuts how to bat. certainly not in a few weeks.

Yes, James Sutherland is the one that should be looking for a new job.
Is it any wonder there is no leadership in Australian cricket when he is at the helm of CA.
What the hell was the cricket review about, if he doesn't know whats going wrong, he needs to find another job.
Biggest Dud in aussie cricket at the moment, he just doesn't know what he is doing or where to take aussie cricket.
The sooner we get rid of him the better

 

[alfy!]

op, do you really think a coach can do much in a few short weeks? you are severely overestimating the role and power a coach has

 

[dymot]

Yes, James Sutherland is the one that should be looking for a new job.
Is it any wonder there is no leadership in Australian cricket when he is at the helm of CA.
What the hell was the cricket review about, if he doesn't know whats going wrong, he needs to find another job.
Biggest Dud in aussie cricket at the moment, he just doesn't know what he is doing or where to take aussie cricket.
The sooner we get rid of him the better

Biggest tool Sutherland. Met the guy and he's like talking to a brick wall. Very boring and bland guy.

 

[dymot]

op, do you really think a coach can do much in a few short weeks? you are severely overestimating the role and power a coach has

No and that is the point. Why not make the decision to turf Arthurs after the Ashes if (sorry when it would have happened anyway) and allow Lehmann 3 or 4 months to get ready for the leg here rather than send him out now which has done nothing good and made everyone confused and wondering what the **** is going on with it. Seems management within Cricket Australia was about as competent as Melbourne with the dealing with Neeld.

 

[alfy!]

Seems management within Cricket Australia was about as competent as Melbourne with the dealing with Neeld.

i think that's pretty obvious

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Probably involves Clarke one way or another.

 

[sherb]

op, do you really think a coach can do much in a few short weeks? you are severely overestimating the role and power a coach has

Surely Lehmann can invoke some sort of general rule for our batsmen so early in his tenure?

Eg getting them to place some sort of value on their wickets would be nice.........

 

[King Elvis]

Yes, James Sutherland is the one that should be looking for a new job.
Is it any wonder there is no leadership in Australian cricket when he is at the helm of CA.
What the hell was the cricket review about, if he doesn't know whats going wrong, he needs to find another job.
Biggest Dud in aussie cricket at the moment, he just doesn't know what he is doing or where to take aussie cricket.
The sooner we get rid of him the better

The very fact the Argus review was necessary, should've been the tipping point that resulted in Sutherland being sacked.

We lurch from one disaster after another under this ****wit, with seemingly zero accountability.

 

[western royboy]

Arthur got sacked because of the decay of the team culture and standards. CA had two options 1. Sack Arthur or 2. Sack Clarke as Captain. Given the two what option did you expect them to take?

They did what they had to do got rid of one and installed a respected former player, with an outstanding record as a Coach and creator of winning culture. Regardless of the results in this Test, I would suggest that there has been an instantaneous improvement in the culture of the team following this move and it must be seen as a positive.

Lehmann is good, no I actually reckon he's great, he's a cricketers cricketer he thinks deeply about the game and for want of a better word he gets it. But he didn't pick this squad and it's prescriptive that Smith and Agar were drafted in despite not initially being named in the sixteen. As I posted back in April before the squad was announced, they were very much in the then selectors thoughts and the Lehmann, influence I would suggest got them into the team.

The problem's with the batting go way beyond what Lehmann can control. The issues are many and they aren't easy to fix and once you get to this level, the coach's job is not to fix your technical problems. If you want me to list them I will, but it's just not practical to expect Lehmann to tick off each fault one by one. Some people (myself included) think that technique is pretty much ingrained by the time you are 14 or 15, making major adjustments after this point in time is pretty difficult, it's more about modifying behaviours so that you avoid problems. For instance, Hughes has made a change where his back foot now goes across to off instead of back to leg, but he is always going to look horrible at times outside off, Clarke plays across a straightened instead of bent front leg, meaning he is always a chance to nick or get his off pole knocked out if the ball snakes away, Watson is always going to play across his front pad at times if he keeps taking the big stride and planting his foot as a trigger, it's a long list.

Let's remember this is TEST cricket and the name is instructive, it's a test of skills over five days in varying conditions. Only the best survive and prosper over time, because of the nature of the game. Plenty have started well only to have flaws exposed and then ruthlessly exploited by oponents. In today's technological age, the evidence is available more freely than ever before.

Fundamentally, Batsman aren't going to change the way they play overnight, it takes time and 10,000 of balls away from the glare of international cricket to fix and improve your game. I'm of the view that our current crop of batsman are products of the system that we have created by accident. The only exception to this is M Clarke - he is a batting freak in the Ponting class, through natural talent and pure desire to get to the top.

Micky Arthur, Darren Lehmann, Bob Simpson, John Buchanan or Jesus Christ aren't going to fix our batting woes anytime soon.

 

[sherb]

Technical problems may take longer to fix, agreed, but how hard is it for a coach to institute a change of approach by the batsmen?

This mob of clowns are batting like they are Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Langer, etc at their prime. As if they can just blaze away with impunity at times.

I refuse to believe that a more responsible approach to their batting can't be implemented virtually immediately. That's a mindset, that's not technical.

 

[King Elvis]

Great post royboy, as usual.

Jesus Christ might not be able to save us - but resurrecting the greatest #3 batsman of a generation might reduce the damage

 

[western royboy]

Surely Lehmann can invoke some sort of general rule for our batsmen so early in his tenure?

Eg getting them to place some sort of value on their wickets would be nice.........

What is batting? My thoughts are there are parts of natural talent/ability, physical fitness, combined with technique and mental application. At elite level, physical fitness should be a given (Mark Cosgrove aside) and natural ability counts for nought as most players have about the same, so therefore we are left with technique and mental application. Technique is largely formed by the time you are 14 or 15 and most players with unresolved technical issues find it difficult to make changes after this time without a massive amount of time and focus - why is that?
Batting is and must be instinctive, elite players have already predetermined whether to go forward or back or to attack or defend just as the ball is released as they already have enough cues at that point to make their decision. You have heard Lehmann, expressing his desire to get the players to play with a clear mind and express themselves and play there own games, this is what he is talking about.
Cowan and Rogers are occupiers of the crease, their shots are limited to a point, they let the ball go a lot making the bowlers bowl to them. Once in they can move through a few gears but they are never going to destoy attacks, they can blunt them but not destroy them. Warner, Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin are all naturally atttacking players - if the balls is there to be hit, that's what they do - they have trained themselves over thousands of balls and hours to do it - regardless of what the circumstances are. The minute your mind is cluttered with other thoughts, then you are not focussed on the next ball and your chances of getting out increase exponentially.
Under pressure you will do whatever you have trained yourself to do, it becomes a "natural" or instinctive reaction, like the defender playing to a game plan under pressure in the back line who kicks deep to the boundary line, because that's what the game plan says and that's what they have practised a 1,000 times under simulation at training.
Under pressure our batsmen, have been making poor decisions, but most of those have been ingrained in their games for a long time and can't be fixed by someone saying "put a higher value on your wicket" - it just doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

 

[sherb]

How did Haddin manage to do it in the first test then?

Or Faf in Adelaide?

Both natural strokemakers.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree on this one.

Elite players need to be able to adapt to the situation. I've always believed that and will continue to argue it. The "this is the way they play" line is a complete copout for players at the top level.

The second innings of this test will give our batsmen the perfect opportunity to grind it out and make England work for their wickets, rather than handing them to them on a silver platter (a la Cowan, Hughes, Usman, etc, etc).

Unfortunately I doubt if they have the stomach for it.

 

[western royboy]

How did Haddin manage to do it in the first test then?

Or Faf in Adelaide?

Both natural strokemakers.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree on this one.

Elite players need to be able to adapt to the situation. I've always believed that and will continue to argue it. The "this is the way they play" line is a complete copout for players at the top level.

The second innings of this test will give our batsmen the perfect opportunity to grind it out and make England work for their wickets, rather than handing them to them on a silver platter (a la Cowan, Hughes, Usman, etc, etc).

Unfortunately I doubt if they have the stomach for it.

I'd argue that Haddin played his natural gamein the 2nd dig at Notts, he had to score to win the game and he played his natural game - as he always does. Faf is a seriously good player who was able to put his focus on every ball. My argument is that our players at the moment are only trained to play at one speed - flat out, the moment we require something different they have no clues, they simply can't do it.

I recall a district game down here one day on a very ropey track. I'd just done a Level II coaching course with the Vics and I ran into Andrew McDonald at the end of the first innings. He was recovering from a broken thumb and as I pushed mine into the pitch, he suggested that the 80 odd that they had made would be too many for North Melbourne. When I asked why he said "we play on roads every week, most of these guys will have no idea to bat under these conditions, they'll just keep swinging and getting out." North made 60 I think.

Despite the conditions being poor, they North batsman couldn't make any change to their mindsets to figure out how to win the game. Our players at all levels are the same.

 

[sherb]

They just sound like excuses for players with no stomach for a fight to me.

We will just have to disagree then.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Lehmann is good, no I actually reckon he's great, he's a cricketers cricketer he thinks deeply about the game and for want of a better word he gets it. But he didn't pick this squad and it's prescriptive that Smith and Agar were drafted in despite not initially being named in the sixteen. As I posted back in April before the squad was announced, they were very much in the then selectors thoughts and the Lehmann, influence I would suggest got them into the team.

I think Lehmann was an excellent choice too and I have never felt the urge to judge him on this or even the next Ashes.

There are too many long-term issues with this team to fantasise that a change of coach will suddenly turn players into world-beaters.

 

[Glacier]

I think Lehmann was an excellent choice too and I have never felt the urge to judge him on this or even the next Ashes.

There are too many long-term issues with this team to fantasise that a change of coach will suddenly turn players into world-beaters.

Change has to come from the players, and with that they need to stop blaming the coach and everyone else for that matter

 

[skipper kelly]

Technical problems may take longer to fix, agreed, but how hard is it for a coach to institute a change of approach by the batsmen?

This mob of clowns are batting like they are Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Langer, etc at their prime. As if they can just blaze away with impunity at times.

I refuse to believe that a more responsible approach to their batting can't be implemented virtually immediately. That's a mindset, that's not technical.

The change of approach can start to happen by dropping Watson from the next 3 tests. He hasn't even tried to change anything.

 

[Belnakor]

The second innings of this test will give our batsmen the perfect opportunity to grind it out and make England work for their wickets, rather than handing them to them on a silver platter (a la Cowan, Hughes, Usman, etc, etc).

Unfortunately I doubt if they have the stomach for it.

bingo