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

[Belnakor]

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.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Watson - Finished
Rogers - Stop gap at best
Kwajaja - WIP
Hughes - Walking wicket against spin
Clarke - One decent batsman
Smith - ???

Of our top six in a years time i would be very surprised if more than 2 are still playing at the top level. Lehmann isn't going to be able to do much until that happens.

 

[Belnakor]

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

he shifted his guard to leg stump!

I just don't get how a guy who is such a dominant ODI player can't bat in tests. Bevan esk.

 

[skipper kelly]

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

We will just have to disagree then.

Imagine being told you have almost 2 days to bat regardless of how many runs you make. Isn't that a test batsman's dream?

 

[western royboy]

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

Ponting or Hussey simply don't want to be there anymore, they've had a great run but they saw this coming I reckon and decided to jump off and who could blame them, they have given enough.

 

[skipper kelly]

he shifted his guard to leg stump!

I just don't get how a guy who is such a dominant ODI player can't bat in tests. Bevan esk.

He is a remnant of the last era where they never wanted to get tied down. I'm not sure why some players go better in ODI's, pressure maybe but probably more a technical issue. I don't think it is a new concept to play with caution when balls are pitching near to inline with the stumps. Anyway, maybe it's as simple as these batsmen don't have the ability to punish the bad bowl and respect the rest.

 

[skipper kelly]

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.

I agree with most of this but batting is also about being able to adapt to the conditions and the state of play. Good players can up the tempo when required so they should also be able to go the other way as well. A good number 3 should be able to open if required or continue the onslaught. I don't believe it is cluttering the mind by taking the state of play into account.

 

[The_Reaper]

I agree with most of this but batting is also about being able to adapt to the conditions and the state of play. Good players can up the tempo when required so they should also be able to go the other way as well. A good number 3 should be able to open if required or continue the onslaught. I don't believe it is cluttering the mind by taking the state of play into account.

Good players can do that because they have a solid defense to fall back on.

 

[western royboy]

He is a remnant of the last era where they never wanted to get tied down. I'm not sure why some players go better in ODI's, pressure maybe but probably more a technical issue. I don't think it is a new concept to play with caution when balls are pitching near to inline with the stumps. Anyway, maybe it's as simple as these batsmen don't have the ability to punish the bad bowl and respect the rest.

In a bygone era, this flaw would have been identified and exploited at Shield or Grade level and hopefully sorted out, however let's look at Shane Watson's career in totality.

A talent laden prospect from Ipswich in Qld, he upped stumps and moved to Tasmania when he got the inference he might have to wait awhile for his opportunity to get into the strong Bulls sides of the early 2000's. In Tassie he goes ok, gets invited up to the Centre of Excellence where Guru Greg annoints him as "the one". From here he gets parachuted into a test against the Pak's at the start of 2005 (batting at No.7). Now in the inner sanctum of the Australian team, he ditches Tassie and moves back to Qld, but hardly plays because he's always in the Test scene.

In 2009, he morphs into an opener out of necessity and initially does well without cashing in and making the 100's required, the rest you know.

Two things stand out that are endemic about our current system. The first is the decline of grassroots cricket that has filtered right up the chain. A flaw as big as Watson's would have been identified in a higher standard competition much earlier on, but as the general standard declines, talented players shine through, often getting by without the work ethic of there predecessors.

Secondly these "talented" kids get siloed and put into "elite" programs were they get told that their proverbial don't stink and they get pumped up on under age competitions and then in the case of Watson impatient to wait for an opportunity. Watson's initial elevation to the Test team was on the back of Guru Greg's assertion that he was the next big thing (note he made similar comments about Henriques a few years later). What would have happened if rather than take off to Tassie when Stuart Law gave him the reality check, Watson stayed and worked at his game and earned his place?

Personally I take zero regard for underage competitions, if a kid can do it in senior competitions, then I take notice, however the standards have declined to a level where players can get through these levels now, where as once upon a time a lot of flaws would have been picked up at either Grade or State level, rather than being hopelessly exposed at Test level like they are now.

 

[skipper kelly]

Good players can do that because they have a solid defense to fall back on.

Agree. That was the first thing we learned as juniors. Maybe it is a product of junior cricket today where there is a heavy focus on participation and giving everyone a go. I have no problem with that but it does have its drawbacks.

 

[western royboy]

I agree with most of this but batting is also about being able to adapt to the conditions and the state of play. Good players can up the tempo when required so they should also be able to go the other way as well. A good number 3 should be able to open if required or continue the onslaught. I don't believe it is cluttering the mind by taking the state of play into account.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but when the ball is bowled, most of the reactions are automatic / instinctive. If you haven't got that in your batting makeup (and I'm suggesting a fair few of our guys don't - Warner, Hughes, Smith, Haddin) then at some point you are going to try and nail one.

I foolishly thought that given the wicket was holding together ok, that maybe, just maybe we coud show some application and with Cook wasting time by batting on in the hope that Root got 200, potentially we could have batted for two days and save the test.

We couldn't even bat for 1 day!

 

[skipper kelly]

In a bygone era, this flaw would have been identified and exploited at Shield or Grade level and hopefully sorted out, however let's look at Shane Watson's career in totality.

A talent laden prospect from Ipswich in Qld, he upped stumps and moved to Tasmania when he got the inference he might have to wait awhile for his opportunity to get into the strong Bulls sides of the early 2000's. In Tassie he goes ok, gets invited up to the Centre of Excellence where Guru Greg annoints him as "the one". From here he gets parachuted into a test against the Pak's at the start of 2005 (batting at No.7). Now in the inner sanctum of the Australian team, he ditches Tassie and moves back to Qld, but hardly plays because he's always in the Test scene.

In 2009, he morphs into an opener out of necessity and initially does well without cashing in and making the 100's required, the rest you know.

Two things stand out that are endemic about our current system. The first is the decline of grassroots cricket that has filtered right up the chain. A flaw as big as Watson's would have been identified in a higher standard competition much earlier on, but as the general standard declines, talented players shine through, often getting by without the work ethic of there predecessors.

Secondly these "talented" kids get siloed and put into "elite" programs were they get told that their proverbial don't stink and they get pumped up on under age competitions and then in the case of Watson impatient to wait for an opportunity. Watson's initial elevation to the Test team was on the back of Guru Greg's assertion that he was the next big thing (note he made similar comments about Henriques a few years later). What would have happened if rather than take off to Tassie when Stuart Law gave him the reality check, Watson stayed and worked at his game and earned his place?

Personally I take zero regard for underage competitions, if a kid can do it in senior competitions, then I take notice, however the standards have declined to a level where players can get through these levels now, where as once upon a time a lot of flaws would have been picked up at either Grade or State level, rather than being hopelessly exposed at Test level like they are now.

Great post again. I'm past my cricketing days now and having 4 girls who weren't interested I have no real idea about junior cricket these days. I noted a post earlier where it was said that the juniors now can only bat for 35 balls. That gives everyone a go but it probably doesn't enable coaches to teach the basics, which as posted above, is defence.

A bit of reminiscing, but this is how we did it back in the late 70's. Play junior cricket in the morning, with usually only 3-5 kids getting a bat. Hope to get a game in the 4ths or 5ths in the arvo, and if not just turn up with your whites and hope to get a chance to field. While this was happening there was 3 or 4 kids going at it in the nets. There was always a test mach happening in the street. If you were unlucky and had to be England then you played like them. If you opened you were Boycott and you blocked. If you were Australia and Greg Chappell then it was cover drives. But the main thing I remember from all my days, including senior cricket, was that defence was the cornerstone of batting.

 

[skipper kelly]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but when the ball is bowled, most of the reactions are automatic / instinctive. If you haven't got that in your batting makeup (and I'm suggesting a fair few of our guys don't - Warner, Hughes, Smith, Haddin) then at some point you are going to try and nail one.

Fair enough. I get were you are coming from.

I foolishly thought that given the wicket was holding together ok, that maybe, just maybe we coud show some application and with Cook wasting time by batting on in the hope that Root got 200, potentially we could have batted for two days and save the test.

We couldn't even bat for 1 day!

I had exactly the same hopes. The pitch looked fine. The chance to occupy the crease for 2 days and deny England was a fantastic opportunity. It just doesn't seem to be the focus at the moment.

 

[western royboy]

Great post again. I'm past my cricketing days now and having 4 girls who weren't interested I have no real idea about junior cricket these days. I noted a post earlier where it was said that the juniors now can only bat for 35 balls. That gives everyone a go but it probably doesn't enable coaches to teach the basics, which as posted above, is defence.

A bit of reminiscing, but this is how we did it back in the late 70's. Play junior cricket in the morning, with usually only 3-5 kids getting a bat. Hope to get a game in the 4ths or 5ths in the arvo, and if not just turn up with your whites and hope to get a chance to field. While this was happening there was 3 or 4 kids going at it in the nets. There was always a test mach happening in the street. If you were unlucky and had to be England then you played like them. If you opened you were Boycott and you blocked. If you were Australia and Greg Chappell then it was cover drives. But the main thing I remember from all my days, including senior cricket, was that defence was the cornerstone of batting.

And your post has hit on another aspect of what we have lost. The situation that you describe is akin to mine, Greg Chappell calls it "unstructured learning" if I think back to those days I played a million games of cricket in mock situations, trialling backlifts (Kepler Wessells at one point) and all sorts of stuff until eventually I worked it out for myself. Kids these days go from Milo (where all they learn to do is bash) staright into games (U/9 and upwards) where the focus is on winning and scoring runs. At that age the only way most kids can score is to slog it through the leg side and so it begins.

I couldn't hit it off the square until I was 13, but I practised my technique and was able to get to a proficient level, because the club I played at whilst not having much in the way of technical coaching emphasised the need to play straight and stay in, in both senior and junior cricket. You start off batting in the lower order and move up based on performance and opportunity.

Most kids now exit the game having played a million micky mouse games of limited overs cricket with compulsory retirements and over limitations. They do not know what playing the true game of cricket is.

The entire system has been completely rogered.

 

[Slax]

Three very simple reasons

1. Easier to blame the coach than to deal with the fact that the development program and so called star players are failing
2. Screwed up by not appointing Moody when they had the chance previously and needed to secure Boof before someone else did.
3. Money. Channel 9 just rolled up with a truck load of money and said they want to see the end of the rotation policy especially if it invovles limited overs match on Friday-Sunday. The public want to watch the big names and if they aren't playing they don't watch. CA might say channel 9 has no input into selection but as we have seen with the AFL this is just pure crap.

 

[skipper kelly]

And your post has hit on another aspect of what we have lost. The situation that you describe is akin to mine, Greg Chappell calls it "unstructured learning" if I think back to those days I played a million games of cricket in mock situations, trialling backlifts (Kepler Wessells at one point) and all sorts of stuff until eventually I worked it out for myself. Kids these days go from Milo (where all they learn to do is bash) staright into games (U/9 and upwards) where the focus is on winning and scoring runs. At that age the only way most kids can score is to slog it through the leg side and so it begins.

I couldn't hit it off the square until I was 13, but I practised my technique and was able to get to a proficient level, because the club I played at whilst not having much in the way of technical coaching emphasised the need to play straight and stay in, in both senior and junior cricket. You start off batting in the lower order and move up based on performance and opportunity.

Most kids now exit the game having played a million micky mouse games of limited overs cricket with compulsory retirements and over limitations. They do not know what playing the true game of cricket is.

The entire system has been completely rogered.

I've never heard that. Sounds spot on.

It's a tough one because I am such an advocate for participation and every kid getting a go. I suppose we just don't see the backyard or street cricket happening these days. Not anywhere I've lived in the last 10 years anyway.

 

[King Elvis]

Ponting or Hussey simply don't want to be there anymore, they've had a great run but they saw this coming I reckon and decided to jump off and who could blame them, they have given enough.

I don't think either of them would pull the pin if they saw this coming, and believed they could've helped prevent it - unless there were other factors.

I know it's not realistic, but I believe that if they were asked, they'd return.

 

[western royboy]

You actually go and watch under-age competitions or check out A-grade cricket?

Im betting no.

Err I'm betting Yes, I am a Level II coach have been for many years, I've coached at every level from Milo through to Senior Cricket, (currently coaching U/13's and I still play). My opinion is based 100% on what I'm seeing with my own eyes balanced against my own cricketeing journey vs the journey of my own kids today. There are many differences.

I will add that I have been on my high horse on this stuff for ten years or more, ever sice my association lifted the age groups uo to U/17, to "keep kids in the game for longer", it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Junior cricket and senior cricket are vastly different games with different measures of success, the longer you keep kids in modified forms of the game the worse it is. By starting them off younger in these micky mouse games we ingrain mediocrity into their cricket. The standards of cricket in this country have fallen significantly in the last 10-20 years, starting at junior levels and now having crept right through the structure. It will take years to fix if they start today, but they won't.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

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.

But mindsets ARE hard to change as they are a habit as much as anything else. Look at Shane Watson has changed nothing about the way he plays or approaches opening since he's started opening. He, like the rest, is just out there hoping that his usual stuff will work.

 

[IanG]

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

Not just in cricket he's the worst sporting administrator in Australian sport in general.

 

[western royboy]

I don't think either of them would pull the pin if they saw this coming, and believed they could've helped prevent it - unless there were other factors.

I know it's not realistic, but I believe that if they were asked, they'd return.

Kingy, you and I both know that Michael Clarke has tried to move away from some of the traditions of the past and usher in a new era under his leadership as is his want as Captain. Ponting and Hussey were the last remnants of the old school, whilst fully accepting that Clarke is Captain and can do whatever he wants, given the option of staying on under a completely new feel or signing off into the night and spending more time with their young families, it was always going to be a no brainer that they retired with nothing left to prove. They aren't coming back - even if begged.

The elephant in the room is Simon Katich, who just let it slip that he never actually retired from International cricket, yet NSW saw fit to put a line through him when Hilditch told him he was finished in 2011 and they withdrew his CA contract. What we would give to have him in there now, because you know he would fight to the bitter end and wouldn't give his wicket up cheaply. Regardless we are 2-0 down and heading to Old Trafford where our record is not good. The poms have blunted our one and only trump card - the fast bowling and have mercilessly exposed our soft underbelly.

You could argue that playing Rogers and Haddin is now a waste of time, those games could be better spent on the younger members of the squad with an eye to the future and getting some experience. Under that scenario recalling Katich is also a waste of time.

Once the series is lost, I'd be all for pulling in Doolan for the last two Tests as we have literally nothing to lose.

 

[the_interloper]

Lehmann is in a no lose situation here. If he loses (likely obviously) he didn't have enough time with the team, but if he wins he's a genius!

 

[nineteen eighty]

...
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.

Great posting royboy!!

Is it fair to say that our batting line up is unbalanced and stacked too much towards the attacking side of things? If you were too break up the English batting into occupiers vs attackers, they would be a lot more balanced.

I've said it before but I believe our style of play in Shield Cricket where results are contrived has diminished our batting (and bowling). Batsmen always being made to score quickly and playing for a result has led to sloggers (see list above).

 

[nineteen eighty]

Having now read this thread, I can now see where you are coming from. By the time they have reached Shield level, it's too late. Shield cricket manifests everything they have been taught / learnt as kids and through junior cricket.

Without being too dramatic, we're rodgered for a very very very long time if fundamenatally we don't change how we teach our youth.

 

[western royboy]

Great posting royboy!!

Is it fair to say that our batting line up is unbalanced and stacked too much towards the attacking side of things? If you were too break up the English batting into occupiers vs attackers, they would be a lot more balanced.

I've said it before but I believe our style of play in Shield Cricket where results are contrived has diminished our batting (and bowling). Batsmen always being made to score quickly and playing for a result has led to sloggers (see list above).

Thanks - I've been posting a lot on these threads recently because as you've probably guessed I'm passionate about my cricket and I've been on my high horse about this stuff for over ten years and lo and behold all the chickens have come home to roost and everyone is so surprised. Yet in some cricket circles I'm considered somewhat of a nut job because I refuse to follow the sheep mentality of "pathways" and elite talent identification.

Every level of the game is in a terrible state in this country and it's largely because of what we've done at the base level that has now infiltrated right through to the top. I heard Darren Berry yesterday talking about our elite Batsman largely only having one speed, flat out - when I was taught it was about batting within your limitations but also taking the opportunities when they arrived, start off your innings slowly - let a few go, play straight, get used to the conditions, make the bowler bowl to you, get a start, build on it and when you had bowlers measure cash in! that's going through the gears. It's a lost art, because of the way we bring up our kids, because defence is boring and it doesn't score runs, err as I recall you have to be in to make runs and I've never seen any scored from a batsman in the pavillion.

I was invited to do a guest session at an elite program one day, My little lecture was on "thinking cricket", I'd prepared my presentation and handouts from cricket gurus to back up my point (it always looks better if you can back up your arguments with support from International players). As I walked into the venue the Regional Manager has a lad of about 13 in the net and says "right this ball has to go to fine leg" Ok I thought, the lad must have had a problem clipping them off his toes, the ball was six inches outside off stump! I turned around and walked out, playing each ball on its merits which was a big part of the presentation was out the window. This is an example of what we are dealing with and it is right through the junior system.

Lot's of work to do to fix it.