Test Surely the Cummins/McDonald captain/coach setup is the worst in Australian Test history

[King Elvis]

Much happier with yesterday - appears as though we took a deep breath and actually approached the Test with a proper plan.

Definitely got a bit straight at times, but, for the most part, we just played good cricket; bowled a good line and length outside off, targeted specific weaknesses of some batsmen beyond that.

"Given the fact that it has been made so well known that Johnson's confidence drops quicker than an anvil - as Ricky Ponting mentioned in his book - is it really a great move from Clarke to say 'three overs is enough, I don't back you to make the early breakthrough'? Could have already undone all the good work his knock yesterday would have done." He's back now, Phat Boy, don't get too het up yet

Aren't they questioning Clarke's handling of MJ here?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Aren't they questioning Clarke's handling of MJ here?

Yes, ~15 overs into Australia's first bowling innings in a series they would go on to win 5-0.

Johnson was 0/32 off 6, and it was all Clarke's fault. But then Johnson took 9 wickets for the match, and it had nothing to do with Clarke.

 

[Blue1980]

Since the glory days ended circa 2007ish... The only period we've had close to the last two years is when Mitch Johnson went nuts in 13/14 both in Australia and South Africa... But this time, the team is much better rounded and not as reliant on an individual having maybe the best 8-test run any quick bowler has ever had (59 wickets at 15 against two of our three most important opponents). Anyone can captain a team when one bowler is causing that much carnage to the opposition.

Did Michael Clarke do anything to bring that out in MJ? Or did everything just click into place for MJ and he finally did something he had been threatening to do for the best part of a decade - it should be remembered there was a lot of WTF going on when he get picked again for the first test that series despite a pretty tumultuous couple of years. They would have picked him expecting him to perform well, but even his most ardent backers can't have seen the summer unfolding the way it did for him.

We don't have 11 genuine potential match-winners like that insane team of the early 2000s, but we do have 7 or 8 and that's more than most teams will ever get close to fielding. On top of that, we've probably only one real weak link, albeit a very important one and that being our top order overseas - Marnus hopefully going some way to getting the monkey off the back last test.

It's a good team, absolutely no doubt about that and this is a legacy test match coming up. Win this and you can't deny it becomes a very good team. 2-2 and they just get stuck on the good step alongside plenty of other Aussie teams.

We are probably more around the standard we were in the 90s before got Gilly in, and before we got the opening batting sorted when Hayden came back.

Basically very good but not infallible.

 

[big_e]

Since the glory days ended circa 2007ish... The only period we've had close to the last two years is when Mitch Johnson went nuts in 13/14 both in Australia and South Africa... But this time, the team is much better rounded and not as reliant on an individual having maybe the best 8-test run any quick bowler has ever had (59 wickets at 15 against two of our three most important opponents). Anyone can captain a team when one bowler is causing that much carnage to the opposition.

Did Michael Clarke do anything to bring that out in MJ? Or did everything just click into place for MJ and he finally did something he had been threatening to do for the best part of a decade - it should be remembered there was a lot of WTF going on when he get picked again for the first test that series despite a pretty tumultuous couple of years. They would have picked him expecting him to perform well, but even his most ardent backers can't have seen the summer unfolding the way it did for him.

We don't have 11 genuine potential match-winners like that insane team of the early 2000s, but we do have 7 or 8 and that's more than most teams will ever get close to fielding. On top of that, we've probably only one real weak link, albeit a very important one and that being our top order overseas - Marnus hopefully going some way to getting the monkey off the back last test.

It's a good team, absolutely no doubt about that and this is a legacy test match coming up. Win this and you can't deny it becomes a very good team. 2-2 and they just get stuck on the good step alongside plenty of other Aussie teams.

My memory may be playing up, but I thought they (Clarke, whoever was the coach back then?) said after the series that given Johnson was a pure strike bowler, it was counter-productive to bowl him for long spells. He could just go flat out for 3-4 overs and then let him rest.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

The Ignominious Paine/BNLG set up says hold my beer. Managed to lose a home series v India for the first time ever and topped that by being flogged in a second series by an Indian B team.

 

[DaRick]

We are probably more around the standard we were in the 90s before got Gilly in, and before we got the opening batting sorted when Hayden came back.

Basically very good but not infallible.

I'd say probably late-Border standard - our quicks have the edge, but the batting goes their way, plus they had Shane Warne.

Since the glory days ended circa 2007ish... The only period we've had close to the last two years is when Mitch Johnson went nuts in 13/14 both in Australia and South Africa... But this time, the team is much better rounded and not as reliant on an individual having maybe the best 8-test run any quick bowler has ever had (59 wickets at 15 against two of our three most important opponents). Anyone can captain a team when one bowler is causing that much carnage to the opposition.

Did Michael Clarke do anything to bring that out in MJ? Or did everything just click into place for MJ and he finally did something he had been threatening to do for the best part of a decade - it should be remembered there was a lot of WTF going on when he get picked again for the first test that series despite a pretty tumultuous couple of years. They would have picked him expecting him to perform well, but even his most ardent backers can't have seen the summer unfolding the way it did for him.

We don't have 11 genuine potential match-winners like that insane team of the early 2000s, but we do have 7 or 8 and that's more than most teams will ever get close to fielding. On top of that, we've probably only one real weak link, albeit a very important one and that being our top order overseas - Marnus hopefully going some way to getting the monkey off the back last test.

It's a good team, absolutely no doubt about that and this is a legacy test match coming up. Win this and you can't deny it becomes a very good team. 2-2 and they just get stuck on the good step alongside plenty of other Aussie teams.

Only the 2007/08 and 2013/14 sides come close to the Cummins-era AUS side IMO.

Combine the 2007/08 batting with our current bowling stocks and we could give that early 2000s AUS side a very hard time. But alas...

What Clarke did was use Johnson in short, sharp bursts against the tail. But obviously having Lillee perform remedial work on him helped a ton. In 2012/13 he was OK, but about 5-10 km/h slower than in 2013/14.

 

[two blue tiger]

Complete review now needed of playing group, leadership and peripheral staff.

But won’t happen.

 

[Zach Package]

They chucked away the ascendancy way too many times to come away from that series really happy with themselves but given how it played out with losing 4 tosses, Lyon going down and the weather seemingly flicking on and off like a lightswitch I can't help but think what they've achieved is pretty monumental.

Your home summer is for all intents and purposes a victory lap nowadays, and England were at sixes and sevens the entire series, perhaps that's where they wanted to be.

Cummins probably isn't the right man for a variety of different reasons but mission accomplished IMO.

 

[Scott Tracy]

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I swear a fair proportion of the people that grew up with THAT team of the 00's are the most insufferable cricket fans in the world.

They've grown up watching complete and utter domination and so now when they watch cricket, they seem to lose their mind any time a session isn't completely owned by Australia. Every batsman is rubbish and needs to be dropped as soon as they don't make a big score (even when they are leading run scorer for the series), every bowler is rubbish if they bowl more than 2 deliveries down the leg side or don't take a wicket for a few overs (even if they have the most wickets for the series) and anyone that drops a catch should "never play for Australia again" (even those that are usually impeccable in the field). If a batsman gets out to a shot, they crap on about how disgraceful the shot was, even if the player has scored the bulk of their runs playing the exact same shot. If another team has momentum for half an hour, they just start deriding the team, the captaincy, the coaches, the tactics and declare us losers (including when we go on to win).

They haven't seem to come to terms with the fact that this is how cricket is. There are momentum swings in games, away tests/series are extremely difficult to win and different conditions/pitches suit different players more and often warrant changes in tactics to combat. Good teams won't win every game (especially away from home) and certainly won't win every session. That team of the 2000's was an all time anomoly (they thrashed a World XI FFS) that will never be repeated - that is not "how cricket is".

Suggesting a captain/coach that took over a team not doing that well and after a string of controversies that then worked their way to number 1 in the world, won the World Test Championship and just retained the Ashes in England (with a dodgy ball change away from winning it 3-1) is the worst in test history is sheer idiocy.

 

[11kgm]

Cummins needs to go, he needs to focus on his bowling too often he lost his cool

But we have no one else
Warner Smith and Usman not long left
Carey in terrible form with the bat and keeping seems to be struggling post stumping
Head/Marsh too erratic
Green too well Green
Starc/Hazelwood/Lyon all bowlers

We have an issue with leaders

 

[Cleavy]

How much for CA to buy out Ponting’s commentary contracts and appoint him Test coach? Can leave McDonald as ODI/T20 coach

 

[King Elvis]

Complete review now needed of playing group, leadership and peripheral staff.

But won’t happen.

I think McDonald is the issue - the consistent and blatant failure to capitalise on key moments, repeatedly poor tactics being implemented again and again.

What's the point of having a coach if the team isn't prepared properly, and if he isn't capable of pulling strings during the Test (while the guys on the field are actually in the shit).

Contrast the way we played, versus the observations by Ponting and Taylor in commentary - it was pretty clear we had no idea what we were doing at times.

 

[The 747]

I think McDonald is the issue - the consistent and blatant failure to capitalise on key moments, repeatedly poor tactics being implemented again and again.

What's the point of having a coach if the team isn't prepared properly, and if he isn't capable of pulling strings during the Test (while the guys on the field are actually in the s**t).

Contrast the way we played, versus the observations by Ponting and Taylor in commentary - it was pretty clear we had no idea what we were doing at times.

True but neither Ponting or Taylor are interested in coaching us. They are respected analysts (when Tubby doesn't babble) for a reason.

 

[The Passenger]

Hopefully, we take the lessons from here. I think it's clear the players are playing more for the leadership than previously and that's a huge part of the battle already won.

Tactically there are things to work on. It's totally wrong to say we didn't have plans. It's just whether those plans were the correct ones. Not my first choice but they worked decently at times - 36 runs per wicket on some very flat pitches is nothing too disastrous but the main issue was a lack of plan B. Cummins is obviously not the most tactically astute skipper but you can work with that and there should be enough brain power in that team to have some backup plans.

Don't mind if you want to rough up the tailenders but change it up very quickly if they are swinging and hitting ala Mark Wood.

For future Ashes series, Zac Crawley has a clear and identifiable weakness outside the off stump with the ball coming through between waist and chest height, not too dissimilar to Joe Burns. Just leave it out there and you'll get him out cheaply most of the time, again ala Joe Burns. For Harry Brook go straight into leg theory - he's not uncomfortable with the short ball but he hooks and pulls on the up so he'll eventually give a catch, especially with the bigger Australian boundaries.

Ben Stokes is a class batsman but when he goes into hitting mode, keep it well outside off and stack the off-side field. This is a really tough position to be facing because Stokes in the zone is arguably the most difficult batsman to bowl to in the world... But when he is swinging and hitting like he was at Lord's, his main power zone is his hip area and it's incredibly frustrating when we just keep putting it there.

Wholesales change are not required, but there are definitely some tweaks to be made.

 

[Kappa]

Fast bowlers are the worst captains possible.

1: They get more fatigued than any other fielder, which impacts their decision making.

2: They have a conflict of interest when choosing who to bowl. Do I bowl myself when the conditions are beneficial? Does it look like im favouring myself? ect

3: In long series like this, being forced into playing a fast bowler for all 5 tests is moronic because they get too tired and always end up doing shitter in the last 2 tests... but you can't even rest him now because he's captain.

4: Bowling long fast bowling spells on dead wickets is physically and emotionally draining and does not leave you in a good position to support your teammates

 

[Teen Wolf]

Fast bowlers are the worst captains possible.

1: They get more fatigued than any other fielder, which impacts their decision making.

2: They have a conflict of interest when choosing who to bowl. Do I bowl myself when the conditions are beneficial? Does it look like im favouring myself? ect

3: In long series like this, being forced into playing a fast bowler for all 5 tests is moronic because they get too tired and always end up doing shitter in the last 2 tests... but you can't even rest him now because he's captain.

4: Bowling long fast bowling spells on dead wickets is physically and emotionally draining and does not leave you in a good position to support your teammates

1: It's more taxing for keepers, who have way more to worry about in the field. Didn't stop us from appointing Paine, not to mention Gilly when we won in India.

2: That dumb theory could be applied to any bowler, such as a leg spinner. Richie was our best captain ever.

3: There's no way Cummins would have been rested during this series, even if he wasn't captain. And anyway, he bowled exceptionally well on day 1 of the 5th Test, with no support from the fielders.

4: Cummins is clearly great at keeping morale high and not acting like an emotional little bitch when things don't go to plan. That was Steve Smith's biggest weakness as captain.

 

[Kappa]

1: It's more taxing for keepers, who have way more to worry about in the field. Didn't stop us from appointing Paine, not to mention Gilly when we won in India.

2: That dumb theory could be applied to any bowler, such as a leg spinner. Richie was our best captain ever.

3: There's no way Cummins would have been rested during this series, even if he wasn't captain. And anyway, he bowled exceptionally well on day 1 of the 5th Test, with no support from the fielders.

4: Cummins is clearly great at keeping morale high and not acting like an emotional little bitch when things don't go to plan. That was Steve Smith's biggest weakness as captain.

First 3 points are all wrong.

Also I said fast bowler, spinner is different for obvious reasons.

 

[King Elvis]

1: It's more taxing for keepers, who have way more to worry about in the field. Didn't stop us from appointing Paine, not to mention Gilly when we won in India.

2: That dumb theory could be applied to any bowler, such as a leg spinner. Richie was our best captain ever.

3: There's no way Cummins would have been rested during this series, even if he wasn't captain. And anyway, he bowled exceptionally well on day 1 of the 5th Test, with no support from the fielders.

4: Cummins is clearly great at keeping morale high and not acting like an emotional little bitch when things don't go to plan. That was Steve Smith's biggest weakness as captain.

I'm a fan of Cummins, I don't think those comments are personal, apply it to any fast bowler and it is a valid conversation (hence why we almost never have quicks as the Captain).

 

[Teen Wolf]

First 3 points are all wrong.

Also I said fast bowler, spinner is different for obvious reasons.

I know you said fast bowler. That's why your post was dumb.

Why would fast bowling captains favour themselves, but spin bowling captains wouldn't?

 

[Teen Wolf]

I'm a fan of Cummins, I don't think those comments are personal, apply it to any fast bowler and it is a valid conversation (hence why we almost never have quicks as the Captain).

None of that drivel has anything to do with the series that just unfolded. There were a few tactical missteps that Cummins and McDonald made at the drawing board. Wouldn't have played out any different if Cummins was a no.3 bat.

 

[Kappa]

I know you said fast bowler. That's why your post was dumb.

Why would fast bowling captains favour themselves, but spin bowling captains wouldn't?

I never said they would favour themselves, I'm saying there's an awkward conflict of interest would people think they could, which is just as damaging and effects their decision making.

Obviously the spinner and the fast bowlers bowl at different times in games, it's generally obvious when the spinner gets to bowl... when you have 3 fresh fast bowlers and the legs 11 comes out, the choice is a little tougher. A spinner is also not gonna give themselves the new ball over a different quick. It's not that complicated.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I never said they would favour themselves, I'm saying there's an awkward conflict of interest would people think they could, which is just as damaging and effects their decision making.

Obviously the spinner and the fast bowlers bowl at different times in games, it's generally obvious when the spinner gets to bowl... when you have 3 fresh fast bowlers and the legs 11 comes out, the choice is a little tougher. A spinner is also not gonna give themselves the new ball over a different quick. It's not that complicated.

Was it a conflict of interest when Bradman dropped himself down the order while the pitch was doing a bit. To idiots, it just looks like he was protecting his average.

The most undeniable revelation about Cummins during this series is that he absolutely does not care what anybody thinks of his captaincy. The "people" aren't pressuring him into anything he doesn't want to do, regardless of how much they kick and scream.

 

[The Passenger]

Tactically there are things to work on. It's totally wrong to say we didn't have plans. It's just whether those plans were the correct ones. Not my first choice but they worked decently at times

Assuming England persists with Bazball, I don't mind starting with two on the fence but can't be any more. Two fielders on the fence is a long way from unheard of. Have your standard fine leg, pick the strongest scoring shot of each batsman to defend and the rest should be catching or saving a single for at least their first half-hour at the crease and you gotta hold strong on that, even if the batsman gets off to an absolute flyer.

Defaulting to deep point for all batsmen is frustrating because there aren't many batsmen who can score at ease through that area from the start of their innings. If a batsman wants to flash outside off and it goes through the point-gully infield for four then so be it.

The areas it's OK to protect the boundary early in their innings (with a normal fine-leg fielder as well)

Crawley - deep mid-wicket (deep cover if the bowlers have the skill and discipline to hold that 6th/7th stump line where he will have a go at it and whilst he'll connect here and there, you can protect the cover boundary and he's likely to give slips some good practice)

Root - third man (loves that little guide to score runs early and ease into his innings)

Duckett - deep point (deep point works for him, because likes scoring through there so happy to protect the boundary but the ball hanging outside off coming across him from the right armers because he won't leave the ball alone and the slips love practice)

Stokes - deep cover (and keep the ball away from his bloody hip area)

Brook - deep cover bowling normally or deep square leg AND deep mid-wicket with leg theory (the only guy to start with 3 on the fence because he will happily hit the ball in the air from the get-go)

Bairstow - straight cover or wide mid-off, pitch up on the stumps (has one of the highest % of being bowled of any batsmen ever, skewed towards early in his innings more than normal as well) and move the fine leg square (almost square leg) cause he loves that area too

Quite possible all six of those guys are still around for the Ashes tour. Bairstow is the most likely to not make it for age reasons.

Not entirely sure what else they've got in reserve.

 

[two blue tiger]

Suggesting a captain/coach that took over a team not doing that well and after a string of controversies that then worked their way to number 1 in the world, won the World Test Championship and just retained the Ashes in England (with a dodgy ball change away from winning it 3-1) is the worst in test history is sheer idiocy.

My comments about the Cummins/McDonald setup were well and truly a "rage post". But our tactics....bloody hell.......

Men on the fence all over the place that saw easy singles that released any pressure that bowlers may have been hoping to build, bowling stupid short stuff into Stokes' hitting zone, bouncer wars to tailenders swinging from the arse as opposed to good length at top of off gets out 9 out of 10 times, no clue on the use of the young spinner, despicable over rates, field placements that seemed to vary little to each batsman (there's a good summary in another post in this thread where the writer looks at each batsman).

Throw into the mix the observation that the Poms seemed to be able to adapt and refine as the series went on, while the Aussies seemingly could (or would) not, and we have a pretty disappointing result.

1st Test - a lucky win built around a number of Stokes' mistakes (such as declaring when your best bat was spanking a tired attack all around the place), and then the odd bit of luck in the famous 9th wicket partnership (two feet closer to Stokes from Lyons skied hook and it's probably all over)
2nd Test - Aust should have won this match by a street, except for the extraordinarily dumb short ball tactics at Stokes in the second innings - in the top 10 of terrible periods of Test cricket that I have ever seen.
3rd Test - Aust had them on the ropes in both innings, but persisted in bizarre tactics to the lower order in both innings. A win nearly every time with the tried and true in terms of tactics that would have seen the series wrapped up at 3-0.
4th Test - got absolutely destroyed in the field as Poms adapted to the crazy 20-40 over ODI type tactics that saw them score the easiest 5.5 runs per over that I have ever seen. Only tactic seemed to be wait for a mistake. Nearly 600 and enormous pressure in the Aust second innings (amidst mega prayers for rain) was the result
5th Test - won the toss and bowled - WTF?! Got lucky in that Poms threw away their innings, then our guys proceeded to bat like snails, with a refusal to even try to score. Poms go into 6 runs per over mode in their second innings, with men all over the fence AGAIN, then bowl well when it really counted to get a well deserved win.

Meanwhile McD and co sit there and say "nothing to see here, all good" - while the pundits (a squillion BF posters amongst them) and experts (Ponting, Taylor, Chappell, Berry, M Waugh, McGrath, countless press people etc) are screaming from the sidelines about what the bloody hell is going on.

Review needed at least..........