lol buchanan is godawful, he seems to be one of these coaches who forgets that at the end of the day it's about bat vs ball and just makes things as complicated as possible quoting modern coaching techniques. agree that a chimp could have done the same job with Australia and Qnsland, KKR couldn't really have been worse, don't know much about his stint at Middlesex.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Traitor!
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Without knowing the true ins and outs I find it difficult to believe people can either praise or criticise Buchanan's methods so absolutely.
As for his failure at Middlesex, well that said exactly the same thing as his success with Australia - that a coach's potential to turn outstanding players into poor or poor players into outstanding is zero.
As for his failure at Middlesex, well that said exactly the same thing as his success with Australia - that a coach's potential to turn outstanding players into poor or poor players into outstanding is zero.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
He's right on the money though re. the 05 umpiring decisions.
"For us it was conquering all things, World Cups, Champions Trophy, the subcontinent. The Ashes was just another series but for England it was their pinnacle and we just went underprepared."
complete rubbish. england were on a winning streak for MANY games (2 years), not just the ashes. winning against south africa in south africa was a very big thing for us aswell. the ashes is just as important to australia as it is to england. most likely why he is sour grape syndrome
so you think no decisions were wrongly against england in 05? we had some wrong decisions at critical points go against us awell. obviously not very well remembered because we actually won.
maybe you didn't prepare against us very well but thats your fault, because you under-estimated us. you were arrogant and treated us with contempt. i was the only one claiming we could win (amongst cricket fans, actually geofrey boycott predicted it aswell, clever man).
i dont really want buchanan, personally hope he doesn't get anywhere near the team. hopefully he'll be making the tea ;-)
PS: this is the australia players that acused england of cheating cause they couldn't handle our reverse swing so much.
complete rubbish. england were on a winning streak for MANY games (2 years), not just the ashes. winning against south africa in south africa was a very big thing for us aswell. the ashes is just as important to australia as it is to england. most likely why he is sour grape syndrome
so you think no decisions were wrongly against england in 05? we had some wrong decisions at critical points go against us awell. obviously not very well remembered because we actually won.
maybe you didn't prepare against us very well but thats your fault, because you under-estimated us. you were arrogant and treated us with contempt. i was the only one claiming we could win (amongst cricket fans, actually geofrey boycott predicted it aswell, clever man).
i dont really want buchanan, personally hope he doesn't get anywhere near the team. hopefully he'll be making the tea ;-)
PS: this is the australia players that acused england of cheating cause they couldn't handle our reverse swing so much.
Last edited:
pasag
RTDAS
Buchanan must have had some serious support from Ponting if that many players were really unhappy with him.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah he's not. The evidence of the referral system suggests that there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will lower the number of incorrect decisions. It could easily have meant there were more, not less.
Evidence so far also suggests that people continue to believe the ideals, rather than the reality, about it.
Also, the amount the Australians suffered from Umpiring in 2005 is sometimes hopelessly exaggerated. Yes, a handful of decisions went against them (and Martyn is bound to be more bitter than most as about half of them sawed him off) but precious few of them actually might have influenced the game. About all you could possibly claim were the failure to give Jones out early in the second-innings partnership with Flintoff at Edgbaston and the ridiculous Katich lbw at Trent Bridge. Even then it's merely "might be"s.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not unlikely that Martyn is exaggerating in order to make himself look more right - if most of the team really didn't get on with him it'll come out in due course, and in fact you'd think it might've done already.
I'm not surprised Warne, Martyn and MacGill didn't get on with Buchanan, Martyn and Warne are far too simplistic to understand him fully, and MacGill probably the opposite. If there's anyone else, I'll believe it when I hear it and not before.
alternative
Cricket Web Content Updater
Best thing ever IMO. Probably Kolkata still won't win many matches, but atleast it cuts the bull**** with Buchanan.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Indeed. Had Pietersen been given out first ball in the second dig at Edgbaston, might have set off a chain of events which meant Freddie had no chance to spank the bowlers around. Or not. Sliding doors, etc. Once you change the outcome of one event, what happens next is totally unknown.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
'Instinctive' is probably more the word you're looking for there.
.
hoggard had some clear cut lbw's go against him. could've easily been 3-1
australia were saved by the RAIN. we were all over them. saved from embarrasing scores by their tailenders usually.
hoggard had some clear cut lbw's go against him. could've easily been 3-1
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I know that - I'm the biggest believer in the butterfly-hurricane theorem you'll see. Professor Dumbledore put it best: "the consequences of our actions are so diverse, so complicated, that predicting the future is impossible".
Nonetheless, there are times when an Umpiring mistake has less potential for ambuguity - generally, the later in a game it comes, the closer to certain you can be about what'd have happened but for it. EG, if Steve Bucknor had given Monty Panesar Sreesanth's lbw, as he should have, at Lord's in 2007 England would have won that match rather than drawing it. What'd have happened in the remaining two Tests of the series? Absolutely no way whatsoever of knowing.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well yeah both are also instinctive, but neither have ever struck me as very smart. I'm not remotely surprised that they failed to understand Buchanan. MacGill, as I say, was probably too smart, even smarter than Buchanan maybe - the like-poles-repel syndrome.