Australia's Mental State

[Smudge49]

And in between all these he made scores of 24, 25, 66*, 44*, 57 and 28* (244 runs @81.33 at a strike rate of 77) in this tour. Not even one failure with the bat.

He played bodyline quite well from those stats. Obviously if he is getting majority of his deliveries at the body he is bound to get out to one of those.



Yes, Cummins was just brilliant more or less throughout. Haze too was quite good. I fail to see what you are implying here.

I am trying to imply that you are either defending some pretty trash bowling from Lyon and Starc or you are just going on the eventual scorecard.

Also a bodyline tactic would mean Australia packed the leg side and bombarded him consistently from a line around his leg stump or beyond which was hardly the case, they were piss poor and all over the place when Hazelwood or Cummins weren't bowling and even with scatter pile bowling Starc still got Jadeja tangled up on the short ball.

Indian management has for some reason been rigid minded in their approach towards Jadeja's batting - probably a closeted thinking like Australian management who wanted Gilchrist to bat always at no.7, despite averaging more than 50 with the bat.

You seriously can't be comparing a batting all-rounder not batting higher up the order to a wicket-keeper required to keep wickets all those overs, not pushing a case to bat higher than #7 as the same thing.

 

[DriveClub]

Indian management has for some reason been rigid minded in their approach towards Jadeja's batting - probably a closeted thinking like Australian management who wanted Gilchrist to bat always at no.7, despite averaging more than 50 with the bat.

Because they have other primary roles keeping, bowling etc so they obviously don't want to wear them down batting up the order. It's not rocket science.

 

[Senile Sentry]

You seriously can't be comparing a batting all-rounder not batting higher up the order to a wicket-keeper required to keep wickets all those overs, not pushing a case to bat higher than #7 as the same thing.

Jadeja is not a batting allrounder or a bowling allrounder but one who is a genuine, probably an Indian ATG spin bowler and has become a genuine batsman in the last few years or so at the International level.

And given he has to bowl so many overs, lmanagement might have decided to use the Gulchrist logic to make him bat at 7. I do not subscribe to this, and regard him as value to.bat in top 5 or 6.

 

[stephen]

It's clear that there's far too few ideas in the Australian coaching staff. Langer is the root cause of the problem. He seems unable or unwilling to come up with backup plans for both bowling and batting. In the 2018 series he could have pushed Khawaja up to open, moved everyone up one spot and slotted Finch in at 5, which would have been a better use of resources even if there were no personnel changes.

He has blacklisted Khawaja because he's a leader who will stand up to stupidity.

He's got a habit of letting his team, who has some of the best bowlers in the world, continuously let their opponents beat them in the 4th innings from seemingly unwinnable positions.

When he was batting coach Australia kept collapsing quickly. Now he's head coach we still keep collapsing but he's slowed it down (in terms of time, not runs).

So what are the achievements of his coaching career? Australia's collapses are now occurring over 15 overs instead of 5 and our scoring is three times slower to match. We haven't won a single overseas test series and we've lost to a subcontinental team twice, in one case when we had a substantially superior side on paper. We've dropped the one guy who managed to play well enough to turn a loss into a draw overseas as well.

It's just not good enough and it's an indictment of the current coaching regime.

 

[the big bambino]

He did pick Marnus on promise though so there is that.

 

[Smudge49]

If you have seen Langer in the docu-drama The Test, he seems easily rattled and overtly emotional in the dressing room.

He still thinks cricket is played today the way it was played during his time, it helps nobody and he looks out of his depth.

With Langer and even Paine, there is not an iota of acceptability or accountability, when they lose they either credit the opponent or blame the pitch for not helping them out. There's never "we got it wrong, we need to fix that" with Langer. Which is the reason there's no visible improvement.

 

[Smudge49]

He did pick Marnus on promise though so there is that.

He only picks Western Australian boys on promise. Marnus was picked more for his leg spin and batting package in the UAE and was shunned to the back of the line pretty quickly.
He just got lucky with the whole concussion episode, otherwise he too would probably be waiting at the back of the pecking order.

 

[Senile Sentry]

If you have seen Langer in the docu-drama The Test, he seems easily rattled and overtly emotional in the dressing room.

He still thinks cricket is played today the way it was played during his time, it helps nobody and he looks out of his depth.

With Langer and even Paine, there is not an iota of acceptability or accountability, when they lose they either credit the opponent or blame the pitch for not helping them out. There's never "we got it wrong, we need to fix that" with Langer. Which is the reason there's no visible improvement.

Nah , I would take the documentary reactions with a pinch of salt.

Finch at MCG failing to review his dismissal was funny and cringe af. Langer is showing running off to the dressing room to "investigate" why Finch didn't review it was the Jump the Shark moment of that series.

 

[Starfighter]

With Langer and even Paine, there is not an iota of acceptability or accountability, when they lose they either credit the opponent or blame the pitch for not helping them out. There's never "we got it wrong, we need to fix that" with Langer. Which is the reason there's no visible improvement.

I find it scary how it resembles the bureaucratic accountability (public and private) in general these days. No one takes responsibility for anything, and no-one loses their job.

Langer going with the 'test cricket was the winner' line was laughable. It was a cracking series, but there was only one winner: India

 

[Starfighter]

I am trying to imply that you are either defending some pretty trash bowling from Lyon and Starc or you are just going on the eventual scorecard.

Yeah, I don't get the line of reasoning. Lyon was like those unthreatening English spinners in the nineties like Croft or Such. Actually, they would likely have been better, as would have John Emburey in the nineties when he hadn't turned the ball for a decade. At least they might have varied their trajectory. It was the kind of performance you'd describe as 'neat' at the friendliest.

 

[Smudge49]

Nah , I would take the documentary reactions with a pinch of salt.

Finch at MCG failing to review his dismissal was funny and cringe af. Langer is showing running off to the dressing room to "investigate" why Finch didn't review it was the Jump the Shark moment of that series.

That's the point, if he is such a dramaqueen when the camera's are on, imagine the hell he raises when nobody is keeping an eye.

 

[stephen]

I find it scary how it resembles the bureaucratic accountability (public and private) in general these days. No one takes responsibility for anything, and no-one loses their job.

Langer going with the 'test cricket was the winner' line was laughable. It was a cracking series, but there was only one winner: India

I generally am of the belief that if you hire someone, you are picking them for a good reason and you need a very good reason to fire them. At the same time, even the best make mistakes but what separates good leadership from merely being a boss is that a good leader will hold a post mortem and will change the approach to address the problems identified.

But it requires everyone to check their egos and want to be better, which many people don't want to do.

The difference between that approach and Langer's approach is that Langer thinks that his way is the right way whereas the humble/ teachable approach says that you're never doing anything perfectly and so you are always striving to do better.

This Australian team isn't striving to do better (though some individuals in it are).

 

[Shri]

 

[jimmy101]

Pujara has the coolest signature.

 

[Spark]

shubman's barely deserves to be described as a signature

 

[Blenkinsop]

I guess Paine and Lyon owe their continued selection to the fact that there are no good alternatives, but Starc? I was amazed when they kept him in for the last Test, he looked totally fried.

 

[the big bambino]

I think Pattinson was injured for the last test and Richardson not ready to play. After them there is a pretty fair drop so Starc's competition wasn't all that compelling.

 

[Shri]

neser?

 

[the big bambino]

neser?

He'd have been the next. Good fc record. Not sure if he would have troubled India but I suppose he could have been a better alternative to an out of form and cooked Starc.

 

[Smudge49]

He'd have been the next. Good fc record. Not sure if he would have troubled India but I suppose he could have been a better alternative to an out of form and cooked Starc.

Don't think Neser is good enough to be considered as one of the four bowlers in a bowling attack, but since he plays most of his cricket at the Gabba, there was a case to drop either Green,Wade or Harris in the last test and have Paine bat at 6 and Neser bat at 7 and also contribute as a genuine 5th bowler.

Would have helped the Australian cause of distributing workload among a tired bowling attack, far efficiently.