Australian test selection 2020/21

[Shady Slim]

Something obviously isn't working in the coaching setup at international level right now. It might even be that Langer is getting too much into batting coaching. Certainly we have had a number of form batsmen who came into the international setup and then failed hard.

Certainly though the coach is responsible for the overall performance of the side and right now the performance of the Australian test side has been well below the standards it should be at given the quality of the players.

Leadership is a force multiplier, and in Australia's case the multiplier is less than one. We're getting less out of the team than the sum of the players.

i agree with your comments on leadership 110%, and langer could well be trying to micromanage behind the scene as against his batting staff but that's sort of all mere speculation no?

i think the bigger problem with the failings of the india series were with the ball not the bat - (and these too fall at the feet of the leadership group). you look at the batting lineup we trotted out in the india series - an out of form joe burns, a warner coming back from injury who clearly wasn't fit, debutant pucovski who got injured after one game, debutant green, matty wade, travis head... really aside from smith and marnus you had no batsmen in there who you can consider absolutely solidified test quality guys. don't get me wrong, the scores weren't good enough, but it wasn't like we were getting deuced for 250 rolling out the 01-07 era lineup where you could've filled a second xi with guys who'd ton up against touring india.

 

[the big bambino]

tell you what re the langer discussion up above though - head coaches of international teams shouldn't be giving the nitty gritty technical batting advice to the batsmen. maybe if they pick up on something, sure, and obviously in terms of macro-level planning and strategy stuff, but for the technical aspects that's the point of the team's batting coach and his staff, and even more so, individual coaches and consultants the players themselves have in their network, many of whom they've had since they were coming up through the ranks.

the job of an international head coach should be to motivate, manage blokes, and work with the other high level coaches to implement and deliver macro strategies. again, if they can offer useful raisins of technical advice go for it but there are other blokes on the staff who can work on that micro level stuff with a much greater attention to detail and ability to focus on those processes

Head coach is there to take responsibility too. With Langer he's told: Finch is going alright but not at the top. Langer goes, you know what? I'll effin (I've used effin because my 9 yo is watching me type) stick him in as an opener. When it turns out as expected he tries to platitude his way out of scrutiny and responsibility. Something like "gee Ishant moved the new ball in eh? I think sometimes you just have to say the other guy just executed better and praise that."

Which is true but never forget the bloke who set up the ambush for the other side. Contrast that to Joe Burns. When Burns scored that gimme 50 Langer was praising himself, his foresight and virtuous loyalty. But really Burns was still in a funk and one match later Mr. Loyalty cuts him. Which kind of tells that Langer's whole approach to Burns form lacked any honest thought or strategy but rather relied on loyalty voodoo. Which if it did work would have been down to dumb luck and not any input from Langer.

 

[stephen]

Khawaja would have strengthened the Australian batting this summer, but the problem has been longer term than that. We haven't won a single overseas series since Langer took over.

In The Test documentary Khawaja complained when Langer implemented a nets policy where all batters had to rotate when one of them got out. Langer does come across as a micro manager.

 

[Shady Slim]

Head coach is there to take responsibility too. With Langer he's told: Finch is going alright but not at the top. Langer goes, you know what? I'll effin (I've used effin because my 9 yo is watching me type) stick him in as an opener. When it turns out as expected he tries to platitude his way out of scrutiny and responsibility. Something like "gee Ishant moved the new ball in eh? I think sometimes you just have to say the other guy just executed better and praise that."

Which is true but never forget the bloke who set up the ambush for the other side. Contrast that to Joe Burns. When Burns scored that gimme 50 Langer was praising himself, his foresight and virtuous loyalty. But really Burns was still in a funk and one match later Mr. Loyalty cuts him. Which kind of tells that Langer's whole approach to Burns form lacked any honest thought or strategy but rather relied on loyalty voodoo. Which if it did work would have been down to dumb luck and not any input from Langer.

oh this is entirely true, his decisions with selection and with team strategy and planning have been at times super debatable and at others plan horrible

i just don't think you can blanket say he's totally not responsible for any purple patch smith or any other bat is going through, and conversely, you can't say that the HC's totally clean of hand when it comes to failings. moreso just that the fine technical adjustments players make generally aren't prescribed by the head coach, rather by the batting coaching department or that individual player's batting consultant or advisor guy

 

[Red]

Henriques has staked a pretty good claim to bat at #5 for Aus imo.

 

[Starfighter]

They'll recall Head first