Australia's Mental State

[stephen]

Petition to change the name of the thread to Victoria.

You need to watch Jimmy Rees' "Meanwhile in Australia" videos.

 

[Smudge49]

It's not Dr Phil, it's professional sports. In a game where millimetres matter and the game is essentially about which side applies their talent better, the mental side of the game is usually the thing which separates victory and loss.

If you have bowlers who crank it up to 150+ kph and can't take wickets on day 5, that's down to the mental side of the game.

The folks who are downplaying this also can't explain why Australia underperformed so badly with the best batsman and bowler in the world and a number of other players in the top 10. This was honestly the worst Indian side on paper to tour in the last 20 years against an Australia, who on paper are probably the strongest they've been since McGrath retired.

It's the strategic and mental game and that's on the coach and captain.

Seeing a lot of Australian fans, heck even Cricket Australia management running away from this fact, with all three of your fast bowlers counted among the best in the world, when your spinner is regarded the best spinner currently in the world but still you can't close back to back games against a battered and bruised second string team, then you can't hide behind excuses like "we could have batted better" or the other team just played "better cricket."

The last Ashes series was also there for the taking, but the bowlers fluffed up there as well. Australia's bowling is without doubt the stronger aspect of the team at the moment and during key moments of a game or series, this aspect is letting down Australia across all formats.

 

[sunilz]

That Headingley test :
1. Dropped Catch
2. Missed run out
3. Plumb lbw not given due to lack of review

So near yet so far

 

[Smudge49]

That Headingley test :
1. Dropped Catch
2. Missed run out
3. Plumb lbw not given due to lack of review

So near yet so far

This is a sympathetic view of looking at that result, with 70-80 runs still in the bag when Leach came to bat Paine literally opened the field, allowed Stokes to farm the strike and
managed to bowl very few balls at Leach but those were enough balls for him to waste a review on him.

Let's not forget Aus had managed to bowl England out for 67 in the first innings of this test, so tactically England should have been buried in this game then and there.

Come to 2021, Gabba; fields were opened again and pressure of conventional dismissals were taken off Pant and Sundar the moment target came below three figures and they were allowed to run the game.

Fairplay to Stokes and Pant for seeing their sides home, but when post Gabba game the Australian coach comes and says he had a sense of déjà vu of Headingly seeing Pant bat, he kind of admitted little to no lessons were learned.

 

[Kirkut]

It's not Dr Phil, it's professional sports. In a game where millimetres matter and the game is essentially about which side applies their talent better, the mental side of the game is usually the thing which separates victory and loss.

If you have bowlers who crank it up to 150+ kph and can't take wickets on day 5, that's down to the mental side of the game.

The folks who are downplaying this also can't explain why Australia underperformed so badly with the best batsman and bowler in the world and a number of other players in the top 10. This was honestly the worst Indian side on paper to tour in the last 20 years against an Australia, who on paper are probably the strongest they've been since McGrath retired.

It's the strategic and mental game and that's on the coach and captain.

Indian side wasn't the most assured side either, if you looked at the shot Shardul Thakur played on day 5 it was clear that pressure got him.

Maybe we can add some astrology here, what if that hook shot from Sundar sent the ball to a fielder in deep square leg? We were lucky there.

 

[Smudge49]

Indian side wasn't the most assured side either, if you looked at the shot Shardul Thakur played on day 5 it was clear that pressure got him.

Maybe we can add some astrology here, what if that hook shot from Sundar sent the ball to a fielder in deep square leg? We were lucky there.

Thakur and Sundar added 120 runs in the 1st innings, the game started to flip from there on itself, pretty sure they went beyond what was expected from them as batsmen.

 

[Senile Sentry]

This is a sympathetic view of looking at that result, with 70-80 runs still in the bag when Leach came to bat Paine literally opened the field, allowed Stokes to farm the strike and
managed to bowl very few balls at Leach but those were enough balls for him to waste a review on him.

Let's not forget Aus had managed to bowl England out for 67 in the first innings of this test, so tactically England should have been buried in this game then and there.

Come to 2021, Gabba; fields were opened again and pressure of conventional dismissals were taken off Pant and Sundar the moment target came below three figures and they were allowed to run the game.

Fairplay to Stokes and Pant for seeing their sides home, but when post Gabba game the Australian coach comes and says he had a sense of déjà vu of Headingly seeing Pant bat, he kind of admitted little to no lessons were learned.

Tactics vs Pant were bad. From ball one Long on and long off and zero close in fielders was atrocious.

 

[Smudge49]

Tactics vs Pant were bad. From ball one Long on and long off and zero close in fielders was atrocious.

One thing having your long on and long off back, but opening the whole field like the death overs of one day game is a different level of douchebaggery.

 

[the big bambino]

What is particularly irritating is those were the mistakes touring teams historically used to make against Australia. They’d get themselves into a competitive position then give away singles to the recognised batsman to get the tail ender on strike. This just played the lesser batsman in and gave the initiative to the set batsman. Our coaching has come so far it has adopted these losing tactics from our opponents of 20 plus years ago.

 

[Smudge49]

What is particularly irritating is those were the mistakes touring teams historically used to make against Australia. They’d get themselves into a competitive position then give away singles to the recognised batsman to get the tail ender on strike. This just played the lesser batsman in and gave the initiative to the set batsman. Our coaching has come so far it has adopted these losing tactics from our opponents of 20 plus years ago.

It has got less to do with coaching and more to do with a captain that doesn't want to lose and as a result his first instinct is always to go on the defensive.

The fact that Paine literally has no FC 100s to talk about, he most probably doesn't understand simple concepts like inning building or bowler fatigue.

 

[the big bambino]

It has got less to do with coaching and more to do with a captain that doesn't want to lose and as a result his first instinct is always to go on the defensive.

The fact that Paine literally has no FC 100s to talk about, he most probably doesn't understand simple concepts like inning building or bowler fatigue.

I wonder how secure Tim Paine's opinion of himself as a test cricketer is. There he was, about to retire and suddenly selected by grotesque circumstance to captain his country. When all that was expected of him was to charm the public and rally a depleted and demoralised team to respectable performances he might have felt he belonged on the same field. Now he shares the field with men who have thousands of test runs, others with hundreds of test wickets and all of them selected because they are considered the best available to win a match, not to save CA's reputation. Now your performances and tactics are judged by the press, public and perhaps your own team mates who might privately grumble about being captained by a fill in player. Maybe the only thing that stops a rebellion against his leadership is the fact there still isn't a clear alternative. So he's saved by circumstances again, but everyone knows it.

Paine makes a lot of errors. A repeat offender. As long as he remains our captain he needs support from the team's senior staff who should be smart enough to know that he wouldn't even be in the team - or at least its captain - except for sandpaper gate. Perhaps he does get support. That we seem to repeat the mistakes of Headingley and all Langer can say is that he got a sense of deja vu suggests he isn't or that Langer is incapable of assisting. I accept the circumstances arguing Paine's captaincy are still relevant. But it creates an obligation for the coaching staff that they are too ****ing dumb to meet and why I blame them more so.

 

[stephen]

Paine got picked before sandpapergate. He was (and still is) the best available keeper- batsman in Australia.

His captaincy isn't great but the only realistic alternatives are Smith (again), Khawaja or Head (both of which are not in the side). Fast bowlers shouldn't be captains and Lyon doesn't have the personality for it.

 

[jimmy101]

Paine got picked before sandpapergate. He was (and still is) the best available keeper- batsman in Australia.

Surely Alex Carey must be close to getting a baggy green by now?

 

[Arachnodouche]

Ppl picking on Paine a little too much. The bowling under him shares the small matter of some 800 Test wickets or more among them. As a collective they ought to be able to dictate strategy to a provisional captain. But other than Cummins - and even he's been guilty of overdoing the short stuff - the rest have been found wanting tactically and creatively. Fine, maybe the bowlers for all their experience are incapable of switching plans on the fly (which is a damning indictment of itself). Fault then also lies in equal measure with the backroom staff who've been far too passive and haven't supplied the team with adequate plans B and C.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Or India have been just too good for Aussie bowlers.

The same attack was pulverising NZ, Pak.and SL, and being hailed as World's best at the beginning of the series.

Yes, Paine did commit a few mistakes, but some of them were forced by India - Pant's aggression for example.

 

[Smudge49]

Ppl picking on Paine a little too much. The bowling under him shares the small matter of some 800 Test wickets or more among them. As a collective they ought to be able to dictate strategy to a provisional captain. But other than Cummins - and even he's been guilty of overdoing the short stuff - the rest have been found wanting tactically and creatively. Fine, maybe the bowlers for all their experience are incapable of switching plans on the fly (which is a damning indictment of itself). Fault then also lies in equal measure with the backroom staff who've been far too passive and haven't supplied the team with adequate plans B and C.

Unless you haven't noticed, Langer is the guy who wears the big boy pants in this Aussie set up.

There are no Plan A-B-C's

There is just one plan, the plan Langer makes and Paine tries to carry out... in flat conditions it generally means scaring the batsmen into submission with the short stuff, tbh that's pretty much what someone like Starc is there in the team to do after his first spell is done.

Also I just won't accept that a guy like Lyon despite experience of 100 tests, won't want close-in fielders on last days of test matches in Aussie conditions, because bat-pad is his primary method of dismissing guys in Australia.

 

[honestbharani]

The Grade Cricketer podcast was interesting about these discussions. They felt that if Australia played exactly how they played against India, they would have beaten just about anyone else. Maybe the Aussie selectors feel the same way too and that is why there are very few changes in the squad for RSA.

 

[Spark]

The Grade Cricketer podcast was interesting about these discussions. They felt that if Australia played exactly how they played against India, they would have beaten just about anyone else. Maybe the Aussie selectors feel the same way too and that is why there are very few changes in the squad for RSA.

I think that's mostly true but there's also the case of the Ashes in 2019, where frankly Australia was clearly the better side in all departments yet dropped two Tests anyway.

It could well just be that Pujara is kryptonite for this attack. None of what happens in the last two Tests - at least in terms of the failures to bowl India out - happens if Pujara nicks off early a few times and the bowlers remain fresher throughout.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That we seem to repeat the mistakes of Headingley and all Langer can say is that he got a sense of deja vu suggests he isn't or that Langer is incapable of assisting. I accept the circumstances arguing Paine's captaincy are still relevant. But it creates an obligation for the coaching staff that they are too ****ing dumb to meet and why I blame them more so.

Fault then also lies in equal measure with the backroom staff who've been far too passive and haven't supplied the team with adequate plans B and C.

I mentioned this in the 'Sack Langer' thread, but I read an article somewhere sometime last year (which I cannot find; it was just after the Melbourne test at the very latest) in which the writer wondered what the actual function of our coaching staff is, for there isn't much evidence that they coach. Sure, fast bowlers might be especially thick and captains too busy sledging or something, but someone in the stands ought to have been able to recognise, "You know, this isn't working," or think, "We should do this instead," and tell the team accordingly. Even if not the Gnome, somebody else may have been able to have a quick word, if not during the match, at least at the end of the day or between matches.
The article talked about our other staff similarly, noting that someone actually asked Hick before the series what he was doing to help some of our batsmen correct their obvious technical deficiencies, and though the answer had the usual rubbish about confidence or natural games or somesuch, it could be distilled into one word: "Nothing."

 

[honestbharani]

I mentioned this in the 'Sack Langer' thread, but I read an article somewhere sometime last year (which I cannot find; it was just after the Melbourne test at the very latest) in which the writer wondered what the actual function of our coaching staff is, for there isn't much evidence that they coach. Sure, fast bowlers might be especially thick and captains too busy sledging or something, but someone in the stands ought to have been able to recognise, "You know, this isn't working," or think, "We should do this instead," and tell the team accordingly. Even if not the Gnome, somebody else may have been able to have a quick word, if not during the match, at least at the end of the day or between matches.
The article talked about our other staff similarly, noting that someone actually asked Hick before the series what he was doing to help some of our batsmen correct their obvious technical deficiencies, and though the answer had the usual rubbish about confidence or natural games or somesuch, it could be distilled into one word: "Nothing."

Also, contrast this with what the Indian coaching staff did. The entire leg side lines, batting line up shuffles, team selection calls, bringing Ashwin on early etc etc. have all seem to have originated from the coaching staff. Seems Vikram Rathore made presentations on the lines and lengths the Aussies bowl and asked batsmen, during lockdown, one to one on how they plan to combat that and how they see themselves making runs against that kind of attack etc. It does seem like India were a lot more prepared for this series than Australia were. Wonder how much they took the foot off the pedal in terms of planning and prep once they heard Virat was going back after the first test.