Why was Tim Nielsen’s contract renewed?

 

Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, 31 Dec 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:

 Australian Cricket, Cricket, Denis Fitzgerald, Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis, James Sutherland, Matthew Hayden, Mitchell Johnson, Ricky Ponting, South Africa, Tim Nielsen

15 Have your say

Email

After South Africa defeated Australia at the MCG for its first series victory in Australia since the 1910-1911 series, the question has to be asked of the chief executive of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland: why was a coach who presided over a team that was out-played technically, strategically and tactically given an extension of his contract to 2011?

You would have thought that this sort of consideration by Cricket Australia would have followed a series of Test victories. But in fact, the announcement of Nielsen’s contract extension was made after a series loss in India and the loss of the first Test against South Africa at Perth.

Also, why was the announcement made only a couple of days before Christmas?

As an long time journalist, I know that the best time to bury a news item is before big holiday periods, like Christmas. Was this Cricket Australia’s game? Make the announcement that should have been big news and controversial (given the poor performances by the Australian team) at a time when everyone’s minds are otherwise engaged with festive activities?

In announcing the extension of Nielsen’s contract, Sutherland made, in my opinion, an extraordinary justification: “We were really comfortable with the initial appointment … We continue to be impressed by the way he goes about his job … and we know that players and administrators have great confidence in his ability.”

Well, count me out of this. Nielsen seems to be a pleasant, likable chap, and no doubt an excellent coach. The problem with extending his contract is that the Australian side has become a diminished side in terms of bowling and batting (admittedly the coach doesn’t actually bat or bowl) and, most importantly, in terms of field placing, use of the bowlers, strategy and tactics, something where the coach’s input should be crucial.

How any administrator can be so complacent as to be ‘impressed’ with a coach whose side could only take four wickets when the opposition is set 414 runs to win a Test, and only one wicket in a run chase of only 183 a Test later is beyond my comprehension.

Let’s make the point again, the coach doesn’t actually bat or bowl. But he should exert a powerful influence, if he is up to the task, on how the bowling and batting is done. You’d have to say that what has happened with the Australian batting and bowling against a strong-willed South African side is anything but impressive.

In the Sun-Herald last week there was an interesting article quoting the former New Zealand coach John Bracewell pointing out that Matthew Hayden had a flaw in his game with a lazy right shoulder that dropped when he was on the drive and forcing him to loft the ball into the gully and the covers.

So how was Hayden dismissed in the Melbourne Test? Caught in the gully and then in the second innings at short cover.

Surely the job of the coach is to work with batsmen to get rid of obvious technical flaws?

Then there were all the tactical and strategic mistakes made by Australia in the two Tests against South Africa.

At Perth, for instance, it should have been obvious that one of the ways to put pressure on the South Africans in their mammoth run chase was to bring time into the equation. But instead, Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis were allowed a flood of easy runs towards the end of the last day, which meant that the time equation was taken out of play.

This was a major strategical mistake.

At the MCG, with South Africa facing a second innings chase of only 183 and time not being a factor, Ricky Ponting did not go full bore to take the ten wickets needed for victory. He did not use his most lethal bowler, Mitchell Johnson, until the score was 54-0.

Only rarely were the bowlers given the attacking fields, with fieldsmen within eye-contact of the batsmen throughout the South African run chase.

This was a tactical mistake.

Compare this with the South Africans.

Batsmen were regularly challenged, especially in Australia’s crucial second innings at the MCG, with provocative and unsettling field placing. For one ball, for instance, Neil McKenzie was placed about a metre from Ponting who immediately belted a ball into his stomach and was lucky he wasn’t caught. Later he holed out to short cover on 99, the ball after Graeme Smith had moved there.

I took several pages of notes throughout the Test on the mistakes of strategy and tactics made by the Australians which made the South African task of winning much easier than it should have been.

It defies belief that a CEO could be impressed with what went on, and did not go on, and would endorse the coach whose strategic and tactical input should have been so much better.

A similar criticism, too, must be levelled against the selectors: they have chopped and changed with their spinners, they’ve stuck with former champions who are clearly over the hill, they selected an injured player who can’t bowl his favoured medium-pacers as the all-rounder, they’ve denied young champions a chance to start on what should be a glittering Test career, and they’ve failed to pick sides for specific conditions (there was no into the wind swing bowler for Perth, for instance).

Presumably, Cricket Australia’s James Sutherland is ‘impressed’ with the selector’s poor work, as well. Sutherland, in my opinion, is rapidly becoming the Denis Fitzgerald of Australian cricket, an administrator with the knack of picking the wrong coaching and selecting staff.

The contrast between the administrative arrogance and complacency (where are the special camps for young Australian fast bowlers and spinners?) of Australia and the focused, intelligent approach by the South Africans has made the difference in the performances of the two sides.

Australia had both Tests at its mercy. But both times poor planning and execution by the home side, and outstanding planning and execution in moments of crisis by the visitors, turned the tide.

The irony here is that in snatching victory from the jaws of defeat in two Tests, it was South Africa that played like a true-blue Australian side and Australia that played like a South African side that did not have the heart or brains to push on for a victory.

Australia has lost its first Test series in Australia for 17 years.

For the first time since 1910-11, South Africa has won a Test series in Australia, after nine attempts.

South Africa has now won 119 Test victories and lost 118 Tests. This is the first time it is on the winning side of its Test result ledgers. Four other countries have a winning ledger: Australia, West Indies, England and Pakistan (a good trivia question!)

It will be interesting to see what – if anything – the Australian cricket brains trust comes up with during the Sydney Test against South Africa starting on January 3, 2009.