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.
JonnyP
Guest
Erm....Thanks for clearing that up Lindommer......?!!
dasilva
Guest
Chappell XII katich hughes ponting hussey clarke north haddin johnson krezja siddle hilfenhaus bollingers Healy bollingers replace lee that's it
dasilva
Guest
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/videoindex.aspx Click on cricket Click on video titled - Analysing today's cricket... You'll get the healey chappell team selections around 4 minute mark.
cosmos forever
Guest
Sheek - Healey and Chappel team selections during a short Cricket Show segment Day 4 or 5. Just tried to find it but Ch 9 web presence a bit like it's sports coverage - patchy and not up with the times at all (sorry - my day job showing through there!). From memory he had Symmonds, Hayden, Lee, Hauritz out as a miminum. I may have been exagerating the 6. He definitely had Hughes in.
Harry
Guest
For the past few series I have been alarmed at the obvious lack of planning and tactical acumen in our bowling and fileding, there seems to be little tactical planning for how to get the South African and Indian batsmen out. Is the analysis being done and the hard preparation, both mentally and physically? I see little evidence of it and otheres have been noted above, the impression is given that Ponting and his mates - Symonds and Hayden - have been given free reign. The old cliche - to stay number one you have to train as if you are number two - applies. On a related point, Channel 9 has to reign in Slater, Taylor and Healy. They are an embarrassment and offer little in the way of insight. Who is instructing these characters? Hoy, we had an excellent example in rugby of recently retired players/coaches afraid to criticise their mates, when Rod Kafer made some perfectly valid and on-the-mark comments about Gregan and the Brumbies. it was noticeable that the following week he pulled his head in - the mates had put the pressure on, to the detriment of rugby.
drewster
Guest
Couldn't agree more Spiro, It is obvoius that South Africa so far, Have out played Australia Not only on the field, But in the coaching and selection departments as well. Australia's Coaches, Selectors and administrators should bend over and be ready to cop a boot right up the backside from the public. As a lover of sport you must admire SA and the way they have gone about their business, But to be beaten the way Australia have and to renew a coaches contract on the back of losing 2 out of the last 3 series by such a long way would say it's not just the players who need to step up.
Jim Boyce
Guest
Spiro - What a high note to end the year on. There are a number of very interesting points, that you have raised in all sports , as the money and administrative mass rises. As we have discussed before so does the age , self glorification and financial dependence increase of the senior players and their inability to hear the refrain to leave the stage. The dynamics of the management of most of the major sports is unclear to say the least. Presumably Sutherland's decision re Nielsen was not delivered in a forum where he would have to respond to questions. The manner of its announcement answers that question but not only are there questions about the coach but selectors, captain and an administration that allows major weaknesses to develop in the bowling( swing and spin departments) and batting( middle order) attacks. That question is similar to Deans in Rugby, ie How far can the national coach influence coaching at the lower levels of the games hierarchy? While pondering how various codes of Australian sport do not calcify at the top, it is brilliant to see a team ,with an obvious elan , respond to its challenges in such a way.In Smit and Smith, they have produced captains of rare quality and purpose. The selection of South African teams has had to meet conditions of an extraordinary nature. I certainly missed the Nielsen appointment and the points you identify not only relate to cricket but also to rugby, now in a different point in the cycle. Other sports such as soccer have suffered some of these aspects in the past. I am never quite sure where the broadcasting media stand in this, as they account for 95%of revenue. Is Channel 9 an uninterested bystander? Let new year fall kindly on the citizens of Bondi Junction. Best Regards Jim
James Mortimer
Guest
Good article Spiro - you beat me to the punch. I had started writing a article about the mistake of re-appointing Neilson, but as it stands it is over 10,000 words - a little more than is ideal for an article........ And Hoy, nail on the head. Why is it administrators make mistakes when the finally tuned sporting minds of the Roarers have been singing the same tune for a long time. I see it not so much as the demise of the cricketing world superpower, but the slow killing of it by the men whose job it is to ensure this does not occur - chiefly the selectors. Even worse is the fact that David Boon and Merv Hughes I believe are on this same panel - as former players what the hell are they thinking.
Lindommer
Guest
JonnyP: "The players obviously still have their supporters as Sarah Palin’s daughter has just named her newborn Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston?!" Bristol Palin's son's surname is Johnston, note not Johnson, because that's his father's surname.
sheek
Guest
Cossie, Haven't heard or seen Chappelli's changes for Sydney. Could you please tell me his suggested team?
positive b sample
Guest
Well said Spiro. The whole structure of our cricket seems too lack accountability.You don't loose 2 tests from winning positions without flaws at every level: selectors,coach ,admin,medical staff and players. Do you think the selectors decision to hold on to out of form players has anything to do with advertising? The telecast is chock full of major sponser adds featuring current players.If Symonds,Lee and Hayden had been dropped it would have ruined the add campaigns for ford and kfc just to mention a few.
cosmos forever
Guest
As highlighted by Chapelli's AUS XI for Sydney (up to six changes) as opposed to Healey's (only replacing Lee and then only due to injury)...
Hoy
Guest
Australia has a real knack of taking things for granted in administrating sports. Why is it that the fans see problems, yet those in the position to do something bumble along? Granted India is a tough place to play and win, but the writing was on the wall there. Nothing was done about it. After Perth, there should really have been massive alarm bells going off. Yet the poeple directly involved seem bereft of ideas, of 1) that anything is wrong, and 2) how do they fix it if it is wrong. I am always interested to watch and listen to Chappell et al when they talk honestly about the team structure. You can really notice a big difference in the older ex-players honesty, and the new people like Slater/Tubs/Healy being very diplomatic, and saying that there is nothing to really be alarmed about. I am alarmed.
JonnyP
Guest
The players obviously still have their supporters as Sarah Palin's daughter has just named her newborn Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston?! Do they play cricket in Alaska?
cosmos forever
Guest
Don't want to sound like a broken record on this but I think the points you raise about Sutherland et al really say more about the power (and arrogance) of the player leadership group - Ponting, Symmonds and Hayden (I deliberately exclude Clark who's comments about not being involved in the bowling change discussion tell me that Ponting relies more on his 'great mates' than his vice-captain). I think Sutherland saying that the players and administrators like how he goes about his job is absolutely true - he leaves them alone and doesn't try and tell them what to do (not like that nosey Buchanan bloke who actually tried to COACH the team). So Australian cricket has what it wants - an all powerful captain and playing group who take little advice and in fact seem to dictate terms to the selectors and coach. A Coach who humbly offers a bit of advice and runs drills at training but really just carries the bags, and a CEO who seems more interested in being one of the blokes than leading the code (try getting crowds of more than 150 to domestic games like every other administrator in Australia has to to see if you really are any good at your job). And the results - the fall of the empire. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of administrators and players! Harsh - maybe...