I have been a fierce critic of the selections in India, homeworkgate and the leniency shown to Warner under the coaching tenure of Mickey Arthur.
Listening to Arthur’s interview’s since his sacking and learning of the death of his mother, he has been nothing but a picture of class and professionalism.
It makes you wonder how this kind of example didn’t transfer to the players, a number of whom have not demonstrated either of these chacteristics.
While I agreed that the appointment of new coach was needed, Arthur leaves with my respect.
I also have a feeling that while the buck does stop with him, he is taking the fall for the players. This is a group of players who have been underperforming, who think they are better then they are and are carrying egos much larger then they deserve. Unless Boof can knock the air out of these egos I fear it may be a while before we see changes.
It would be very interesting to hear Arthur’s views of what really went on behind closed doors with no microphones nearby.
It will be interesting to see if anyone else is held accountable. Will Inverarity be held accountable for some terrible selections? Pat Howard seems to be untouchable. What about James Sutherland? Should the buck stop at the very top?
Arthur has been held accountable for a team that looked poorly coached, who will be next?
Speaking of untouchable, I think there lies one of the big problems. There are a couple of players in the Australian team who have underperformed for some time but seem untouchable.
Watson hasn’t made runs for some time yet his position seems set in concrete. Maybe competition for his spot could help lift his performance? He needs to know that if he doesn’t make runs then that’s it, someone else who does will come in.
I think this was one of Arthur’s big mistakes, dropping Watson then bringing him back as vice-captain. It was like they discplined him but then massaged his ego to keep the toys in the pram.
Boof has a big challenge ahead. He can start by bursting a few egos and telling the players they must perform to keep their positon, and if they don’t then they should start looking over their shoulder. This includes things like fielding, running between wickets and professionalism of the team.
Something didn’t work with Mickey Arthur as coach, the results showed that. The team culture showed that. But Mickey himself seems to be a man of class and professionalism.
Anton Hartnick
Guest
Just maybe the Aussies don't know that their players need discipline 2 b successfull, u can hire and fire but players need 2 take some responsibility. When u were on top u'r players performed. Now that they don't they blame the coach. U can't build a world team in a year.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Making players write essays on why they didn't succeed surely didn't help. South Africans are very methodical, very rigorous, and don't suffer fools gladly, to use the old adage. That's not to say Arthur is not a good coach. It just isn't the right fit for Australia at this point. Or, maybe, ever. Cultural differences are wider than one might think. In any case, I think it was a pretty harsh decision to oust him so close to the Ashes.
Bearfax
Guest
Mickey was a square peg in Australia's round hole. I sensed he wasnt the answer soon after he started and began promoting players to test positions based on one or two spectacular innings without consideration of their performances in the longer term. He also seemed to have favourites who were being promoted while better performed players over the longer term were being ignored. His decisions too often seemed knee jerk, his manner with his players inconsistent, and he didnt seem able to give cricketers, especially the younger batsmen, confidence, reassurance. With experienced players he seemed much better suited, but with Australia's novices, especially in the batting line up he presided over, all of the younger batsmen's performances deteriorated, suggesting a systemic failure in the coaching methods. Every one of the young batsmen coming through have struggled under Arthur's guidance, whether because of loss of confidence or lack of support or other reasons. Both Khawaja and Hughes for example, despite technical issues, were the best young batsmen coming through, and both had been highly successful at first class standard. Both were sent away to address issues and both performed admirably in all forms of the game, thereby demanding reinstatement.into the test side. But Hughes has faltered markedly since back with Mickey, and Khawaja must have thought his deodorant wasnt working, given his lack of opportunities and he must have lost confidence quickly. Warner obviously reacted in another way after very encouraging early form. Smith coped a little better but even he had problems and Watson's performances have been deteriorating markedly over the past 18month. Only Cowen, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting maintained their standard, but of course they are far more experienced. I suspect we will start to see the Hughes, Khawajas, Warners, Smiths etc blossom under Lehmann because he obviously gives a sense of deep paternal interest in each of is players. Mickey just didnt seem to know how to handle these young bucks and ended up I believe contributing to their serious loss of form. The change had to happen.