Does Darren Lehmann deserve more criticism than he gets?

Few coaches had more love letters written to them than Darren Lehmann by the Australian cricketing media after the 2013-14 Ashes.

We were given countless (upon countless) articles of how he had rejuvenated a team in decline; how much better he was than Mickey Arthur; how he kept things simple, yet fun; about the joke of the day and family friendly environments; how he managed to be old school and new school at the same time.

Yes, okay, he’d lost 3-0 in England, but he had only just taken over; surely he was the man to make Australia become number one again?

Well it’s been almost three years now, and we’re still not number one; surely enough time has passed to ascertain whether Lehmann is actually any good.

It’s hard for cricket fans to do this, of course. No matter how many tour diaries we read and TV we watch, we’re not in the nets, or the dressing room; we don’t attend strategy meetings, or get to run around the oval, or hang out in the hotel bar. We have to guess.

But it can be an informed guess and there is plenty of evidence pointing against the fact that Darren Lehmann, if not a bad coach, is certainly no genius.

1) His record
Let’s write off that initial 3-0 loss to England, and agree that the 5-0 victory at home and 2-1 triumph in South Africa are massive feathers in his cap. Then there was a 2-0 loss against Pakistan in UAE, the failure to make the World T20 semis in Bangladesh, a 2-0 victory at home against India which should have been 4-0, a 2-0 victory against the terrible West Indies, a decent one day international record including a magnificent World Cup victory at home, and an appalling 3-2 Ashes loss in England this year, and a 2-0 victory over New Zealand at home (which was very nearly 1-1).

It’s not a bad record, but it is definitely not one of a great coach. We’re still a long way from being Test world champs, we still seemingly can’t win overseas to save our lives, and, a few key positions aside, the team maintains the same “unsettled” look it’s had since Lehmann took over. Which brings me to the next point…

2) His selections are all over the shop
The “common sense” era of Lehmann coaching/selecting “where everyone knows where they stand” has been just as confusing as the Andrew Hilditch era.

His passion for Mitchell Marsh at six has continued despite consistent lack of success – he even had the cheek to blame Australia’s Trent Bridge collapse for 60 at not having Mitchell Marsh in the side as if that would have helped.

He keeps giving chances to Shaun Marsh and ignores other batsmen who regularly average over 40 at first class level (Cosgrove, Klinger, Lynn). He settled doubt about Australia’s opening combination “once and for all” by announcing it would be Watson and Rogers – then promptly proceeded to go back on that, and shuttled Watson around the order just like everyone else had done.

He championed Haddin, then dropped him after one Test in England as if getting rid of the keeper isn’t tearing out the heart and soul of the side. Phillip Hughes (who, it should never be forgotten, suffered badly under Lehmann’s tenure) was shoved down the order, succeeded, had a bad Test, then was dropped.

He insisted on playing Starc and Johnson in tandem time and time again when they showed that they leaked runs and lost matches when played in tandem. Siddle, who might have kept things tight, was kept out of the side because he was deemed too slow. He championed Pat Cummins despite his shocking injury record, after which Cummins promptly proceeded, unshockingly, to get injured.

He tried Glenn Maxwell at three. He dropped Nathan Lyon for Ashton Agar.

True, there were other selectors involved in these decisions but Lehmann is one of them – and certainly he’s the one we never stop hearing from when it comes to selection policy.

3) He makes too many silly public pronouncements
Lehmann is forever saying something silly to the media, whether it’s encouraging Australian fans to boo Stu Broad; questioning Marlon Samuels’ bowling action; slagging off David Saker for talking up James Pattinson; giving performance time limits to Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja (“you’ve got two Tests”), but all the time in the world to Mitchell Marsh; whinging about being abused on twitter for asking for football tickets; getting all sensitive on Dirk Nannes’ sportsmanship allegations. Which brings us to the next issue…

4) He spends too much time talking to the media
Is there a cricketing coach in the world who talks to the press more than Lehmann? Barely a day goes by when he’s not talking to some reporter about selections, injuries, day night cricket, touring hijinks – and he’s rewarded by the cricket media with a comparative lack of criticism.

I don’t think a coach has played the media with such finesse since the heady days of Bob Simpson. When does he get time to coach? Which brings us to the next issue…

5) Players don’t seem to get better under Lehmann
Okay maybe that’s an exaggeration – Warner and Smith have gotten better. Maybe you can count Khawaja as well. Rogers got better, then retired. Johnson got better, then worse (I think Johnson would still be playing if Lehmann hadn’t made him bowl with Starc all the time).

Haddin got better then worse. The Marshes still look like they’re in the team on some work experience program. Clarke and Watson got worse. Lehmann era selections Doolan, Bailey, Agar and Maxwell seem a long way from ever getting back in the side.

Australian fielding has gotten worse. Starc and Johnson never figured out how to bowl effectively in tandem at Test level.

We still play badly overseas. The batting still feels completely reliant on Smith/Warner, The bowling still seems to struggle without Ryan Harris and/or a massive total to bowl to.

Lyon has gotten better but you get the impression that’s due to his specialist spin coach rather than Lehmann – fellow spinners Ahmed, Agar and Doherty all failed to blossom internationally under Lehmann’s watch.

I’m not saying Lehman should be sacked and/or is a bad coach. He has a great domestic record. As a Queenslander I will always be grateful for him helping lead the Bulls to a Sheffield Shield title in 2011-12.

But I am saying he’s a mediocre at international level. I am saying that his tactics, selections, theories and influence could stand a bit more scrutiny from the Australian media. I am saying he shouldn’t have more power than the Australian captain, in that he’s a selector and the captain isn’t. And I am saying that maybe Pat what-is-my-job-anyway Howard could ask him to talk to the media a little less.