All out 62. It wasn’t quite Trent Bridge 2015, but it wasn’t far off either.
Australia’s lowest ever total in limited-overs cricket saw it crash to a 4-1 T20 series defeat to Bangladesh in Dhaka overnight.
This was the same Bangladesh, let’s not forget, that Australia was “embarrassed” to lose to in 2017. The same nation it has cancelled tours on and generally treated as second-class citizens in cricket’s hierarchy.
But there’s only one side embarrassed this morning.
The loss — Australia’s fifth-straight T20 series defeat — puts huge question marks around Justin Langer’s increasingly tenuous role as coach in the format.
(Photo by Matt King – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Monday night’s result was the team’s 15th T20 defeat in 21 games. The Australian coach now has to confront an ugly truth: that his side are a middling outfit whose hopes of T20 World Cup success increasingly rely on standout individual performances. Even then, progressing beyond the ground stages would appear a 50-50 prospect.
Langer’s default position in the last 12 months is to provide mitigating circumstances following defeats. When his side were comprehensively beaten by the West Indies last month it was because they were missing star players. Oh, and it was the off-season.
“Our guys hadn’t played any cricket for three months … the West Indies had come off a series against South Africa, they were a bit more battle-hardened.”
He made the point of referencing India’s population when Australia’s lost its most recent home Test series. Langer even blamed Australia’s slow over rate in the Boxing Day Test, a move that cost them a spot in the inaugural World Test Championship final, on the absence of the team manager.
But now the excuses have run dry.
In the last month India and England have showcased their deep reserves of talent, with second and even third-string sides claiming limited-overs wins. Australia, by contrast, were dominated by the West Indies and Bangladesh with only a handful of players absent.
Sure, missing Glenn Maxwell, David Warner, Pat Cummins and Marcus Stoinis was significant. But do Australia’s fortunes truly rest on the shoulders of so few?
For the upcoming T20 World Cup it would seem they do.
Despite a large body of work reflecting his side’s mediocrity, Langer remains in complete denial about their place in the global pecking order. His recent claim that Australia remained level with the world’s two best white-ball sides was at best ill-judged and at worst deluded.
“There’s no way I’d say we’re behind India and England in terms of talent,” he declared a fortnight ago. “Every single time we have a selection meeting – it’s so hard in Australian cricket because there are so many guys you could pick. That’s really positive.”
His head is almost entering the sand.
There is now a reliance, an unfair expectation, that Maxwell, Warner and Stoinis will blast Australia out of its malaise in the World Cup. The reliance on few is an entirely unsustainable model at T20 level.
Some point to Langer’s three BBL titles as proof of his worth as a T20 coach, but those credits are fast running out. While it’s not entirely his fault that Australia’s T20 team has not kept pace with other nations, he could and should have been the key driver of change, like Trevor Bayliss was in England.
If it wasn’t already clear that the Australian coach should not oversee all three teams, it is patently obvious now.
And there are a number of capable candidates from these very shores who could and should replace Langer in the game’s shortest format.
Ricky Ponting and Simon Katich must surely be names one and two on a Cricket Australia wish list. But that won’t happen now, just over two months from the World Cup.
More pressing is the make-up of Australia’s squad for that tournament.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the series against the West Indies and Bangladesh, despite playing a whopping ten games, is that Australia is no closer to confirming its 15 names for that tournament, and a host of questions remain.
Mitch Marsh was the side’s shining light, but will he remain at No. 3 when the others return? It’s unlikely.
Does Australia have anything resembling a capable finisher at Nos. 6 or 7 yet? Nope.
Who will keep wicket? It really is anyone’s guess.
Perhaps the biggest moment of clarity came late in the process. That is, that Nathan Ellis could be a genuine bolter for the squad and a real horses-for-courses selection in the UAE. Ellis returned 2-16 off his four overs on Monday night on an admittedly helpful surface. But it was a pitch not too far removed of what we might see in the Gulf.
Along with Kane Richardson he is the best slower ball exponent in Australia right now and could be Australia’s surprise packet of the tournament.
The Sports Lover
Roar Rookie
I think you’ve been proved correct. I’ve got nothing personal against Langer but I had doubts as soon as I heard he had been appointed. No doubt his style may suit some players. As a player he was incredibly intense and serious. It didn’t matter because he was part of a strong team that won regularly. However that intensity, wears most people down quickly. I’ve observed it personally in the sporting and corporate environment.
The Sports Lover
Roar Rookie
I think he’s job is definitely under scrutiny. Read Malcolm Conn’s article in today’s SMH.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
True.
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
Marty, my dear friend. I can focus on the positives. For example, despite not liking Lehmann, I still give credit for the WC victory. The issue is that I do not see positives with Langer. I don’t view a drawn series as a positive. I don’t see a home win against SL as a positive. That’s what you’re not understanding. By the way, read today’s news. The clown has again embarrassed himself. Keep defending him though Marty - he’s a winner. ????
Johnna
Guest
Don'y you dare bring Donald into this!
HR
Roar Rookie
"Just not cricket – how Channel Nine is destroying a legacy"
Marty
Roar Rookie
It’s not about shouting down the rooftops, it’s about acknowledging the positives along with the negatives, something that you are obviously incapable of. You’re obviously not a fan of the last couple of coaches, so who was the last great Australian coach?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Fair enough Dominic. I throw a few comments around now and then for light-hearted effect. Up to you if you want to focus on those as my "body of work".
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
As per my previous comment. Thanks again for everything Jeffrey. :thumbup:
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Ahh...sarcasm. Full circle and all that.
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
Ok Jeff, sure. My mistake. It’s all my fault for simply stating my opinion with some evidence on a forum that is built specifically for that. I don’t know what I was thinking. I clearly didn’t take into account your acute sensibilities. My apologies. All the best. Dominic
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"But you don’t discuss anything Jeffrey …. or at least you haven’t with me" Yeah, well maybe that comes down to how the initial comment to respond to is delivered, which sets the tone for subsequent engagement.
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
But you don’t discuss anything Jeffrey .... or at least you haven’t with me. Rather, you threw a sarcastic, petty comment out, to which I rightfully responded. Nothing of any meaning, substance or facts. So, if that’s what you refer to as ‘constructive engagement’, then I guess that is where we disagree. Thank you though for your free counsel... I’ll certainly file it in the appropriate place. All the best. Dominic
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
You’re right Marty, I don’t view a drawn series as a reason to shout the down the rooftops. The conversation isn’t about Lehman, Marty but about Langer. However, if truth be told I was not a Lehmann fan either. In fact, I believe that his tenure led to how we ended up in South Africa. That said, Lehmann still managed a World Cup victory (now that is an achievement worth mentioning). Back on topic though hey.... Langer. You’re right that Australia aren’t currently the force they once were, but then, no team is really - with the exception of India who are arguably at their strongest ever. England are average, West Indies have declined obviously, Sri Lanka are a shambles, Pakistan are inconsistent as always, South Africa are the weakest they have been since readmission. New Zealand - yep they too have grown in stature but aren’t a dominant force. So I’m not really sure what you’re point is there..... Australia should still be, with the players we have, the money that CA has (we are the second richest cricketing nation on the planet) and the fact it is our national sport (not AFL which is only played in Australia) performing a lot better than we are. You keep just repeating the drawn Ashes series as some vindication of Langer’s position however you have not explained, given all of the facts, why he should be retained. Facts are facts. Regardless of whether Lehman was also poor and regardless of the fact he’s had a drawn series in England - Australia has won a mere 12 of 28 series in the 3 years he’s been in charge. Not to mention all of the other little accomplishments he’s added to his CV (you know, like losing to Bangladesh for the first time and like Australia making their lowest ODI total ever)... Why is he not under severe pressure. My question, whether you like it or not, is both reasonable and valid. Based on an opinion ion, yes, but backed with solid evidence and stats. The fact that you have yet to make any just argument with any facts as to why he shouldn’t be, definitely confirms where you are coming from Marty. Shall we discuss Blinkers....... ??
Jeff
Roar Rookie
No need to come back as I'm not going anywhere. I happily engaged on this site with those that want to discuss objectively. Overall review by others of discussion points and opinions offered across multiple articles leaves me in a comfortable position re assessment of my constructive engagement. I'll leave it to you to work on your own social media commentary approach.
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
Jeffrey, my dear fellow. I simply respond to others’ comments. Remember this one: “ But we didn’t win the series Paul. It’s Un-Australian and demands torches and pitchforks.” Hence the sarcasm comment. “Rose coloured glasses” is a commonly used term referring to someone simply viewing things one way. Seriously Jeffrey, you don’t even know you’re doing it do you? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds my dear fellow. If you don’t like receiving sarcastic comments, don’t make them. Unlike you, I can take it and remain on topic and not get personal - such as trolling a persons history. Like I said, please, come back when you have something meaningful to contribute. Thank you Jeffrey.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"I don't... make things personal" "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" "you seem to view things through those rose-coloured spectacles" Stop while you are behind Dominic.
Marty
Roar Rookie
And how many of the seven test series prior to Langer taking over did we win? Two, that’s how many. The fact is that the Australian cricket team was not the dominant force it once was, and that clearly started before Langer took the reins. However, in the midst of all of that we managed to achieve something that hadn’t been done in 18 years, and you don’t see that as a positive? Interesting but not surprising, sums up perfectly where you’re coming from. Hard to see through those blinkers isn’t it?
Dominic Marsh
Roar Rookie
Incorrect again Jeffrey... I indeed ‘randomly’ log in to the site, when, like many many others, there is an article that takes my interest. Read the article with which you are engaging why don’t you Jeffrey - I merely agree with the author. Please, read all of my comments on this thread and you will discover the evidence with which I base my views. Unlike yourself, I don’t troll through others’ account history and make things personal. However I guess when you don’t have any real argument or opinion, that is what you’re left with hey Jeffrey... Perhaps take a hiatus from the site and come back when you wish to have an adult conversation and not just contribute throw away, sarcastic comments. Cheers.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Dominic, you're comments are the undisputable evidence that you are not objective, but rather come onto this site randomly every few months to be provocative. Your contributions (comments) history shows that your intent is simply to create controversy. So "my dear fellow", when you get serious about engaging on this social media site without lazy click-bait "look at me and give me your validation" and condescending/insulting commentary, we can seriously discuss the issues at hand. Otherwise we expect to hear from you after a few more months' break.