The Australian coaching role should be split by format

I very nearly agree Ian. I'm always interested in what a coach has to say about a player's technique, be it bowling or batting (or keeping/fielding for that matter). Last year for example, I would have been really interested to know what Langer thought about Mitchell Starc's form and why he was down in pace, accuracy, fitness(?) and confidence. The problem is, Langer's also a selector so if he keeps choosing a guy who's out of form, he's hardly likely to show me any "elite honesty" by dissecting Starc's action and telling me honestly where his faults are. That would be the only time I want to hear from them. Otherwise, "seen but not heard" should be their approach

Yes, cricket is about the players, the captains, and the selector/s who select the players (of which the coach is usually one of them, but not always). The coaches (like loudmouth Langer) are now given a platform in the media and by journalists they don't deserve.

Trevor was the main reason England have been so dominant in the white ball game in recent years.The thing we loved about him was that no one here rarely heard him speak or knew anything about him.That to me is what a cricket coach should be all about.The actions,not the words.

That’s why I liked Trevor Bayliss.

Surely what Australia (and the rest of the cricket world) needs now,at least for the next 6 months,is a coach who just does that and keeps his head down and mouth shut.It's a players game.I've never watched,listened or read about a days play because I want to hear what the coach has to say at the end of it.The day a coach raises his bat at Lords after scoring a match winning century or having taken 7-20 in a brilliant spell of bowling,I'll admit defeat.Until then,please,the coaches of the world,stay in the background,speak when spoken to and let the players entertain us all.If we want your opinions,we will ask you for them.I,for one,wont!

I like the idea, but I'm not sure about the execution. Every single person named in the article above is a valid choice, but where does the split lie? I'd prefer, as some have already mentioned, to see a split with one taking Tests and ODIs and the other taking T20s. I'd also like to see Ponting given a go. He had great success with Delhi, and whilst that's only one series, I think it's a good indication of the success he could have with international players.

I haven't read your whole comment Paul, but I agree totally the split should be between t20 and the main coach doing test and odis. Especially considering so few odis are played these days outside of world cups every four years.

Hi Paul, re looking for an international coach, it is more about widening the net to find the best candidate. Perhaps someone with a different perspective, or someone well-travelled could be handy given Aus’s underwhelming away performances in particular. The best candidate may still turn out to be Australian but I get the sense in Australian cricket that if you didn’t play for Australia or at least in the Sheffield Shield, you’re not worth consideration. Mickey Arthur is an interesting one. I’d love to see his Aus record compared to Lehmann and Langer. I suspect it would be comparable but he was unceremoniously sacked whereas these guys have very pointedly not been, despite major issues.

Personal opinion only of course: Between the nation, their state, their BBL side, their IPL side, etc, players are already pulled too many different ways in too many different systems. There might be a case for a designated "senior assistant" to take on some white ball tours or something, but keeping it in one overall system is surely a better move. While there aren't that many players who play all three formats, there are enough and it won't always be senior players.

Not a fan of Shastri the coach. I don't see what value he adds. I've heard some suggest he adds a bit of backbone, but that's not what Aussie cricket needs, it's guys maximising heir talent. Happy to be educated, but he seems like he's been dead lucky to be the right bloke at the right time as a coach, rather than making a massive difference to the team

Yeah maybe. I don’t really know who would be out in the international arena. But it might for example be helpful to secure a coach that has had success with national T20 teams as this is an area Australians seem to struggle with in international competition. — Ravi Shastri finishes up as India’s 3 format coach after the WC…. —- Phil Simmons – has won a T20WC and was very successful in building up Ireland, though he would have to be poached off of CWI.

I think that's reasonable if the contenders in Australia were underwhelming, but these guys named in this piece as well as Ponting would be able to do either job pretty comfortably I'd have thought.

Probably more about casting the talent net as wide as possible.

If the coaches are split, is Ben Oliver’s current remit sufficient to oversee all three formats? He oversees the 3 selection panels, but is this enough to manage the competing interests of the 3 formats in terms of when/how players allocate their time and energies to the Tests/ODIs and T20s. Or does CA go back to the more expansive Pat Howard role? That didn’t seem to be working in the last few years of his tenure which ended in 2018 when Australia was performing miserably in ODIs (losing 22 of 26 across 2017 and 2018) and T20s. If Australia is to split coaching roles, someone needs to have a coordinating oversight involvement.

On the surface, splitting the roles seems a sound, sensible approach but I don't think it is. First of all, where should the split be made? 99% of people would say one blokes coaches Test cricket while another coaches white ball cricket, ie ODI & T20, but I'd argue the split should be one coaching Tests & ODIs, while the other coaches T20. That's because there are far more similarities between Tests & ODI's where more batsmen have more time to build innings, bowlers have to get through more overs, captains have to think far more strategically about filed placements, etc. On that basis, who should be a new coach? If Langer does well in the WC and the team wins the Ashes convincingly, it'd be harsh to sack him before his contract expires. Lets say his contract runs it's course and the teams he coaches take all before them over the first 6 months of next year, Aussie teams have a full schedule of games of all three formats against Sri Lanka, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and finish with Tests against Sri Lanka in June/July. Does his contract get renewed? Does CA go for two coaches? There's no doubt JLs had an ugly 6 months, which hasn't been helped by a lack of "elite honesty" from players,as well as public expectations Australia can beat teams overseas when 8 or 9 players are missing from squads. There's a new chairman of selectors, Langer will have all players available to choose from and lots of different formats to win. If he doesn't, change is needed, but what he and the team succeeds?

what would the sqaud gain from having an international coach, Camo? I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I read your comment and thought "Mickey Arthur".

I agree with splitting the roles, it’s too much for any individual, particularly with the added pressures of bubble life. As far as Langer’s contract not being extended next year, I think I’ll be going with the opinions of the various ex-players and captains, who have all said that we should see what happens in the Ashes and make a decision based on that. These are the guys who actually have some first hand experience in what it takes to produce a world class cricket team, as opposed to the various journos and self appointed ‘experts’ who rekon he should go.

I reckon they have to look internationally. Particularly for white ball cricket. Australia appears to be behind the curve in T20 in particular. Maybe Jayawardene, S Fleming etc.