Player power: Be careful what you wish for...

Its an anomaly that Test Cricketers are looking to assert their power and influence in a format that is dwindling . Reminds me of here in South Africa with a 60% unemployment rate the Trade Unions continue to call the shots in and outside of the workplace. . Its illogical . In T20 Cricket however , real power rests with the IPL franchise owners and investors , some of the more cynical would argue that it rests with the gambling syndicates too. Players will dance to any tune given the money on display . The boss says jump the player only asks how high .Good luck to the players of say the Chennai Superkings trying to tell its board who they want and don't want as coach .

Sounds like you're in favour of a dictatorship. If he's doing something wrong that will lose you a match, who's going to tell him? Fixed mindset captaining.

shockingly so

Yeah, partly agree. But he is deeply conservative.

i don't think he's the archetype at all. his faux mysticism and pop psychology totally contradicts the old boys. it's a mixed message.

I don't understand why there is this assumption that they are less accountable than they were under Langer? Warner endured 5 tests of tripe in the 2019 Ashes, after not playing for a year, and held his spot right through until Langer's axing. The only talk I've heard from the Australian camp about Warner being dropped is in the last few days. From everything I've read, the players' gripe with Langer was about his volatility and having to 'walk on eggshells' around him, not about being held accountable. I can't assume that's 100% correct, but neither can people just assume that players are suddenly being held less accountable in the dressing room now than they were a couple of years ago. But then there's a bigger question of why we seem to attribute issues of team selection to the captain and the coach. The coach is only one of three selectors, and while the captain obviously gets a say he (correctly) doesn't have a vote at all. So if we're upset that Head gets dropped and Warner keeps his spot, or that we didn't pick Agar as a left-arm offie (ignoring for the moment that it would have come at the expense of the bloke who took 70% of our wickets), why does the finger get sqarely pointed at Cummins and McDonald? If you want accountability, you need selectors who are willing to ruffle feathers by making tough calls, and to disagree with the coach (who naturally has a relationship with the playing group). And as much as it pains a Tasmanian to say this, George Bailey's 'I'm mates with all the players' approach seems counterproductive to that. Throw in the fact that Dodemaide was purely an administrator for more than 20 years before his appointment as a selector and I think that's where the finger needs to be pointed. If Cummins and McDonald are saying to the other selectors 'we need Davey's experience, he'll come good' then it's their role to point out how unlikely that is at this stage of his career and select someone who can do a better job. The other issue for me is preparation. A Steve Smith masterclass in 2017 aside - where we probably would have lost 3-1 or 4-0 without his genius - Australia hasn't been competitive in India since 2004. I don't think its a coincidence that during this period, we've rarely spent much time in India (or anywhere else) accimatising prior to the first test of a series. I get that there's a lot more cricket being played in the modern era, but if our administration is going to keep sending teams overseas with only a week or so to prepare for vastly different conditions then they can't seriously be surprised when the players perform below their best.

matth is pointing out that the article incorrectly says Head is right handed

Don't worry. It's the usual approach here when people's ideas are confronted. (1) I was only joking. (2) you only called me out because you're too serious/woke. Of course if these people were really light-hearted and not snowflakes, they wouldn't be venting their spleen because Pat believes in climate change. ;)

I guess that's a yes then. Cheers.

Depends on your KPIs. Given the state of the team, any competent coach would have been an improvement. The return of Smith and Warner from suspension also contributed to results, as did the emergence of Labuschagne. While we retained the Ashes away (a drawn series), we lost two home series against India. The second was particularly difficult to watch as the issues from Lehman's tenure were repeated (a focus on fast bowling anywhere but on the stumps etc). Having said that, this argument's probably been rehashed to death. Re Ponting - it's one thing to look insightful in the commentary box. It's another thing to coach. There's plenty a slip betwixt the cup to the lips.

To be fair, looking at it Langer was a success, the state he took the team over in compared to the state his tenure ended was a massive improvement. I really don’t think Ponting would be a failure, every sign points towards him being a brilliant coach and a lot of players have come out and said it.

Other than one well-known exception that proves the rule, Messiah complexes tend to result in a flameout and recriminations at the end. Didn't we think Langer was the messiah post sandpaper? Prior to that Boof was going to keep things simple after homework-gate and we had years of 'pace pace pace'. McCullum's raging success has come off a pretty small sample size thus far. See how fast the English press turn on him after they lose a series. Wait, look and see how fast we've turned on Cummins after his first Test defeat as captain.

Disagree. The messiah appointment regularly does not end well - James Hird is the classic case. No-one should be given what they want. They are just human beings who should have to apply for the position and be made accountable for their actions.

I agree. Langer is the archetypal old boys club.

I'm responding to the words that you used. So you've got it wrong and that's the best you can do?

Do you take everything in life so literally?

Ponting demands respect, you listen to him commentate and you hear probably the best cricket brain the world (now that Warnie no longer with us). His standing in the game is such that he would be a voice of authority to all the players, whilst still being likeable enough to not put them on the wrong side like Langer. Without being a fly on the wall we don’t know for sure, but McDonald strikes me as too laid back and lassez-faire, a background type figure. Let’s not forget that England employed McCullum on a similarly small CV (in fact smaller) and he has proven a raging success. I think Ponting could be that figure for Australia, I really do. A Ponting test and Dizzy limited overs combo would be my way forward. I don’t think McDonald is inspiring enough as a leader to be the kind of guy the players really want to play for, nor do I think Cummins is actually.

I'm not saying Ponting wouldn't be a good coach, but the suggestion that CA should make an outrageous offer to hire a coach with limited coaching credentials (outside of success in the IPL and a small stint with the ODI team) is faintly ridiculous. How much experience has Ponting got in coaching at the first class scene? On what basis do you form the view that he is 'the best man for the job'? Great captains don't always make good coaches, and the jury is probably out on the former. I think most people would do pretty well with the batting and bowling line-ups he had as a player ;)

This is becoming like US politics where the conservatives have moved so far to the right that any middle position is now seen as left-wing. Again, we don't really know what goes on behind the scenes other than that there seems to be less yelling and deadly stares going around. Does that make McDonald a big softy?

Middle ground I agree would be the best. We’ve gone from a coach that (rightly or wrongly) ran the show, to a situation where the players have too much freedom and control. A Ponting or Gillespie like figure would be that middle ground.