Aussie Cricket
-
So CA offer Langer a six month contract extension, and Langer tells them to shove it and walks. The latest chapter in a sorry saga.
Which results in wailing and gnashing of teeth from ex-players, who think Langer has been fed to the wolves by a cabal of greedy selfish players and media.
Impartial, considered commentators like (cough) Matt Hayden have weighed in... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-05/cricket-australia-matthew-hayden-defends-justin-langer/100807674
It's a mess and CA have to own that. But the entitlement and hypocrisy shown by the ex-players is just breathtaking here. Langer was clearly a volatile bloke and the players didn't like him. In cricket that's more than enough cause to show you the door.
-
I’d have more sympathy for the players if they weren’t also broadly the same group of people who thought using sandpaper on the ball wasn’t the worst idea in the world. (Though of course the bowling group “didn’t know”……)
Langer does sound quite old school, and given how fragile some of the English players sounded during the Ashes, I’m not sure that he’d go well there for all the hype about it.
Because of the breakdown in the relationships, the outcome for Langer and the Australian side is inevitable, but the players and CA also deserve quite a few of the serves they are getting from Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, and co. Especially given one of the alleged ringleaders and his history in recent years.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
Langer was clearly a volatile bloke and the players didn't like him. In cricket that's more than enough cause to show you the door.
In cricket I think it should be the captains team, not the coaches. The coach should be there to provide support for the captain
The most important question is whether Cummins wanted to work with him or not
-
It should have been handled by CA before the end of the Ashes. They should have seen the writing on the wall, and given Langer the chance to go out on his own terms before the Hobart test.
Now maybe Langer would have thrown his toys at that point, but that's a risk worth taking to avoid where we are now.
I feel for the players. They were asked for their opinion as part of the process, and provided it. Now they are branded as precious egomaniacs, but where is the evidence that they are?
If the coach was a pyscho who made them uncomfortable, should they have lied to allow him to keep his job?
-
-
-
@bovidae said in Aussie Cricket:
I read that it was only some players who weren't happy with Langer. Have the publicised who they were?
Midway through last year a group of senior players approached CA to complain about Langer. They were Tim Paine, Aaron Finch and Pat Cummins. You would assume they represented the wider cohort.
I'd think if the players weren't united on this one we would know about it. Nobody has broken ranks thus far.
-
@nta said in Aussie Cricket:
@bovidae said in Aussie Cricket:
I read that it was only some players who weren't happy with Langer. Have the publicised who they were?
Not in so many words, but Cummins is clearly not.
Yes, the same article said that Cummins hasn't endorsed Langer. Lehmann also reckoned that 4 years was enough for any coach.
-
@duluth said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
Langer was clearly a volatile bloke and the players didn't like him. In cricket that's more than enough cause to show you the door.
In cricket I think it should be the captains team, not the coaches. The coach should be there to provide support for the captain
The most important question is whether Cummins wanted to work with him or not
Most generally agree but there is a weird dichotomy where if there are other viable captaincy options and you have a coach backed by the board then the captain is vulnerable. Also if the captain is coming to the end of their tenure their power seems to diminish to get what they want which happened with both Fleming and Steve Waugh. The reverse argument which was made for Hesson turfing Taylor was used for Vettori and others pushing Moles out.
The Director of Cricket model is probably best where both the coach and captain are his pick (or recommendation to the board), and it is ultimately their responsibility to handle all those vagaries.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I feel for the players. They were asked for their opinion as part of the process, and provided it. Now they are branded as precious egomaniacs, but where is the evidence that they are?
I reckon if you got an unexpected promotion three months ago and then absolutely sewered your offsider who had four years in the chair and was turning in good results in an effort to force them out that would seem a little egomaniacal.
I don't doubt that they genuinely believe he is the wrong man for the job, but massively question if they know if they have perspective to know who is the wrong or right person for that position. This is a group of mainly NSW players, most of whom were wunderkinds, a pretty myopic bunch who know nothing but success (injuries notwithstanding) - there are countless examples in other sports (the NBA in the last decade being the most obvious) which prove just because you are a natural talent doesn't mean that you can play GM/coach.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I feel for the players. They were asked for their opinion as part of the process, and provided it. Now they are branded as precious egomaniacs, but where is the evidence that they are?
I reckon if you got an unexpected promotion three months ago and then absolutely sewered your offsider who had four years in the chair and was turning in good results in an effort to force them out that would seem a little egomaniacal.
I don't doubt that they genuinely believe he is the wrong man for the job, but massively question if they know if they have perspective to know who is the wrong or right person for that position. This is a group of mainly NSW players, most of whom were wunderkinds, a pretty myopic bunch who know nothing but success (injuries notwithstanding) - there are countless examples in other sports (the NBA in the last decade being the most obvious) which prove just because you are a natural talent doesn't mean that you can play GM/coach.
The corporate comparisons sound nice but they don't work. The same ex-players who ascribe all the golden era success to themselves are now apparently fervent believers in the role of the coach. But you know as well as I do that the players are far more responsible for the 'good results' than the coach.
Cummins can own the last four years of good results far more than Langer can, IMO.
And I too doubt their perspective, but again that's CA's role, not the players. CA has to take input from a variety of sources and weigh it up, asking questions like 'what do these players know anyway?'.
That's why I'm critical of CA and not the players. The players are being cast as villains when all they did was do exactly what was asked of them by the governing body.
-
From a disinterested distance, no one comes out of this looking good.
-
Justin Langer was everything an Australian cricket coach needed to be. Until the game changed
Justin Langer helped lead Australian cricket out of crisis and into a new generation — one that must now go on without him, writes Dean Bilton.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
The corporate comparisons sound nice but they don't work. The same ex-players who ascribe all the golden era success to themselves are now apparently fervent believers in the role of the coach. But you know as well as I do that the players are far more responsible for the 'good results' than the coach.
Yeah isn't Langer part of the bunch that pretty much so disowned Buchanan from any of the phenomenal success that was the Waugh error?
Cummins can own the last four years of good results far more than Langer can, IMO.
Not close enough to the Aussie cricket team to know really, but doesn't the behaviour during Sandpaper gate suggest a team slightly out of control & needing some stern authority to get back into shape? Thus, if Langer hadn't been there, what could have happened?
And I too doubt their perspective, but again that's CA's role, not the players. CA has to take input from a variety of sources and weigh it up, asking questions like 'what do these players know anyway?'.
That's why I'm critical of CA and not the players. The players are being cast as villains when all they did was do exactly what was asked of them by the governing body.
Interesting situation full of colossal ego's basically. I think there is a real football crossover with he Aussie cricket team, in that there are very few people in the world who can actually manage it.
-
@majorrage said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
Cummins can own the last four years of good results far more than Langer can, IMO.
Not close enough to the Aussie cricket team to know really, but doesn't the behaviour during Sandpaper gate suggest a team slightly out of control & needing some stern authority to get back into shape? Thus, if Langer hadn't been there, what could have happened?
The most astute comment I read on this was from a journo who described Langer as something of a wartime general. He was needed in a time of crisis, and steered the ship ably through it. But then as things settled down his skill-set wasn't as well suited.
So now in the post-Sandpapergate era it's reasonable that a new coach be brought in to shepherd the team through the next phase.
-
@barbarian and you'd like to think that was made clear in all discussions at the top level i.e. "JL you're here to get us back on track - this isn't forever. Your contract goes for 4 years but if you do X, Y, and Z then we'll pay you a hefty bonus and part ways."
