Test Surely the Cummins/McDonald captain/coach setup is the worst in Australian Test history

[big_e]

Pat Cummins, captain of the ICC Men's Test Team of the Year

 

[samFFC]

Pat Cummins, captain of the ICC Men's Test Team of the Year

Too many Poms, just as eth-dog predicted.

 

[Gethelred]

Too many Poms, just as eth-dog predicted.

They just play too much cricket not to have an overwhelming statistical advantage. If anyone has a semi decent year they're a shoe-in unless someone's had a bolter.

 

[eth-dog]

Too many Poms, just as eth-dog predicted.

 

[Boston tiger]

Cummings getting rid of Langer just showed how great a Captain he is. Although it was a no brainer it still had to be done. I have patriotic Pat up there with Ian Chappell as our greatest captain. Tactically… who cares You have the slip cordon .
He is a man of his times.

 

[Xtreme]

Cummings getting rid of Langer just showed how great a Captain he is. Although it was a no brainer it still had to be done. I have patriotic Pat up there with Ian Chappell as our greatest captain. Tactically… who cares You have the slip cordon .
He is a man of his times.

If he had a basketball background he'd be Australia's greatest captain of any sport any team of all time!

 

[DaRick]

Bob Simpson didn't lead the team. He was very much there in support of Border who was leading the side.

The same applied with Geoff Marsh. It was Mark Taylor who led the team.

Next was Buchanan, he was in the background during Steve Waugh's captaincy, but he pushed forward a lot more at the end of his coaching stint after Punter replaced Waugh. Maybe its a bit because Punter wasn't as clearly senior to the rest of the side as the previous three captains. This is also around the time where we start hearing things like Warne telling Buchanan to **** off, because we know how to play cricket.

Neilsen replaced Buchanan and its very much back to the coach supporting the captain led side.

Michael Clarke takes over captaincy, and we also get Mickey Arthur. The foreign born coach that doesn't understand the culture of Australian cricket. This is exemplified with the home work saga. Where Arthur tries to be an authoritarian figure over the side. Darren Lehmann comes in a role supporting Michael Clarke and later Smith's sides.

Smith is like early Punter, in that he captains a side full of a lot players who have been there just as long as he has. So he's less of senior figure in the side. So Lehmann becomes a bit more prominent.

Then we have the ball tampering. Boof, Smith and Warner are dumped. And Justin Langer comes in. We have Justin Langer front and centre in the media talking about how he is going to lead the culture of the team. He's the authoritarian figure that rules the side. Its Mickey Arther version 2. Except he's not a foreigner, and the blow back from the ball tampering saga curtails the players hitting back. The Senior batsmen who as solidly set in the side were banned, the rest of the batsmen are questionable in their position in the side. The bowlers are ducking for cover and we don't have bowling captains. So the captain is set as Tim Paine.

The weakest Australian captain since Kim Hughes when all the real players went to World Series Cricket. Paine shouldn't have even been in the side. Alex Carey was at his best in Redbacks sides that were actually at the top of the ladder. Chris Hartley was also playing really well at the Bulls. Tim Paine was on the verge of retiring from first class cricket. And the terrible decision in selecting Paine was compounded by making him Captain. Although it did give Justin Langer a captain that would be clearly subserviant to him. This was Justin Langer's Australian Test cricket side.

Eventually the time from the ball tampering saga ending up extending enough that the players were able to make it clear that they were sick of Langer and punted him out. It was clearly brought up when he was pushed to the background for the T20 World Cup and we won it. Finch was very much set as one of the best T20 players in the world, he wasn't a part of the ball tampering saga so he was in a position to push Langer out of the authoritarian position.

Now we're back with Andrew MacDonald who is there to support Pat Cummins' Australian cricket team.

I don't wanna be that guy, but this isn't quite right.

Paine was definitely lucky to be in the side, and I didn't support his selection at the time, but he was selected because neither Nevill/Wade were in form, and he had Test experience. Hartley had already retired by 2017/18; the real mistake was selecting Wade instead of Hartley the season before, when Wade was completely out-of-form.

Also, I don't think Alex Carey was considered ready for Test cricket. He was just an emerging talent back then, and his glovework was nowhere near as good as it would later become.

Paine was made captain because 1) he was an experienced FC cricketer, 2) he was already in the side and 3) like with Smith some years before, there was really nobody else. I guess they could have tried parachuting Finch in at #6, but that came with its own difficulties (not least his moderate FC record).

Also, while he comes across as a fairly accommodating person, Paine had his issues with Langer, particularly in 2020/21.

The real issue with Paine as captain was his tactical ineptitude, which IMO cost us a series win in England and held AUS back beyond 2019/20. The worst tactician Australia has had in my lifetime, considering Smith's masterful captaincy in IND/SL in recent times.

 

[DaRick]

Cummings getting rid of Langer just showed how great a Captain he is. Although it was a no brainer it still had to be done. I have patriotic Pat up there with Ian Chappell as our greatest captain. Tactically… who cares You have the slip cordon .
He is a man of his times.

McDonald's laid-back style definitely complements this side better. Competitive without being on-edge.

The question is whether he can (or should) handle the upcoming transition, given that Hazlewood/Starc/Boland/Lyon/Khawaja/Smith are approaching the end.

 

[DaRick]

It depends how you define a captain, really. It's a pretty fair case to make.

Ponting was often criticised for not really being a creative captain - he never needed to be, he just tossed the ball to Warney and Pidge and said cmon lads. Not having a go at him for that, everyone would do the same. But on occasions where things didn't work out it was shown he wasn't the most creative on field and was more lead by example.

Clarke was tactically good, but off field he had his issues. I think he lead by example on field better than he's given credit in fairness. But the locker room personality and off field issues mean there was never full cohesion between his on-field nous and team building behind the scenes.

Smith I thought was very good until it wasn't. Without Warner in the side he potentially goes down as one of our greatest captains - Lead by example and was creative on field while being a good locker room influence. Unfortunately, his stewardship got hijacked and taken advantage of by an angry midget and thus his captaincy legacy is soiled forever.

Paine was a decent enough emergency stop-gap solution. Did a job in setting a culture, but lacked on field nous and individually couldn't put in the big performances to lead from the front. His skippering was partially responsible for some of our all-time losses.

Cummins - Continued to change the culture and you have to say has successfully changed the image of the team entirely, in a way that has angered some demographics for some reason. We're just about the best team in the world culture wise right now. Further, his on field success includes every ICC trophy he can win as well as an Ashes retention. You could make the case we were outplayed in 4 of the 5 tests, yet somehow we got a result in our favour. One test in particular was singled handedly down to him. The other, Lords, his captaincy is what got Stokes after he was going off could have won that test as well instead of being a repeat of the last time Stokes did it.

He gets criticised for being conservative or defensive, but I can't really see a time where we've lost a game because we defended too much since he's been captain, so I don't get it as a criticism, personally. He plays the percentages and doesn't make unnecessarily aggressive decisions for the sake of them, which has worked perfectly well. Further, individually he's one of the best lead by example skippers we've had.

The only reasons not to like Pat as captain have nothing to do with cricket. He definitely has a fair case of being the best since Waugh, and is on the path to being one of the greatest.

Adding to these points:

- I thought Ponting's main problem was that he captained Tests like ODIs (in which he was excellent). IOW, he'd set fields to counter poor bowling and constantly shift the field around. I think that his long apprenticeship as ODI captain affected his Test captaincy.

- Clarke was arguably superior to Taylor tactically - one older club cricketer I spoke to thought that Taylor relied too much on Shane Warne, and when that didn't work, things could end badly. Certainly, he could burgle wickets with random part-timers (Hussey/Warner) in a way that I haven't really seen before or since. Agree that he wasn't a great man-manager, and he can come across as manipulative and self-serving, but having his long-time rival/enemy Shane Watson as a vice-captain wouldn't have helped. Micky Arthur not quite understanding Australian cricket culture didn't help, either.

- Disagree RE Smith. Too slow on his feet, and not a strong enough personality to manage Warner. I lost track of the number of times that opponents would stage counterattacks and he'd be powerless to respond. Also seemed unfamiliar with the concept of using part-timers/fifth bowlers to burgle wickets. He's been far more creative and responsive in recent years, though.

- Agree RE Paine. His captaincy outright held the side back beyond the short-term.

- RE Cummins, he definitely leads by example, he uses his fifth bowler (Marsh/Head/Green) pretty well, and he's pretty tactically sound when he follows his instincts (using Clarke-esque field placings like a leg slip, for instance), rather than just sticking dogmatically to pre-conceived plans. It's the latter tendency which makes him look more tactically inept than he really is. Although it's a different format, his captaincy during the 2023 ODI WC final was also masterful. Rang in the right changes at the right times.

 

[Gethelred]

The real issue with Paine as captain was his tactical ineptitude, which IMO cost us a series win in England...

No, it didn't.

There's one person responsible for that drawn series, and that person's name is Joel Wilson.

 

[DaRick]

No, it didn't.

There's one person responsible for that drawn series, and that person's name is Joel Wilson.

Do you remember how he chose to bowl first at Lords and The Oval?

And his captaincy during that whole Headingley mess was awful.

 

[Gethelred]

Do you remember how he chose to bowl first at Lords and The Oval?

And his captaincy during that whole Headingley mess was awful.

And yet, that series would not have been tied without Joel Wilson's cowardice at Edgebaston.

That will be engraved on his tombstone, even if I have to go to wherever it is when he passes with a chisel myself.

 

[DaRick]

And yet, that series would not have been tied without Joel Wilson's cowardice at Edgebaston.

That will be engraved on his tombstone, even if I have to go to wherever it is when he passes with a chisel myself.

I don't disagree - J'oh also almost cost us the 2024/25 MCG Test by not firing out Jaiswal/Pant early (can't remember who). He didn't give Jaiswal out when he was actually out, either.

And yet, I feel that a more tactically adept captain wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. We should have won that game by 50 runs or so.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't disagree - J'oh also almost cost us the 2024/25 MCG Test by not firing out Jaiswal/Pant early (can't remember who). He didn't give Jaiswal out when he was actually out, either.

And yet, I feel that a more tactically adept captain wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. We should have won that game by 50 runs or so.

In that situation, I find it difficult to know who to blame when we're talking about the players themselves because everyone was on tenderhooks given the game and the coach. Is it Harris, who dropped a catch? Lyon's fail to gather and run out? Paine, for expending reviews too early?

I also struggle a lot there because we know that Langer was a difficult coach to deal with. If a bloke is having a crack at you for taking a sandwich out into the middle with you, you know that coach is a control freak. We know a little due to The Test, but Paine is the bloke under the most pressure from that; he's Langer's dude in the middle. He's got the plans Langer set that aren't working; he's got Smith and Cummins and all that crowd noise and Stokes is going bonkers, legitimately bonkers. And all series, England have gotten the rub of the green; when they needed weather, when they needed an LBW to go their way, with Archer being allowed to bounce Smith in dim light, when play is called off for them on the same wicket only a day later due to poor light.

It was as though the entire world was against him. It certainly would've sounded like it. He also had a lot of backbone, bringing Lyon back on with Stokes going berserk; it almost brought about his wicket 3 times.

I dunno. An awful lot of captains would look pretty ****ing clueless in his shoes as well.

So, no. I reject that that test loss - a test loss that if reversed, would've seen us go 0-2 up - was his fault. And given how hard it would've felt to lose that after his heroism, England wouldn't have gotten up for the next test; the series was drawn purely because of that decision.

It is not the job of a ****ing wicketkeeper to be a better umpire than the umpire.

 

[DaRick]

In that situation, I find it difficult to know who to blame when we're talking about the players themselves because everyone was on tenderhooks given the game and the coach. Is it Harris, who dropped a catch? Lyon's fail to gather and run out? Paine, for expending reviews too early?

I also struggle a lot there because we know that Langer was a difficult coach to deal with. If a bloke is having a crack at you for taking a sandwich out into the middle with you, you know that coach is a control freak. We know a little due to The Test, but Paine is the bloke under the most pressure from that; he's Langer's dude in the middle. He's got the plans Langer set that aren't working; he's got Smith and Cummins and all that crowd noise and Stokes is going bonkers, legitimately bonkers. And all series, England have gotten the rub of the green; when they needed weather, when they needed an LBW to go their way, with Archer being allowed to bounce Smith in dim light, when play is called off for them on the same wicket only a day later due to poor light.

It was as though the entire world was against him. It certainly would've sounded like it. He also had a lot of backbone, bringing Lyon back on with Stokes going berserk; it almost brought about his wicket 3 times.

I dunno. An awful lot of captains would look pretty ****ing clueless in his shoes as well.

So, no. I reject that that test loss - a test loss that if reversed, would've seen us go 0-2 up - was his fault. And given how hard it would've felt to lose that after his heroism, England wouldn't have gotten up for the next test; the series was drawn purely because of that decision.

It is not the job of a ****ing wicketkeeper to be a better umpire than the umpire.

Very good points.

I had forgotten just how difficult Langer was to work with.

But the call at The Oval was apparently entirely Paine's decision, so that's on him. If we bat first, we most likely win, with Lyon already having ripped through them at Edgbaston in the 2nd innings and Leach ending up with a 4-fer in the 2nd innings at The Oval.

 

[Gethelred]

Very good points.

I had forgotten just how difficult Langer was to work with.

But the call at The Oval was apparently entirely Paine's decision, so that's on him. If we bat first, we most likely win, with Lyon already having ripped through them at Edgbaston in the 2nd innings and Leach ending up with a 4-fer in the 2nd innings at The Oval.

We were done by the Oval, IMO. We'd ridden our race. The last two tests had exhausted us emotionally; we'd done our bit in retaining the Ashes. They couldn't take them off us by beating us there.

I dunno. I agree it was a poor choice, but I can't help but feel that the team was done by then. The whole thing felt ****ing laboured, as though the entire establishment of cricket conspired to make things as difficult as they could.

One wonders if that series was when Cummins first really decided he wasn't Langer's biggest fan anymore.

 

[DaRick]

We were done by the Oval, IMO. We'd ridden our race. The last two tests had exhausted us emotionally; we'd done our bit in retaining the Ashes. They couldn't take them off us by beating us there.

I dunno. I agree it was a poor choice, but I can't help but feel that the team was done by then. The whole thing felt ****ing laboured, as though the entire establishment of cricket conspired to make things as difficult as they could.

One wonders if that series was when Cummins first really decided he wasn't Langer's biggest fan anymore.

I sort of agree; I do remember us dropping quite a few catches at The Oval.

But then you could make the same argument about 2023, which took its toll on the squad both mentally and physically (hostile crowds, Lords controversy, losing Lyon).

He also called wrongly at Lords. For that call to have worked, we had to bowl them out for 150, but that didn't happen.

 

[Gethelred]

I sort of agree; I do remember us dropping quite a few catches at The Oval.

But then you could make the same argument about 2023, which took its toll on the squad both mentally and physically (hostile crowds, Lords controversy, losing Lyon).

He also called wrongly at Lords. For that call to have worked, we had to bowl them out for 150, but that didn't happen.

We didn't win in 2023 purely because Lyon went down. At the peak of his powers, against an opponent who would've tried to target him; he'd have pushed 40 wickets across 5 tests.

Outside of that, I think we're in accord.

 

[DaRick]

We didn't win in 2023 purely that because Lyon went down. At the peak of his powers, against an opponent who would've tried to target him; he'd have pushed 40 wickets across 5 tests.

Outside of that, I think we're in accord.

Yeah, we are.

I can't describe the dread I felt when I woke up and read that Lyon had suffered a freak injury.

From then on, we were trying desperately to hold on to the Ashes.

Not really Murphy's fault - he performed admirably given the circumstances - but he's not Lyon.

 

[samFFC]

Just bumping this up, again.

It's a bit boring, but so is the whinging about wokeness.
Cum-dog is an absolute legend.
Brilliant yet again.

 

[two blue tiger]

Just bumping this up, again.

It's a bit boring, but so is the whinging about wokeness.
Cum-dog is an absolute legend.
Brilliant yet again.

Not last night. Exposed yet again when a side plays good solid Test cricket against us.

 

[Trojan90]

The guy is like superman. Has that aura I’ve only experienced with Warne where you expect him to take the ball (even the bat in Pats case) and win a match.

But the defensive captaining. It keeps happening and it’s so hard to watch. If we do rebuild from here, do we look for someone else and let Pat be a match winning bowler. He’s almost 5 years now, which is a standard stint, more so for his longevity, guess that’s up to him.

 

[beatnik]

Not last night. Exposed yet again when a side plays good solid Test cricket against us.

You must’ve waited years to say that…so many cheap shot merchants…why are you so broken? are you all ex-pat kiwis or poms sick of the thrashings?

 

[samFFC]

Not last night. Exposed yet again when a side plays good solid Test cricket against us.

Absolute nonsense.

Our tail managed 63 runs in the morning. It was a flat deck.
Yes, it’s disappointing to see the match slip away, but it happens.

Pat didn’t drop the catch.
In fact, you could argue it was a positive / aggressive move to have a slip so advanced and wearing a helmet. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that?
They didn’t want to miss a chance off a snick falling short.

Pat also doesn’t bat in the top 6.
A bit more application day 1 would’ve helped, but was a tough pitch and a e had them 4 down so not too bad.

But the collapse on day 2 is what has cost Aus this game.
Didn’t get the ball to soften.
Didn’t get the SA bowlers to tire bowling two days in a row.
Didn’t get to set 300 target, which is inexcusable from the first inning lead.
And most tellingly, didn’t force SA to have to bat into day 4.

The risk of bowling first is that you have to chase on the deteriorating pitch, with spin into play. We didn’t make SA do that.

 

[Mikevk123]

Can’t blame the captain in this circumstance. The coaching staff needs to coach and grow a pair.