Coach Grumpy

[SSwans2011]

But he is also a successful coach, a role that sometimes requires a campaigner.

I don't entirely agree with the first part of this - his record is comparable to Lehmann's, and Lehmann was well on his way to being sacked prior to the ball-tampering saga. I guess they're both technically "successful coaches" but this doesn't necessarily mean either deserved to keep their job. Although, in Langer's case he was welcome to keep his job.

I don't think the second part is true at all. I'm actually not sure I can think of any job ever where being a campaigner would (or at least should) be a prerequisite in any circumstances. I think that's a pretty big reach.

I know some people like to downplay it as ball tampering 'like all the other countries do' but this was above and beyond

Not sure I follow you here. How was it above and beyond compared to other ball tampering incidents? Ball tampering is ball tampering.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

I've said consistently that Langer is overly intense and, yes, a campaigner. But he is also a successful coach, a role that sometimes requires a campaigner. People forget Langer took over when the Australian team drank enough of its own bathwater that they thought they could take sandpaper on to a field and damage the ball. I know some people like to downplay it as ball tampering 'like all the other countries do' but this was above and beyond and was an absolute embarrassment to the team. The team, which included Cummins and Hazelwood and the whole leadership structure still in place, needed a kick in the ass. Now, after a few hard years, the same people say they don't need it, he's too hard on them, they know how to get the best out of themselves etc?

My main issue is that this sacking was player driven, when the players were a large part of the problem. I don't have an issue with CA moving Langer on if they don't think he is getting the best out of the players on and off the field, but I do have an issue with installing player-friendly coaches when I think the playing group still has an issue. Langer's coaching is generally well respected by the WA players he's coached, but perhaps state players have their heads up their own asses less than internatonal players,

Under him they lost a test series at home against India that had a 3rd string pace attack for half the series. His achievements were drawing an away Ashes series against a mediocre India side and winning the mickey mouse World Cup while McDonald was really coaching. That's not success.

 

[The Passenger]

The team, which included Cummins and Hazelwood and the whole leadership structure still in place, needed a kick in the ass. Now, after a few hard years, the same people say they don't need it, he's too hard on them, they know how to get the best out of themselves etc?

Who's saying that? The reality is Langer is wildly unpredictable and it's not an environment most people want to be a part of it. Maybe it got some results at the start but it's clear that wore off relatively quickly.

The description on the previous page of having narcissistic personality disorder is not going to be far off the mark.

 

[JackOutback]

Not sure I follow you here. How was it above and beyond compared to other ball tampering incidents? Ball tampering is ball tampering.

Picking at the seams and rubbing saliva on it are not in the same ballpark as bringing sandpaper on to the field. Both in terms of the scale of damage to the ball and just the goddamn look of it. It was a national embarrassment, up there with the underarm ball.

Who's saying that? The reality is Langer is wildly unpredictable and it's not an environment most people want to be a part of it. Maybe it got some results at the start but it's clear that wore off relatively quickly.

The description on the previous page of having narcissistic personality disorder is not going to be far off the mark.

This doesn't track with how he's viewed by people who worked with him at WA. There's definitely an intensity to him and maybe even an unpredictability to his moods. But those saying Langer's trying to control the narrative while accepting without question descriptions of him such as this need to realise they are probably being played a little too.

I'm not particularly bothered that he's gone, he needs to get over it and move on, but I disagree with the player power on show here, I think the problems that led to Cape Town could easily resurface.

 

[SSwans2011]

Picking at the seams and rubbing saliva on it are not in the same ballpark as bringing sandpaper on to the field. Both in terms of the scale of damage to the ball and just the goddamn look of it. It was a national embarrassment, up there with the underarm ball.

I still disagree with this take. I don't think the fact that they did a better job of it (well until they were caught) makes the cheating any better or worse. I don't care how they cheated, they just shouldn't have done it. Nor should any team - to state the obvious.

It also seems like you're painting Langer as the only man who could feasibly stop this from happening. What makes you think Andrew McDonald would allow cheating to happen under his watch?

Better yet, why is he more likely to allow cheating to happen under his watch than somebody who was actually caught out cheating in his playing career?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Picking at the seams and rubbing saliva on it are not in the same ballpark as bringing sandpaper on to the field. Both in terms of the scale of damage to the ball and just the goddamn look of it. It was a national embarrassment, up there with the underarm ball.

In his autobiography Imran Khan admitted to using bottle caps to scuff up the ball, IIRC a New Zealand player stated they did it in retaliation while playing Pakistan as well and pretty much nobody considers it a mark on their legacies. It was a national embarrassment because of the Steve Waugh era Australian exceptionalism and quasi-religious cult narratives put into place surrounding that, which is far more of an embarrassment in and of itself in my view.

As for the underarm ball, my unpopular hot take is that is the most overblown piece of cricket lore in history. A) It was a meaningless bilateral from memory, yet you'd think it was a World Cup final based on the carry on. B) If Australia bowled grubbers all game NZ would have smashed them for four all day. An unplayable yorker also would have been impossible to hit for six yet NZ wouldn't have blubbered about that for forty years, not sure why a legal delivery should be illegal because New Zealand couldn't score more runs during every other delivery which wasn't a grubber.

 

[anchor man]

Picking at the seams and rubbing saliva on it are not in the same ballpark as bringing sandpaper on to the field. Both in terms of the scale of damage to the ball and just the goddamn look of it. It was a national embarrassment, up there with the underarm ball.

And what about scraping the ball with bottle tops to rough it up!
What about rubbing he ball on the zipper to rough it up!
What about a pocket ful of sand to rough it up!! Then add juices of sweets.
Picking at the seam is worse or as bad as any of that. The Poms play with a ball that has raised seams that gives more swing.
You are talking out your rear end.
Was it a good look the sand paper, certainly wasn't, but neither were the other examples.
Cricket Australia over reacted after the ICC gave out their penalties. All the other copped the same penalties. CA should have shut their mouths and accepted it.

 

[frankrizzo]

Picking at the seams and rubbing saliva on it are not in the same ballpark as bringing sandpaper on to the field. Both in terms of the scale of damage to the ball and just the goddamn look of it. It was a national embarrassment, up there with the underarm ball.

Oh please faf used a zipper on his trousers of all things, that was clearly pre planned as are all the other ball tampering incidents(including others from faf) the only difference remains the aussie public reactions to it which forced CA to massively over react itself as they were worried about losing sponsors.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I've said consistently that Langer is overly intense and, yes, a campaigner. But he is also a successful coach, a role that sometimes requires a campaigner. People forget Langer took over when the Australian team drank enough of its own bathwater that they thought they could take sandpaper on to a field and damage the ball. I know some people like to downplay it as ball tampering 'like all the other countries do' but this was above and beyond and was an absolute embarrassment to the team. The team, which included Cummins and Hazelwood and the whole leadership structure still in place, needed a kick in the ass. Now, after a few hard years, the same people say they don't need it, he's too hard on them, they know how to get the best out of themselves etc?

My main issue is that this sacking was player driven, when the players were a large part of the problem. I don't have an issue with CA moving Langer on if they don't think he is getting the best out of the players on and off the field, but I do have an issue with installing player-friendly coaches when I think the playing group still has an issue. Langer's coaching is generally well respected by the WA players he's coached, but perhaps state players have their heads up their own asses less than internatonal players

Sports all around the world have cases of coaches coming in, laying down the law/being demanding, getting some early results but then wearing out their welcome and getting sacked. Why should Langer be treated any differently? He had 4 years, that's a long time in professional sports.

 

[anchor man]

Oh please faf used a zipper on his trousers of all things, that was clearly pre planned as are all the other ball tampering incidents(including others from faf) the only difference remains the aussie public reactions to it which forced CA to massively over react itself as they were worried about losing sponsors.

Disagree, CA over reacted about what should happen.
They thought they were Holier than Thou. Tried to preach to the others that we want accept it.
Yep the Aussie fans were not happy, but Ca went way over the top.
All thoseother infractions all received I think 4 test, why couldn't CA just accept that.
Sutherland and the group trying to run CA at that stage were self serving.
Where were they when Dekock abused Warners wife!!! Why did they not stand by hi.
Why did they allow the culprits to be frog marched through the air port and mad a display of.
Very weak and ordinary administrators. And we have another batch the same now.

 

[frankrizzo]

One thing i dont understand did langer supporters really want cummins sacked just so langer could remain coach? or did they want to keep langer in as coach and cummins as skipper even though they knew they would have issues working together? Why would you guys want a new era with a new skipper to start off with tension and acrimony between senior players and the coach?

Even if you think langer is a good coach surely you could see this particular situation wasn't going to work well for the side?

I have talked about bobby simpson being axed as coach by taylor and his guys when they got full control of the side mostly to point out the hypocrisy of that group but that was actually the right decision, bobby simpson was the right coach for allan border and marsh the right coach for what taylor needed, maybe langer was right for a certain time and certain skipper but not now, the test side must always belong primarily to the skipper and the coach needs to be somebody who shares his vision for the side.

 

[JackOutback]

Sports all around the world have cases of coaches coming in, laying down the law/being demanding, getting some early results but then wearing out their welcome and getting sacked. Why should Langer be treated any differently? He had 4 years, that's a long time in professional sports.

This is a fair take. I'm not saying Langer was untouchable, I just don't like that the players drove it because they found him tough to deal with. My attitude re: the players is they need a little tough love. They've been drinking their own bathwater for too long.

 

[anchor man]

Yet another one not game to tell us who he is. This from one of the Fox"Stories".
Punter kept JL very even,” one current player told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

 

[anchor man]

This is a fair take. I'm not saying Langer was untouchable, I just don't like that the players drove it because they found him tough to deal with. My attitude re: the players is they need a little tough love. They've been drinking their own bathwater for too long.

Your last part very true.

 

[eddiesmith]

There's others that are likeable but I don't know how you could possibly find Khawaja unlikeable? Happy go lucky, affable, engaging guy.

Lol, arrogant prick.

 

[Phone]

Usman just had to make some decent runs at some point during the 2019 Ashes and he would have stayed in the side. He could hardly complain he was left out given Smith had to come back in and Marnus had to stay in the side after how well he did replacing Smith.

It was either him, Head, Warner, Harris or Wade that had to be dropped. Obviously in hindsight one of Warner or Harris should have gone but Warner had made 68 out of a total of 190 the Test before and Harris had only come back in for 1 Test.

Khawaja had made 432 runs @ 29 since the India series at the start of that summer which included a hundred against Sri Lanka in the 2nd innings when we led by 300 after the 1st innings.

It was a borderline decision but it was hardly like he was dropped purely because he disagreed with Langer about certain coaching.

Well this is a whole other discussion, butdropping Usman in 2019 was insanely stupid as no-one with half a brain could have ever actually believed Harris or Bancroft were better batters than Usman and he should have just been moved to opener then and there. But funnily enough the most similar situation I can think of is the 2013 Ashes when Usman was on the other end of this. After a loss in the first test, we, of course, had to drop someone, so Cowan got the boot and Usman got the spot. The problem was after the 2nd test Warner's ban finished, so we then had a situation where someone had to be dropped after the 2nd test for Warner as well (which ended up being a Phil Hughes vs Steve Smith decision because you're not allowed to drop a batter after one test even if it's a bad selection) (this was all related to a bunch of moves made by Darren Lehmann, headlined by moving Shane Watson back to opening. By the end of the tour, Watson wasn't even opening in white ball cricket anymore)

In regards to the 2019 Ashes and selections, the bigger Langer (and selectors) mistake was that, ahead of the 2019 Ashes, we had a classic "him or him?" selection problem - Harris or Bancroft to open? They made their choice: Bancroft. this was presumably based on their belief that he was a better batter for this reason and that reason........and then after two middling tests as a team, Marcus Harris was now better than Bancroft. This type of selection is so ****ing horrid, and very similar to the above 2013 Ashes selections. And then after the series Joe Burns was better than both of them. And then at some point Matthew Wade was somehow better than all of them.

Anyway in regards to Langer. The whole problem here was always that it was almost impossible for CA and Langer to actually come to a contract agreement. CA could not offer anything past the 2023 Ashes. They just could not, unless Langer wouldn't be paid out if he was sacked. it would have been nuts from CA to offer a long extension. And Langer, it was reported on by News Ltd, did not want a contract extension that only took him to the 2023 Ashes, which is understandable, why be a sitting duck...and so no agreement. it bugs me this point is over-looked because it's the whole issue.

 

[Plugger35]

In his autobiography Imran Khan admitted to using bottle caps to scuff up the ball, IIRC a New Zealand player stated they did it in retaliation while playing Pakistan as well and pretty much nobody considers it a mark on their legacies. It was a national embarrassment because of the Steve Waugh era Australian exceptionalism and quasi-religious cult narratives put into place surrounding that, which is far more of an embarrassment in and of itself in my view.

As for the underarm ball, my unpopular hot take is that is the most overblown piece of cricket lore in history. A) It was a meaningless bilateral from memory, yet you'd think it was a World Cup final based on the carry on. B) If Australia bowled grubbers all game NZ would have smashed them for four all day. An unplayable yorker also would have been impossible to hit for six yet NZ wouldn't have blubbered about that for forty years, not sure why a legal delivery should be illegal because New Zealand couldn't score more runs during every other delivery which wasn't a grubber.

It may have been a legal delivery but that was only because no one thought someone would stoop so low to bowl an underarm ball and it was made illegal straight after that. What happened with all the other deliveries is irrelevant, it still unfairly denied the batsman the chance to hit the ball for six.

It wasn't the only act of bad sportsmanship Greg Chappell was involved in that day either, he also refused to walk after Martin Sneddon took a clean catch off him and that was back before the umpires could make a decision based on tv replays so he was allowed to stay out there and scored a ton.

 

[Richard Pryor]

It may have been a legal delivery but that was only because no one thought someone would stoop so low to bowl an underarm ball and it was made illegal straight after that. What happened with all the other deliveries is irrelevant, it still unfairly denied the batsman the chance to hit the ball for six.

It wasn't the only act of bad sportsmanship Greg Chappell was involved in that day either, he also refused to walk after Martin Sneddon took a clean catch off him and that was back before the umpires could make a decision based on tv replays so he was allowed to stay out there and scored a ton.

By that logic bowling a yorker is more unsporting than lobbing up a medium paced full toss. Perhaps AFL players should not tackle if there is less than a goal difference in the last 5 minutes of a match also.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

Lol, arrogant prick.

Reckon you might be the only person in the world to hold this opinion. He's incredibly humble lol

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

In his autobiography Imran Khan admitted to using bottle caps to scuff up the ball, IIRC a New Zealand player stated they did it in retaliation while playing Pakistan as well and pretty much nobody considers it a mark on their legacies. It was a national embarrassment because of the Steve Waugh era Australian exceptionalism and quasi-religious cult narratives put into place surrounding that, which is far more of an embarrassment in and of itself in my view.

As for the underarm ball, my unpopular hot take is that is the most overblown piece of cricket lore in history. A) It was a meaningless bilateral from memory, yet you'd think it was a World Cup final based on the carry on. B) If Australia bowled grubbers all game NZ would have smashed them for four all day. An unplayable yorker also would have been impossible to hit for six yet NZ wouldn't have blubbered about that for forty years, not sure why a legal delivery should be illegal because New Zealand couldn't score more runs during every other delivery which wasn't a grubber.

Steve Waugh was a cheat himself lol, claiming that clearly dropped catch off an in the zone Lara in the West Indies in 1995. Probably cost the Windies the game and the series.

 

[Plugger35]

By that logic bowling a yorker is more unsporting than lobbing up a medium paced full toss. Perhaps AFL players should not tackle if there is less than a goal difference in the last 5 minutes of a match also.

Bowling a yorker is a fair delivery that takes skill to execute, bowling an underarm ball isn't a fair delivery and doesn't take much skill to execute.

Most people could bowl an underarm ball but not many people could bowl a yorker in a pressure situation at the end of a match.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Bowling a yorker is a fair delivery that takes skill to execute, bowling an underarm ball isn't a fair delivery and doesn't take much skill to execute.

Most people could bowl an underarm ball but not many people could bowl a yorker in a pressure situation at the end of a match.

To go full lawyer I'd define fair as within the rules of the sport. So at the time the delivery was bowled it was legally fair. The rule was changed afterwards for understandable reasons but it was not cheating nor unfair in the moment by any metric other than the idea that the opposing captain is obliged to not use everything within the rules to win.

Similarly I can't stand the mythologizing of Douglas Jardine as some evil mastermind. The idea he should have stopped using leg theory during the Bodyline Ashes in the name of fairness is a ridiculous notion.

 

[Oscarman]

The bigfooty-diagnosed narcissist sociopathic Catholic Liberal candidate says there's no rift between him and Captain Woke, says he spoke to him on Monday.
So who were the "cowards" who leaked then?

Be Victorians I reckon. Would explain Scoobs piling on JL on SEN today.

 

[anchor man]

It may have been a legal delivery but that was only because no one thought someone would stoop so low to bowl an underarm ball and it was made illegal straight after that. What happened with all the other deliveries is irrelevant, it still unfairly denied the batsman the chance to hit the ball for six.

It wasn't the only act of bad sportsmanship Greg Chappell was involved in that day either, he also refused to walk after Martin Sneddon took a clean catch off him and that was back before the umpires could make a decision based on tv replays so he was allowed to stay out there and scored a ton.

The batsman was told prior to the delivery that Chappell the younger was going to bowl an under arm delivery. Which, was a legitimate delivery
Maybe not sporting, but legal. Under arm was once the only legal way to bowl.

 

[anchor man]

They are still at it, not prepared to have their names used.
The snipers are still hidden.
This from another Fox exclusive.
Punter kept JL very even,” one current player told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.