In all seriousness, the Liberals are so divided does anyone think they really want to be in power? One third of them - at least - are programmed to criticise and they can do it up hill and down dale in Opposition without having to worry about the fact they've got few ideas to effectively improve Australian policy.
I suspect it was, and Shorten realised it was now or never, and rolled the dice.
Shorten is of Labor Right and Albanese Labor Left. The reason, I think, that Shorten got so much of the caucus vote last Labor election was because Gillard was of the left and MPs thought it was either the right's turn or else that Gillard's time in charge was evidence that the left aren't quite economically sharp enough. The departure of Lindsay Tanner I think was a big blow in that respect.
I'm sure some of the left thought as you do (that Shorten would get them part of the way and then it would be the left's turn again), but there's no way that was Labor's overall plan. The Labor Right is Hawke and Keating's patch - their most electable version. The left are emboldened after all the economic ****-ups we've had recently have shown the general public that economic liberalism has major problems, but the population hasn't shifted far enough to make it an electable option (see Corbyn and Sanders overseas).
Albanese was never a hope of taking over. Labor's stability means people are taking them seriously and looking at their policies. Policy is where Labor has done better than the Libs for almost a decade and so long as people look at that, they should romp it in IMO. No first term government has been dumped since 1931 or something. There's still a decent chance that may happen. Kim Carr, of Labor's left, 8pm on election night, was singing to the hills about how well Shorten had done. Those on the left may have been thinking they could challenge if the result was bad, but it was good. That's democracy.