Is Mickey Arthur the best Head Coach we have ever had?

[MenInG]

Seems to have a personality and a plan to go with it. Takes no nonsense but also delivers results.

So is he the best?

 

[Junaids]

I think he is superb.

Bob Woolmer was terrific, but Pakistan got him ten years too late, both in terms of his health and the fact that ignorant players like Shoaib Akhtar and Shahid Afridi didn't realise that he was a far greater coach than they were players.

Mickey is fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

He has made mistakes both with South Africa and Australia.

With South Africa, he over-estimated the value of integrity and fell out with racist (anti-white) bosses whose patronage he couldn't function without.

With Australia, he lost sight of the fact that a national team coach can't buy in new players but rather must foster the talent at his disposal. He discarded Watson, Johnson, Khawaja and Pattinson for misbehaviour, only for his successor Lehmann to get so much out of Johnson that he won him an Ashes series 5-0.

And Mickey, to his credit, has learned his lesson.

He paid Misbah and Younis nothing but public compliments even when they were almost single-handedly losing Test after Test after Test outside Asia by their uncanny ability to score less than 30 in 80% of their innings.

He left the door open for Umar Akmal longer than the young fool deserved, because he recognised that no other Pakistani can play the kind of innings that he played as a youngster against a rampaging Shane Bond, Mitchell Johnson and Jimmy Anderson.

And now, with Salman Butt, you see him putting into practice what he learned in Australia and South Africa. Unlike in South Africa, Mickey doesn't antagonise the political masters who want Butt back. And unlike in Australia, he realises because of his error with Mitchell Johnson that if - as I strongly suspect - Salman Butt is the only Test quality batsman apart from Azhar Ali, he may have to swallow his principles and work with him.

Don't forget Steve Rixon in this. He is a top class head coach too, and you are effectively getting two for the price of one.

 

[Markhor]

Woolmer was an excellent coach who provided us with a period of stability after the turmoil of the late 1990s/early 2000s. He was successful wherever he went, be it Warwickshire, South Africa (their only ICC tournament success coming in 1998 under his tenure), ICC High Performance Programme and Pakistan.

His wins against a strong India team, notably on that 2005 tour, was a fantastic achievement given we had such a weak attack and were facing a star studded batting unit. Beating an Ashes winning England team in 2005 and a strong Sri Lanka team away in 2006 were also notable achievements, helping us reach #2 in the rankings.

The man had an encyclopedic knowledge of cricket as his coaching books show and was a great identifier of talent as shown by his grooming of Mohammad Asif. Younis Khan's career was rejuvenated whilst Salman Butt, Kamran Akmal, Shahid Afridi, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Mohammad Yousuf's best years coincided with his tenure.

However he didn't win an ICC tournament nor took us to #1 as Arthur has done.

Arthur was influenced by Woolmer and he's also shown himself a good identifier of talent, developing a young ODI team that was ranked 9th when he took over that had fewer big names than Woolmer inherited. Whereas Woolmer was a gentleman, Arthur hasn't been afraid to wield the danda (Sohail Khan/Umar Akmal).

Whatmore had some good marquee series wins away to India, South Africa and West Indies, and won the 2012 Asia Cup but the Test team regressed so I'd rank him behind those two with Waqar, Intikhab, Lawson and Pybus after.

 

[mak36]

I think he is superb.

Bob Woolmer was terrific, but Pakistan got him ten years too late, both in terms of his health and the fact that ignorant players like Shoaib Akhtar and Shahid Afridi didn't realise that he was a far greater coach than they were players.

Mickey is fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

He has made mistakes both with South Africa and Australia.

With South Africa, he over-estimated the value of integrity and fell out with racist (anti-white) bosses whose patronage he couldn't function without.

With Australia, he lost sight of the fact that a national team coach can't buy in new players but rather must foster the talent at his disposal. He discarded Watson, Johnson, Khawaja and Pattinson for misbehaviour, only for his successor Lehmann to get so much out of Johnson that he won him an Ashes series 5-0.

And Mickey, to his credit, has learned his lesson.

He paid Misbah and Younis nothing but public compliments even when they were almost single-handedly losing Test after Test after Test outside Asia by their uncanny ability to score less than 30 in 80% of their innings.

He left the door open for Umar Akmal longer than the young fool deserved, because he recognised that no other Pakistani can play the kind of innings that he played as a youngster against a rampaging Shane Bond, Mitchell Johnson and Jimmy Anderson.

And now, with Salman Butt, you see him putting into practice what he learned in Australia and South Africa. Unlike in South Africa, Mickey doesn't antagonise the political masters who want Butt back. And unlike in Australia, he realises because of his error with Mitchell Johnson that if - as I strongly suspect - Salman Butt is the only Test quality batsman apart from Azhar Ali, he may have to swallow his principles and work with him.

Don't forget Steve Rixon in this. He is a top class head coach too, and you are effectively getting two for the price of one.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Junaids]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

I think Butt is too old to recall, but he became the skipper in 2010 because with:

1) Younis Khan blackballed and 35 years old,
2) Mohammad Yousuf long past his best,
3) Umar Akmal inconsistent,
4) Azhar Ali not yet international class - even though he is exactly the same age as Salman Butt.....

......Salman Butt had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman.

I don't think much has changed. He's still the only Pakistani who is BOTH secure against pace outside off-stump (which Azhar is) AND can score off that line without taking risks (which Azhar, Babar, Sami and Shafiq are all incapable of).

 

[Slog]

Our test team is an absolute mess

But he seems proactive so let's see

 

[Slog]

......Salman Butt had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman.

I don't think much has changed. He's still the only Pakistani who is BOTH secure against pace outside off-stump (which Azhar is) AND can score off that line without taking risks (which Azhar, Babar, Sami and Shafiq are all incapable of).

How do you figure that out?

Are you talking about the same Salman Butt who barely averaged 30 in Test cricket?

Are you talking about the same Salman Butt who averaged a MIGHTY 16.00 in his last Test series before the ban. A series in which he batted EIGHT times and did not even have a single fifty in those eight innings??

A player who has averaged 40+ in only ONE YEAR of Test cricket (in 2005)?

A player who averaged under 35 in ALL but seven of the countries he played Test cricket in? Who failed to average 35+ even in Pakistan?

Sure this was the guy who had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman with an average of 16 in his last Test series and an average of 33 in his last year of Test cricket?

The only one you are fooling here is yourself

 

[Justcrazy]

Woolmer was the best coach Pakistan had. If Pakistan had got him a bit early , It would have been even better. Players like Shoaib Malik and Rana Naved performed well with him.

Woolmer was also very friendly with players , and Afridi also started playing with straight bat under him.

 

[troodon]

I remember posters asking for his head when Pak lost to WI twice in Test matches not too long ago.

People only remember the last outing which was a successful one in CT.

 

[Major]

I think Butt is too old to recall, but he became the skipper in 2010 because with:

1) Younis Khan blackballed and 35 years old,
2) Mohammad Yousuf long past his best,
3) Umar Akmal inconsistent,
4) Azhar Ali not yet international class - even though he is exactly the same age as Salman Butt.....

......Salman Butt had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman.

I don't think much has changed. He's still the only Pakistani who is BOTH secure against pace outside off-stump (which Azhar is) AND can score off that line without taking risks (which Azhar, Babar, Sami and Shafiq are all incapable of).

Salman butt was made captain because of two

he performed well in t20 and was the only oved player back in 2010. Our 2010 performance was soo bad that he was the only stabd out player.

2nd reason was we had no other captaincy option . Because remember after butt they had to get misbah from the outside to captain.

Butt was made captain due to no other option,infact tge situation was soo bad that kamran akmal was named vice captain. Yes the same kamran who was dropped from the last test match in australia and was vice captain suddenly.

Yawar saeed was pulling the strings at that time and he should had been investigated after the spot fixing event

 

[Major]

I remember posters asking for his head when Pak lost to WI twice in Test matches not too long ago.

People only remember the last outing which was a successful one in CT.

Exactly.

Had we lost that game to sri lanka. That was it.

This is why you cant judge coaching on trophies alone

 

[Major]

How do you figure that out?

Are you talking about the same Salman Butt who barely averaged 30 in Test cricket?

Are you talking about the same Salman Butt who averaged a MIGHTY 16.00 in his last Test series before the ban. A series in which he batted EIGHT times and did not even have a single fifty in those eight innings??

A player who has averaged 40+ in only ONE YEAR of Test cricket (in 2005)?

A player who averaged under 35 in ALL but seven of the countries he played Test cricket in? Who failed to average 35+ even in Pakistan?

Sure this was the guy who had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman with an average of 16 in his last Test series and an average of 33 in his last year of Test cricket?

The only one you are fooling here is yourself

Butt was glorified in 2010. I remember it clearly. He was the only performing batsmen in 2010, thus fans supported him. Then he ended up winning that australia test match and giving those press conferences that made everyone loved him.

Salman butt was becoming the most lovedcaptain at that time. What misbah enjoyed and recieved all that could had been butts.

 

[Itachi]

Just remove CT and what else is there to make mickey "the best coach"?

 

[Third_Umpire]

Two words: The Bob

 

[Abdullah719]

Just remove CT and what else is there to make mickey "the best coach"?

Why remove the CT though?

 

[ExplicitAI]

From what I've seen he's the best in our history and it's not because of the CT win, he brought about discipline and will stand up to any form of politics from any player. He brought about the culture of coming back into the team via hard work. Mickey's ensured that each and every player has regular fitness tests and that they are able to play to the best of their abilities. Back in the day we would never hear about certain players being super fit wheres players from across the border (India) had high levels of fitness so they can compete with tougher teams. I'm so happy that he's brought about this fitness culture because I even hear Pak fans talk about it on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, in the sense that they would criticise a player if he's unfit or even spot anyone who's unfit!

Only thing to criticise about him is certain team combinations because he can mess it up sometimes (India vs Pakistan CT group match in Brum) but overall it's not too bad, he learns from his mistakes and has a good relationship with Sarfraz. A captain like Sarfraz suggests to me that we're going to become a top 3 side very soon and rule the roosts. I can't wait.

 

[Markhor]

I remember posters asking for his head when Pak lost to WI twice in Test matches not too long ago.

People only remember the last outing which was a successful one in CT.

Those were just bitter Waqar fans who don't speak for all of PP. If you read the threads on him you'll see the majority of PP supports Mickey and understand he had a tough brief.

He had three hard away assignments (Eng, NZ and Aus) in his first four Test series - he hasn't been able to pad his stats with one UAE series after another like his predecessor.

He inherited an ODI and T20 team bereft of confidence and tottering at 9th and 7th position.

Results have been decent. We drew with England when everyone wrote us off, reaching #1 in the world rankings, and chased 300 in an ODI outside Asia for the first time in Cardiff. We beat Australia away in an ODI for first time since 2005. We beat West Indies in all three formats home and away, including our first ever Test series win in the Caribbean. We haven't lost a T20 series. On top of that we won our first 50 over tournament since 1992.

Also any objective observer can see Mickey's record in player development. Sharjeel was improving before his ban and broke through in all formats. He's invested in Babar Azam at 3 in all formats. Hasan Ali has developed into a top seamer while young leggie Shadab Khan has also been capped in all formats. He also took risk of giving Fakhar Zaman his ODI debut halfway through the CT which paid dividends. Meanwhile consistent domestic performances like Mohammad Abbas have been given Test debut.

 

[idrizzy]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

The post was going so well...

 

[idrizzy]

Just remove CT and what else is there to make mickey "the best coach"?

Just remove all of Sir Alex Fergusons trophies and what is there to make SAF the 'best coach'?

Coaches are credited by what they win. Mickeys done more than most. It can be a bit premature but like I said, winning trophies is what matters most and what'll stay on your CV with each job you apply for.

 

[cricfan967]

Just remove CT and what else is there to make mickey "the best coach"?

Haha what? This makes no sense

 

[MenInG]

I think we must consider the trophies we have won under his reign - in that sense, the CT win which was done with young players means a lot.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

I don't care about rankings. He's a fantastic coach. He's had his plans from day one and he's been determined to carry them out.

 

[kingusama92]

He's a good coach.

Even before the CT win. Sets the right standards (i.e. Umar Akmal's fitness test) and has a plan for all of his players.

I think his impact will be seen big time in the next few years.

 

[Justcrazy]

People need to give credit to Steve Rixon as well. He is very experienced

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Easily the best we have ever had.

 

[Itachi]

Why remove the CT though?

Just remove all of Sir Alex Fergusons trophies and what is there to make SAF the 'best coach'?

Coaches are credited by what they win. Mickeys done more than most. It can be a bit premature but like I said, winning trophies is what matters most and what'll stay on your CV with each job you apply for.

Haha what? This makes no sense

In order to call someone "the best", you have to have substantial results to back up with.

Just one tournament could be won due to peaking the players at the right time and right moment which could be attributed to ability of the players rather than the coach. And Pakistan always had that trend. Even in 1992, the team win the world cup, was more to do with Pakistan getting the rhythm that all wanted.

If, this team continues the run, then you can conclude that, mickey has made a difference because otherwise, with the ability of the players only, it will be impossible for Pakistan to continue such run for a significant period of time.

Let's compare this.

A factor X(Pakistan team) showed result Y(won a tournament) .

With presence of Z(mickey), X resulted in Y too.

In order to continue conclude that, Z has any significance, X needs to provide another result A which wasn't there before

 

[Junaids]

People ignore that to secure his own job, Mickey Arthur had to put up with unproductive deadbeat batsmen at Numbers 4 and 5 in England, Australia and New Zealand.

Younis Khan failed in 14 innings out of 17.

Misbah-ul-Haq failed in 12 innings out of 15.

(Plus in England Hafeez failed in 5 innings out of 6).

Mickey Arthur had to talk positively about them because there was no way he was going to be allowed to drop either Younis or Misbah, even though they were blatantly obviously finished.

So those results shouldn't really be held against him.

 

[MMHS]

People ignore that to secure his own job, Mickey Arthur had to put up with unproductive deadbeat batsmen at Numbers 4 and 5 in England, Australia and New Zealand.

Younis Khan failed in 14 innings out of 17.

Misbah-ul-Haq failed in 12 innings out of 15.

(Plus in England Hafeez failed in 5 innings out of 6).

Mickey Arthur had to talk positively about them because there was no way he was going to be allowed to drop either Younis or Misbah, even though they were blatantly obviously finished.

So those results shouldn't really be held against him.

But, don't you think that by dropping Misbah & YK, he would have lost his job well before winning the CT? What I can see is, without Misbah & YK, -

PAK Tour of ENG : 0-4
PAK Tour of NZ : still 0-2
PAK Tour of AUS : Definitely 0-3


Or, do you believe without Misbah & YK, those 2 wins at Lord's & Oval was possible, which actually kept Arthur at job - otherwise after 0-9, he won't have gone to WI.

 

[Itachi]

People ignore that to secure his own job, Mickey Arthur had to put up with unproductive deadbeat batsmen at Numbers 4 and 5 in England, Australia and New Zealand.

Younis Khan failed in 14 innings out of 17.

Misbah-ul-Haq failed in 12 innings out of 15.

(Plus in England Hafeez failed in 5 innings out of 6).

Mickey Arthur had to talk positively about them because there was no way he was going to be allowed to drop either Younis or Misbah, even though they were blatantly obviously finished.

So those results shouldn't really be held against him.

Is that something new to Pakistan cricket?

If I take that into account, every other coach will outshine mickey because they had to face much dressing room fighting, ego clash with bigger power involved than those faced by mickey.

If you bring that aspect, mickey got a relatively young team with one or two undroppable seniors. So he did face far less obstacles than the previous ones.

 

[MenInG]

Question is - Are Australia missing Mickey Arthur? Would they have been a different team today if he had stayed?

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

He is a good coach.
Bob and Jeff were good too.

 

[Hasan123]

Arthur is a brilliant coach. I have backed him since day one. He clearly has a plan and thankfully the PCB is backing him all the way.

 

[shabir kham]

But, don't you think that by dropping Misbah & YK, he would have lost his job well before winning the CT? What I can see is, without Misbah & YK, -

PAK Tour of ENG : 0-4
PAK Tour of NZ : still 0-2
PAK Tour of AUS : Definitely 0-3


Or, do you believe without Misbah & YK, those 2 wins at Lord's & Oval was possible, which actually kept Arthur at job - otherwise after 0-9, he won't have gone to WI.

Absolutly right, you made my day, who cares about pretty 50's every match like your so called legend (joe root) so I will definitely take two match winning centuries over useless fifties every innings.

 

[hadi123]

I might have said this on another thread but what I like about Mickey Arthur is that he is foreign. Because he's not Pakistani there will be no selfishness etc and is less likely to have agendas against certain players. He genuinely wants Pakistan to do well and that's all he cares about, you could see how happy he was when Pakistan won the Champions Trophy.

 

[idrizzy]

In order to call someone "the best", you have to have substantial results to back up with.

Just one tournament could be won due to peaking the players at the right time and right moment which could be attributed to ability of the players rather than the coach. And Pakistan always had that trend. Even in 1992, the team win the world cup, was more to do with Pakistan getting the rhythm that all wanted.

If, this team continues the run, then you can conclude that, mickey has made a difference because otherwise, with the ability of the players only, it will be impossible for Pakistan to continue such run for a significant period of time.

Let's compare this.

A factor X(Pakistan team) showed result Y(won a tournament) .

With presence of Z(mickey), X resulted in Y too.

In order to continue conclude that, Z has any significance, X needs to provide another result A which wasn't there before

Yes, yes, correlation doesn't imply causation. But you can't simply strip away the credentials of a manager because without them, you're left with an average Joe.

 

[msb314]

iMO Bob Woolmer was.

 

[silentkiller187]

mohsin khan

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I think Butt is too old to recall, but he became the skipper in 2010 because with:

1) Younis Khan blackballed and 35 years old,
2) Mohammad Yousuf long past his best,
3) Umar Akmal inconsistent,
4) Azhar Ali not yet international class - even though he is exactly the same age as Salman Butt.....

......Salman Butt had established himself as Pakistan's best Test batsman.

I don't think much has changed. He's still the only Pakistani who is BOTH secure against pace outside off-stump (which Azhar is) AND can score off that line without taking risks (which Azhar, Babar, Sami and Shafiq are all incapable of).

Salman Butt was a walking wicket with anything bowled outside off stump.

 

[Junaids]

Salman Butt was a walking wicket with anything bowled outside off stump.

Really?

Didn't he score two Test centuries in Australia against McGrath and Johnson?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Really?

Didn't he score two Test centuries in Australia against McGrath and Johnson?

3 centuries in 33 tests isn't something I would write home about. In that way, Kamran Akmal scored a brilliant century on a minefield in Karachi, doesn't make him a world class player of swing. Lyth scored a century against Southee and Boult on English pitches, we all saw how miserable he was in the ashes.

Butt had an ugly tendency to either get out in single digits or would make his starts count by scoring big esp in ODI's. Out of 78 ODI innings, he was out for 0 on 15 occasions and scored less than 10 in 12 more occasions.
Similarly in Tests, out of 62 innings, he got out on duck 6 times, and got out on less than 10 in 14 more innings.

He was hit and miss. All or none sorta guy. Azhar Ali and Sami Aslam are better in my opinion. Sami although has to sort out his game and learn how to rotate strike.

 

[Lefthanded]

Seems to have a personality and a plan to go with it. Takes no nonsense but also delivers results.

So is he the best?

A series loss or two, and the lynching mob will be screaming.

 

[Lefthanded]

In order to call someone "the best", you have to have substantial results to back up with.

Just one tournament could be won due to peaking the players at the right time and right moment which could be attributed to ability of the players rather than the coach. And Pakistan always had that trend. Even in 1992, the team win the world cup, was more to do with Pakistan getting the rhythm that all wanted.

If, this team continues the run, then you can conclude that, mickey has made a difference because otherwise, with the ability of the players only, it will be impossible for Pakistan to continue such run for a significant period of time.

Let's compare this.

A factor X(Pakistan team) showed result Y(won a tournament) .

With presence of Z(mickey), X resulted in Y too.

In order to continue conclude that, Z has any significance, X needs to provide another result A which wasn't there before

Conversely, players losing form in a global tournament can mean humiliating defeats.

Then would you blame the coach along with the players?

 

[Lefthanded]

Question is - Are Australia missing Mickey Arthur? Would they have been a different team today if he had stayed?

Good question.

His replacement may have won the Ashes, but last month Lehmann practically sent out an SOS to former players before the BANG tour. Totally desperate in tone and basically sounded like he needed help with his job.

I'm sure it's crossed their mind, whether or not they miss him.

 

[Lefthanded]

Those were just bitter Waqar fans who don't speak for all of PP. If you read the threads on him you'll see the majority of PP supports Mickey and understand he had a tough brief.

He had three hard away assignments (Eng, NZ and Aus) in his first four Test series - he hasn't been able to pad his stats with one UAE series after another like his predecessor.

He inherited an ODI and T20 team bereft of confidence and tottering at 9th and 7th position.

Results have been decent. We drew with England when everyone wrote us off, reaching #1 in the world rankings, and chased 300 in an ODI outside Asia for the first time in Cardiff. We beat Australia away in an ODI for first time since 2005. We beat West Indies in all three formats home and away, including our first ever Test series win in the Caribbean. We haven't lost a T20 series. On top of that we won our first 50 over tournament since 1992.

Also any objective observer can see Mickey's record in player development. Sharjeel was improving before his ban and broke through in all formats. He's invested in Babar Azam at 3 in all formats. Hasan Ali has developed into a top seamer while young leggie Shadab Khan has also been capped in all formats. He also took risk of giving Fakhar Zaman his ODI debut halfway through the CT which paid dividends. Meanwhile consistent domestic performances like Mohammad Abbas have been given Test debut.

Thank you for this post.

Best post I've read in PP in a long time.

 

[shane]

Woolmer was the best. Arthur just happens to be in the right place at the right time.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Woolmer was the best. Arthur just happens to be in the right place at the right time.

Woolmer was a good coach but too nice to be a manager. Mickey is a manager first and results driven coach. Total package.