As an individual Coach, Arthur is the highest possible pro that PCB could hire & I was quite impressed with PCB that they could hire Arthur, considering the security situations (& their famous image as an employer).
Is he an ideal coach for PAK? I am not sure actually - also 11 months is too little time to judge a Coach. I actually don't see much improvement in overall performance, because in UAE PAK was a force always while team couldn't have performed worse than this in ANZ, if even may be Basit Ali was Coach. The Lo resurgence is mostly for a much needed & much awaited change in leadership, but Arthur indded should be credited for the change in an almost decade long mindset. When Whatmore was appointed, I categorically wrote that he'll be a failure with PCB. Dav was a fantastic Coach, probably the best ever to work with developing teams. But, he was an unpolished dominating character, who would command everything that he needed. That's why, he had fantastic success with emerging teams/boards - SRL, BD, NCA Bangalore; while he was a failure with teams where he had to work under a frame work - Lancashire/KKR ..... obviously, he was destined to fail with PCB.
This guy Arthur is much more polished, and experienced both from right & wrong incidents. What I have seen is that, he delivers with a commanding Captain - Smith, to a certain extent Misbah; therefore in long term lots of his success will depend on how strong Sarfraz remains. Tactically, technically I don't think there are many better than him in his role therefore qualification isn't any issue - he is one of the best in the world, with every qualities needed to be successful in this role as PAK's head coach, provided that he has adequate support from his employer.
However, in 3 aspects, I think MA needs to rethink his way of doing things with PAK. First one is the approach to the game - he had great success with SAF team, which played very defensive, safety first game - that was a fantastic team, therefore their calculative game won them many matches, and almost erased unpredictability - they hardly will lose a match that they are expected to win. PAK can't play defensive, waiting game - may be apparently on dead slow UAE wickets (which I don't agree completely, but separate discussion), it can work a bit, but core of PAK cricket is expressive, free flowing game - more instinct, less calculation. In that regard, PAK is closer to AUS than SAF, & Micky had a clash with AUS team - he has to find a way to engage this PAK team, the way players are comfortable to deliver their best.
2nd issue is that, Arthur's philosophy is based on pace attack - which is perfect for PAK team as well. But, in terms of overall bowling combination, PAK is more versatile than SAF or even AUS, because of the quality of spinners. With PAK, he can't put every egg in one basket, rather he has to bring spinners in his equation. This is one improvement area for him - it doesn't sound too different between 4 pacers & a spinner or 3 pacers & 2 spinners on papers, but strategically is a massive difference - not to mention 3 spinners & 2 pacers. So far, I haven't seen Arthur to be a shrewd operator with spinners - he likes darters even for KK, which is a defensive way of using spinners.
3rd one is a combination of 1 & 2 - with SAF, Arthur played a far modern game where his core strategy was combination & synergy. His 11 players complemented each others & his team strength lied in sum of multiple skills of his players with bat, ball, fielding & fitness. Here in PAK, the game is still best at individual level.
To make it simple - I can categorically identify a Man of the Match in almost any PAK win, almost it's as visible as the scorching sun; but despite having some of the best individuals, often team performance over shaded individual contribution in SAF's wins. Arthur has to come forward in this regard - for that PAK players won't change ever. He has to find a way to give individuals to express themselves best & that individual capability should determine his combination - instead of other way.
A classic example I can give is the dilemma between PAK 2 ODI openers - one of them has to go. Ahmed is young, he can field much better, he can run better, he has a long future to invest; while Kamran is almost like a fading sun - on his last legs, unfit, bottom heavy & a pathetic fielder. SAF way of thinking is to pick Ahmed between those 2, because Ahmed can contribute in multiple factors; PAK way probably is KAkmal, because despite those drops, bottom heavy doubles turned into singles, KAkmal can blast. For SAF, Arthur could have found other avenues to compensate that lack of blasting power for Ahmed through his better overall game; but, for PAK, in 9 days Kakmal will be clown, one day prince charming & he'll win a match that day. Arthur has to manage this PAK team with their psyche, not other way.
He was the 1st non Aussie, convinced CA to hire him as head coach, therefore his technical qualifications are beyond doubt; but he couldn't keep that job, because he didn't understand his players, culture, environment & the chemistry between his players - same in PAK, but not necessarily that chemistry has to be identical, therefore he has to find the proper mix. If he can adjust & address these 3 areas, he is one of the very best for the job - should remain there till 2023 WC, with utmost authority.
[MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION], [MENTION=100918]Square Drive[/MENTION]
:ahmed
. All of your 5 points are wrong bro.
