John Buchanan: Was he an ineffective head coach/strategist for Australia's GOAT team?

[Rana]

This was an argument raised by someone in another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. We cannot allow the history of cricket to be distorted, so we must stay on top of it.

The claim was in line of “Buchanan was a useless coach who happened to find himself in the right place at the right time” and the poster further added “Ponting was also an average captain”

What do you think the truth is? How did you view this era/tenure?

Would love to hear the views of my brothers @shaz619 @topspin @TheSultan @mominsaigol @Dr_Bassim

Also I would appreciate views of true cricket fans and analysts of the decades @Amjid Javed and @Geordie Ahmed

Furthermore I invite posters who I respect for a reasonable amount of cricketing expertise but do not always agree with their views @RedwoodOriginal @BunnyRabbit @Energy

 

[mominsaigol]

This was an argument raised by someone in another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. We cannot allow the history of cricket to be distorted, so we must stay on top of it.

The claim was in line of “Buchanan was a useless coach who happened to find himself in the right place at the right time” and the poster further added “Ponting was also an average captain”

What do you think the truth is? How did you view this era/tenure?

Would love to hear the views of my brothers @shaz619 @topspin @TheSultan @mominsaigol @Dr_Bassim

Also I would appreciate views of true cricket fans and analysts of the decades @Amjid Javed and @Geordie Ahmed

Furthermore I invite posters who I respect for a reasonable amount of cricketing expertise but do not always agree with their views @RedwoodOriginal @BunnyRabbit @Energy

A coach + Captain are always a duo.

Their are rare cases for example during Mickey's 2nd stint, He was given zero control over the team and he knew this since he was comfortable being a zoom mentor. It was all the Babar azam show.

However 99% of the time, A coach and captain are a pair.

If Pointing + Bucchan were successful then their the best plain and simple. Also the whole pointing was an avg captain is laughable, he's literally the most ruthless captain I've ever seen, plus performance wise he was single handidely winning games as well.

Case in point: If a captain fails, a coach fails, if a captain succeeds then the coach succeeds.

 

[Rana]

Furthermore I invite posters who I respect for a reasonable amount of cricketing expertise but do not always agree with their views @RedwoodOriginal @BunnyRabbit @Energy

I should add @DeadlyVenom in this category too. Good poster who acknowledges the need to change and doesn’t stubbornly stick to falsehood

 

[Rana]

, he's literally the most ruthless captain I've ever seen, plus performance wise he was single handidely winning games as well.

In the 2005 Ashes series, there was an innings where Ponting didn’t bowl Gillespie for a single over, effectively ending his career at that point. I can’t remember exactly what the reason was, what lead to this build up. But it shows that the guy took no prisoners.

 

[Mamoon]

Buchanan had no role in Australia’s success. He found himself in the right place at the right time.

Kirsten and Bayliss were influential but their influence was secondary to the captain. Dhoni and Morgan would have won the World Cup without Kirsten and Bayliss.

Woolmer’s reputation enhanced due to the tragic death. Pakistan‘s results were poor during the 2006-07 phase especially in ODI cricket. They got hammered by India and were awful in the CT and WC.

 

[Rana]

Case in point: If a captain fails, a coach fails, if a captain succeeds then the coach succeeds.

This is essential

But then how can the captain and coach be average if they are succeeding all the time?

 

[Mamoon]

The premise of this thread is wrong. Buchanan wasn’t “useless” or “ineffective”. He was simply not significant to the success of that Australian team.

He was unimportant. Australia’s success would not have been any different if someone else would have been the coach in that period. He wasn’t the catalyst or architect for anything.

He just found himself in the right place at the right time and he isn’t the only coach who has experienced “accidental” success. There are other examples too, for example, Intikhab Alam “coaching” Pakistan to the 92 World Cup triumph.

Those who think Australia would have been less successful without Buchanan are kidding themselves. Similarly, Buchanan could have coached any other team in that era and he wouldn’t have come close to challenging Australia’s dominance.

As far as Ponting’s captaincy is concerned, he won’t even make it to the top 10 captains of all time in spite of captaining the most successful team of all time.

Border, Taylor and Waugh were all better captains. In fact, Cummins is probably better than him as well. Then there were several other captains of his time who were clearly better than him, for example, Ganguly, Fleming, Smith.

His captaincy gets severely overrated because of the success of his team. The game has seen better captains before and after Ponting and even during his tenure. Ponting had incredible resources.

 

[Mamoon]

You can name me. There is no need of saying “someone”. You shouldn’t be scared of me. At least not that much.

 

[Mamoon]

I have already explained my viewpoint. Now it is up to you to explain what was Buchanan’s contribution to the success of Australia and what are the matches, series, tournaments etc. that they wouldn’t have won without Buchanan.

You think he was a great coach and critical to the success of the Australian team? Go ahead and make your case.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I dont think he was insignificant but he doesn't deserve too much credit. The Aussie dressing room culture was a strong one - they had a link of tough captains who passed down the torch and players hardened by the desire to win at all levels.

The captains of the side probably had more direct impact on the team. But I do believe he had some role, to keep the players challenged and for the captain to bounce ideas.

We can probably judge Buchnan's role by how he performed elsewhere. He didn't have too much success in other roles and those roles required him to shape and groom sides a lot more than what he had to do for Australia.

In summary - can't write him off completely, but shouldn't give too much credit to him either. The captain had a bigger role in keeping the team together and ego's in check.

 

[Rana]

Would love to hear the views of my brothers @shaz619 @topspin @TheSultan @mominsaigol @Dr_Bassim

@emranabbas sorry brother I should have added you in this category too.

Your views are welcome

 

[mominsaigol]

The premise of this thread is wrong. Buchanan wasn’t “useless” or “ineffective”. He was simply not significant to the success of that Australian team.

He was unimportant. Australia’s success would not have been any different if someone else would have been the coach in that period. He wasn’t the catalyst or architect for anything.

He just found himself in the right place at the right time and he isn’t the only coach who has experienced “accidental” success. There are other examples too, for example, Intikhab Alam “coaching” Pakistan to the 92 World Cup triumph.

Those who think Australia would have been less successful without Buchanan are kidding themselves. Similarly, Buchanan could have coached any other team in that era and he wouldn’t have come close to challenging Australia’s dominance.

As far as Ponting’s captaincy is concerned, he won’t even make it to the top 10 captains of all time in spite of captaining the most successful team of all time.

Border, Taylor and Waugh were all better captains. In fact, Cummins is probably better than him as well. Then there were several other captains of his time who were clearly better than him, for example, Ganguly, Fleming, Smith.

His captaincy gets severely overrated because of the success of his team. The game has seen better captains before and after Ponting and even during his tenure. Ponting had incredible resources.

As far as Ponting’s captaincy is concerned, he won’t even make it to the top 10 captains of all time in spite of captaining the most successful team of all time.

The guy who is responsible for 3 back to back wc wins, a decade of dominance, Ct victories and has given Australia the largest trophy cabinet of all time followed by notable 1 icc ranks in an era where bi laterals were serious and rankings were objective, is not top 10 captains of all time?

Okay.

 

[Mamoon]

As far as Ponting’s captaincy is concerned, he won’t even make it to the top 10 captains of all time in spite of captaining the most successful team of all time.

The guy who is responsible for 3 back to back wc wins, a decade of dominance, Ct victories and has given Australia the largest trophy cabinet of all time followed by notable 1 icc ranks in an era where bi laterals were serious and rankings were objective, is not top 10 captains of all time?

Okay.

Yes. Ponting won all of that not because he was a brilliant captain but because he had a brilliant team.

Brilliant captains help teams reach a new level. They rebuild teams and overachieve.

Ponting didn’t do any of that. He inherited a brilliant team and achieved with that team what any other captain would have achieved.

When that golden generation ended, a lot of flaws in his leadership and captaincy surfaced. Clarke was a better captain as well.

 

[mominsaigol]

Yes. Ponting won all of that not because he was a brilliant captain but because he had a brilliant team.

Brilliant captains help teams reach a new level. They rebuild teams and overachieve.

Ponting didn’t do any of that. He inherited a brilliant team and achieved with that team what any other captain would have achieved.

When that golden generation ended, a lot of flaws in his leadership and captaincy surfaced. Clarke was a better captain as well.

Clarke was coached by Pointing all the way through 2015? He even admitted that the 2015 team had alot to do with Pointing including the development of Steve smith around 2014 era.

And pointing was a passenger in this brilliant team, he was their best batsmen and was clearly responsible for thumping India. Even without Mcgrath they weren't chasing 360 in that era.

 

[mominsaigol]

Genuinely though, I dont mind brother @Mamoon opinions. I disagree with them but he does articulate his points well and they do come across.

He did predict England test series victory so credit where it's due.

 

[emranabbas]

@emranabbas sorry brother I should have added you in this category too.

Your views are welcome

In a typical scenario, the captain’s main responsibility is to make on-field decisions, like setting field placements, managing bowling rotations, and adjusting the batting order. Most of these decisions are usually part of a strategy discussed in advance with the coach, but things can change quickly during a match. When that happens, it’s up to the captain to make real-time calls and adapt to the situation.

The captain is also responsible for setting the team’s mindset, keeping everyone motivated, and acting as the link between the players and the umpires, as well as representing the team on the field. Essentially, they lead the team in the heat of the moment.

The coach’s role is more focused on preparation and development. They are responsible for training the players, organizing practice sessions, and improving the team’s overall skills and fitness.

The coach also works closely with individual players to address specific technical issues, whether it's with batting, bowling, or fielding. Beyond player development, the coach studies the opposition, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses to help devise game plans.

The coach plays a key role in strategy and preparation, which is why the coach is considered the one in charge. While the captain executes decisions on the field, it’s the coach who lays the foundation. Without the coach’s input and guidance, a captain wouldn’t be nearly as effective, especially when it comes to bigger tactical decisions and team development.

bottom line is the captain is only a puppet of the coach, the coach is the one who pulls the strings.

 

[Rana]

He did predict England test series victory so credit where it's due.

It will derail the thread, but just to add…he didn’t predict Aqib will take over and take those drastic measures needed to win the Test series. Nobody saw this coming.

Mamoon’s prediction was Pakistan would beat England under the same process Gillespie/Shan and co. were adopting. That would have lead to 3-0 for sure to England.

 

[mominsaigol]

In a typical scenario, the captain’s main responsibility is to make on-field decisions, like setting field placements, managing bowling rotations, and adjusting the batting order. Most of these decisions are usually part of a strategy discussed in advance with the coach, but things can change quickly during a match. When that happens, it’s up to the captain to make real-time calls and adapt to the situation.

The captain is also responsible for setting the team’s mindset, keeping everyone motivated, and acting as the link between the players and the umpires, as well as representing the team on the field. Essentially, they lead the team in the heat of the moment.

The coach’s role is more focused on preparation and development. They are responsible for training the players, organizing practice sessions, and improving the team’s overall skills and fitness.

The coach also works closely with individual players to address specific technical issues, whether it's with batting, bowling, or fielding. Beyond player development, the coach studies the opposition, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses to help devise game plans.

The coach plays a key role in strategy and preparation, which is why the coach is considered the one in charge. While the captain executes decisions on the field, it’s the coach who lays the foundation. Without the coach’s input and guidance, a captain wouldn’t be nearly as effective, especially when it comes to bigger tactical decisions and team development.

bottom line is the captain is only a puppet of the coach, the coach is the one who pulls the strings.

bottom line is the captain is only a puppet of the coach, the coach is the one who pulls the strings.

Disagree here. Pat Cummins, Pointing, eoin Morgan, Clarke, Dhoni etc etc aren't puppets. The have had 100x more impact on their teams then coaches.

Even sarfi wasn't a puppet. Players like imad, The return of Amir etc etc was directly orchestrated by him. Infact amockey was kinda rubbish, People forget mickey had fakhar debut at no 4 in t20, and sidelined him for shehzad in ct. It was sarfi who brought some sense and told him that fakhar should be an all format opener.

Mickey's main contribution is Imam, Babar at no 3, shadab etc.

Even hafeez at no 4 was sarfi's decison.

Mickey wasn't as good as coach as people believe. Infact he is the sole reason why pakistan stopped playing spinners and underwent a pseudo allrounder strategy.

Sarfi hard carried mickey during his era.

However yes atm, Rizwan is a puppet of aqib. Aqib hasn't let rizwan choose his own squad.

 

[mominsaigol]

It will derail the thread, but just to add…he didn’t predict Aqib will take over and take those drastic measures needed to win the Test series. Nobody saw this coming.

Mamoon’s prediction was Pakistan would beat England under the same process Gillespie/Shan and co. were adopting. That would have lead to 3-0 for sure to England.

Ik, and im aware. But still, Anyway don't want to detail further. Wish to respect threads made by you.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Australia was always a professional unit. THey relished the structured environment where you follow what you are told to. It makes the coaching job easier for most coaches. If you come up with creative ideas it is easier to implement with an Aussies team being the professionals they are than with an Asian team. John Buchanan was presented it with a great team. He merely facilitated them pushing the boundaries. Was that an easy job? Probably not as they still had players with rebellious attitude within the core group. Shane warne for example never rated the role of coach. Half the job is done when the coach and captain are on the same page. He had good relationship with Waugh. There is an article that talks about how he did well as an Australian coach and failed everywhere else.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/sep/03/john-buchanan-interview-australia

 

[emranabbas]

bottom line is the captain is only a puppet of the coach, the coach is the one who pulls the strings.

Disagree here. Pat Cummins, Pointing, eoin Morgan, Clarke, Dhoni etc etc aren't puppets. The have had 100x more impact on their teams then coaches.

Even sarfi wasn't a puppet. Players like imad, The return of Amir etc etc was directly orchestrated by him. Infact amockey was kinda rubbish, People forget mickey had fakhar debut at no 4 in t20, and sidelined him for shehzad in ct. It was sarfi who brought some sense and told him that fakhar should be an all format opener.

Mickey's main contribution is Imam, Babar at no 3, shadab etc.

Even hafeez at no 4 was sarfi's decison.

Mickey wasn't as good as coach as people believe. Infact he is the sole reason why pakistan stopped playing spinners and underwent a pseudo allrounder strategy.

Sarfi hard carried mickey during his era.

However yes atm, Rizwan is a puppet of aqib. Aqib hasn't let rizwan choose his own squad.

I might be wrong, but can you think of a time when a team went ahead without any input from the coach? Usually, the coach handles developing and training the players and coming up with strategies against the opposition. Most of that happens off the field, where you and I don’t see it. What we see is the captain putting those plans into action on the field.

 

[mominsaigol]

I might be wrong, but can you think of a time when a team went ahead without any input from the coach? Usually, the coach handles developing and training the players and coming up with strategies against the opposition. Most of that happens off the field, where you and I don’t see it. What we see is the captain putting those plans into action on the field.

Coaches handle development, Not training. The team and management as a whole trains and has sessions but a coach isn't responsible for training.

Its up to the player to develop their own techniques, Shots and Strokes.

The captain decides the playing order, he 99% of the time decides the playing 11 as well, coaches provide input but don't have the final say.

The coaches greatest job is to scout talent from domestics, however motivation and other things is a collective effort.

The problem is minus Sarfaraz, Misbah(was stubborn but didn't need coaching atleast), Younis Khan, Imran Khan, Pakistani captains are total babies and need hand holding.

For example if Pat Cummins puts his foot down the coach will oblige.

Problem is Pakistani captains are such that the coach has to hand hold. When Babar was given free reign, the team went into ruin, When shan was given free reign, Pakistan couldn't even beat bangaldesh at home.

Aqib javed has no choice to baby them and hand hold them.

However Pointing, Cummins, Dhoni, Morgan were never puppets. Every coach from their era even accepted that they were 2nd fiddle.

Mainly because Pointing, Cummins etc are professional adults that provide input.

They ain't wannabe 32 year old with the mentality of a 5 year old like rizwan

 

[Rana]

You think he was a great coach and critical to the success of the Australian team? Go ahead and make your case.

“While the "complete useless man" was in charge, Australia won 70 out of 89 Tests they played, three Ashes series, two world cups and a series in India for the first time in 36 years. For a time the only real question they left unanswered was whether they were the greatest team in history, and their only real competition – Indian bogeys aside – were the West Indies of the 1980s and Bradman's Invincibles.”

Why do I need to make my case? Which case? The one Mike Haysman recommended to Ramiz Raja?

70 wins out of 89 Tests as head coach. Who am I to make a case against this record?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In a typical scenario, the captain’s main responsibility is to make on-field decisions, like setting field placements, managing bowling rotations, and adjusting the batting order. Most of these decisions are usually part of a strategy discussed in advance with the coach, but things can change quickly during a match. When that happens, it’s up to the captain to make real-time calls and adapt to the situation.

The captain is also responsible for setting the team’s mindset, keeping everyone motivated, and acting as the link between the players and the umpires, as well as representing the team on the field. Essentially, they lead the team in the heat of the moment.

The coach’s role is more focused on preparation and development. They are responsible for training the players, organizing practice sessions, and improving the team’s overall skills and fitness.

The coach also works closely with individual players to address specific technical issues, whether it's with batting, bowling, or fielding. Beyond player development, the coach studies the opposition, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses to help devise game plans.

The coach plays a key role in strategy and preparation, which is why the coach is considered the one in charge. While the captain executes decisions on the field, it’s the coach who lays the foundation. Without the coach’s input and guidance, a captain wouldn’t be nearly as effective, especially when it comes to bigger tactical decisions and team development.

bottom line is the captain is only a puppet of the coach, the coach is the one who pulls the strings.

I think in the GOAT Aussie era it was the other way around.

They had a proud heritage of leaders and captains that built teams and then handed them down to the next man in line.

Coach had input but the captain was the man in charge

 

[emranabbas]

I think in the GOAT Aussie era it was the other way around.

They had a proud heritage of leaders and captains that built teams and then handed them down to the next man in line.

Coach had input but the captain was the man in charge

I agree that the Aussies in the 2000s were a complete team, but I’m just pointing out what a typical scenario looks like when it comes to the role of a coach.

 

[mominsaigol]

“While the "complete uselessman" was in charge, Australia won 70 out of 89 Tests they played, three Ashes series, two world cups and a series in India for the first time in 36 years. For a time the only real question they left unanswered was whether they were the greatest team in history, and their only real competition – Indian bogeys aside – were the West Indies of the 1980s and Bradman's Invincibles.”

Why do I need to make my case? Which case? The one Mike Haysman recommended to Ramiz Raja?

70 wins out of 89 Tests as head coach. Who am I to make a case against this record?

You need to understand that he was simply at the right place at the right time.

For example i am alive today because both my parents happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Similarly Pointing hit a 140 in wc 2003 final simply because he happened to swing his bat in the right place at the right time.

jokes aside this whole right place at right time thing is applicable to everyone, Life is literally 100% luck.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This was an argument raised by someone in another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. We cannot allow the history of cricket to be distorted, so we must stay on top of it.

The claim was in line of “Buchanan was a useless coach who happened to find himself in the right place at the right time” and the poster further added “Ponting was also an average captain”

What do you think the truth is? How did you view this era/tenure?

Would love to hear the views of my brothers @shaz619 @topspin @TheSultan @mominsaigol @Dr_Bassim

Also I would appreciate views of true cricket fans and analysts of the decades @Amjid Javed and @Geordie Ahmed

Furthermore I invite posters who I respect for a reasonable amount of cricketing expertise but do not always agree with their views @RedwoodOriginal @BunnyRabbit @Energy

Steve Waugh rated him pretty highly in his autobiography.

I know people will say "But Warnie...". But Warne didn't rate any analyst/strategist type coach ever so it's a bit difficult to take his opinion on Buchanan seriously.

 

[mominsaigol]

Steve Waugh rated him pretty highly in his autobiography.

I know people will say "But Warnie...". But Warne didn't rate any analyst/strategist type coach ever so it's a bit difficult to take his opinion on Buchanan seriously.

Warne hated everyone. Even waugh lol. Dude even went off on pointing and pretty much every player in his book.

Warne is like the school kid in your team. He's a bully, hates everyone, is a loner, Will say mean things about you, and has a pessimistic view on life, but because he's so good , you need him in your team regardless.

 

[Rana]

You need to understand that he was simply at the right place at the right time.

For example i am alive today because both my parents happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Similarly Pointing hit a 140 in wc 2003 final simply because he happened to swing his bat in the right place at the right time.

jokes aside this whole right place at right time thing is applicable to everyone, Life is literally 100% luck.

You don't get to choose if you're born, Don't get to choose your name, your family, your location of birth, Even what you know and what you learn and your future success will depend on who you meet in your life in proximity to your location, Since who you meet will shape your thinking and skills, be it a teacher or a friend etc etc.

If we look at things from that perspective, then every person in the planet doesn't deserve credit Except Muhammad Rizwan ofcourse because obviously rizwan is a goat captain who trained himself and is responsible for giving birth to saim ayub and Kamran ghulam.

Bro even Aristotle and Avicenna would be proud of this philosophical view!

 

[Rana]

Warne hated everyone. Even waugh lol. Dude even went off on pointing and pretty much every player in his book.

Warne is like the school kid in your team. He's a bully, hates everyone, is a loner, Will say mean things about you, and has a pessimistic view on life, but because he's so good , you need him in your team regardless.

Let’s say Warne actually hated Ponting/Buchanan. Let’s say this is true. Let’s say he didn’t rate their importance is true….

You respect Buchanan+Ponting even more because of persisting with him, not taking anything personal against him and trying to control him. They let him be, they dealt with him professionally

Imagine Waqar Younis was the coach of Australia during this time, how do you think things would have transpired?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Warne hated everyone. Even waugh lol. Dude even went off on pointing and pretty much every player in his book.

Warne is like the school kid in your team. He's a bully, hates everyone, is a loner, Will say mean things about you, and has a pessimistic view on life, but because he's so good , you need him in your team regardless.

Yeah but that's a more general point about Warnie the person.

But you have to see it in this particular context

1. Warne and that Aussie team in
general were such good
players/thinkers of the game that they
didn't need any analyst to tell them how
to play the game So he personally didn't rate
them.

2. Buchanan was not a "technical" like coaches in the previous era like Bob Simpson , Bob Woolmer, Steve Rixon and those guys.
He was more like a modern coach like McCullum who added a few insights here and there but didn't really try to change technical aspects of the game and was one of the first of these "mentor" type head coaches we have been accustomed to. Which is probably why Warne didn't think highly of him.

 

[emranabbas]

Coaches handle development, Not training. The team and management as a whole trains and has sessions but a coach isn't responsible for training.

Its up to the player to develop their own techniques, Shots and Strokes.

The captain decides the playing order, he 99% of the time decides the playing 11 as well, coaches provide input but don't have the final say.

The coaches greatest job is to scout talent from domestics, however motivation and other things is a collective effort.

The problem is minus Sarfaraz, Misbah(was stubborn but didn't need coaching atleast), Younis Khan, Imran Khan, Pakistani captains are total babies and need hand holding.

For example if Pat Cummins puts his foot down the coach will oblige.

Problem is Pakistani captains are such that the coach has to hand hold. When Babar was given free reign, the team went into ruin, When shan was given free reign, Pakistan couldn't even beat bangaldesh at home.

Aqib javed has no choice to baby them and hand hold them.

However Pointing, Cummins, Dhoni, Morgan were never puppets. Every coach from their era even accepted that they were 2nd fiddle.

Mainly because Pointing, Cummins etc are professional adults that provide input.

They ain't wannabe 32 year old with the mentality of a 5 year old like rizwan

I’m sharing a job description for a cricket club that’s looking for a head coach, which clearly outlines the coach’s responsibilities, including training players.

Here’s a link that explicitly states the head coach is responsible for training:
Holy Trinity Cricket Club Head Coach Job Description.

Another job description also highlights that the head coach needs to have the ability to develop players:
Leicestershire Cricket Club Head Coach Job Description.

The coach also plays a role in selecting the playing XI, which is why there was such an uproar when Aqib took away selection powers from Gary Kirsten. That situation clearly showed how important the coach’s role is in this aspect.

 

[mominsaigol]

Let’s say Warne actually hated Ponting/Buchanan. Let’s say this is true. Let’s say he didn’t rate their importance is true….

You respect Buchanan+Ponting even more because of persisting with him, not taking anything personal against him and trying to control him. They let him be, they dealt with him professionally

Imagine Waqar Younis was the coach of Australia during this time, how do you think things would have transpired?

Australia even now persists with players based of performances and not attitude.

Starc is one of the most troublesome characters to deal with personality wise. He isn't a nice person to his team.

But he gets the job done and their players aren't here to be buddies irl, only buddies on the field.

 

[mominsaigol]

I’m sharing a job description for a cricket club that’s looking for a head coach, which clearly outlines the coach’s responsibilities, including training players.

Here’s a link that explicitly states the head coach is responsible for training:
Holy Trinity Cricket Club Head Coach Job Description.

Another job description also highlights that the head coach needs to have the ability to develop players:
Leicestershire Cricket Club Head Coach Job Description.

The coach also plays a role in selecting the playing XI, which is why there was such an uproar when Aqib took away selection powers from Gary Kirsten. That situation clearly showed how important the coach’s role is in this aspect.

I'm saying it depends, not that you are incorrect.

Someone like pointing or Cummins don't need hand holding from there coaches and their coaches play 2nd fiddle to them, Even coaches admit this.

However someone like rizwan needs handholding from aqib and needs aqib to do everything cause rizwan isn't mature enough to learn the fundamentals of team building, team culture, batting orders etc etc.

 

[Rana]

Australia even now persists with players based of performances and not attitude.

Starc is one of the most troublesome characters to deal with personality wise. He isn't a nice person to his team.

But he gets the job done and their players aren't here to be buddies irl, only buddies on the field.

Symonds
Mitchell Johnson
Micheal Clarke
David Warner
Mathew Hayden
Shane Watson
Shane Warne

Just to name some guys Ponting+Buchanan had to deal with for national duty. Not some IPL gig where everyone knows they are here to bag money. Each one of them on their own is a monster ego. Which head coach in the world at the time would have dealt with them on their level?

 

[emranabbas]

I'm saying it depends, not that you are incorrect.

Someone like pointing or Cummins don't need hand holding from there coaches and their coaches play 2nd fiddle to them, Even coaches admit this.

However someone like rizwan needs handholding from aqib and needs aqib to do everything cause rizwan isn't mature enough to learn the fundamentals of team building, team culture, batting orders etc etc.

Batting order, bowling rotations, DRS decision are all taken by the on field captain

 

[Kianig89]

The amount of talent Australia had in early 2000s insane.

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martin
Waugh
Bevan
Watson
Warne
McGrath
B Lee
Gillespie
----------------
Katich Lehmann Symonds Hogg, Kasprowicz , Bichel, Hodge

These were world class players , Buchanan Nielsen or Rixon doesn't matter.

 

[Mamoon]

“While the "complete useless man" was in charge, Australia won 70 out of 89 Tests they played, three Ashes series, two world cups and a series in India for the first time in 36 years. For a time the only real question they left unanswered was whether they were the greatest team in history, and their only real competition – Indian bogeys aside – were the West Indies of the 1980s and Bradman's Invincibles.”

Why do I need to make my case? Which case? The one Mike Haysman recommended to Ramiz Raja?

70 wins out of 89 Tests as head coach. Who am I to make a case against this record?

What are the matches, series, tournaments that Australia would have lost without him as coach. Please list them.

 

[Mamoon]

Buchanan was as important to the success of Australia as Intikhab was for Pakistan in the 1992 World Cup.

 

[Hitman]

I remember Ian Chappell saying that his daughter could have done a better job than John Buchanan. And then Shane Warne said that he suffered from verbal diarrhea and lacked common sense, and compared him to a goose.

Cricket: Warne slams 'goose' Buchanan

Shane Warne has launched a blistering attack on the former Australia coach, John Buchanan, accusing him of being a "goose" who lives in "pixieland" and suffers from "verbal diarrhoea".

www.theguardian.com

 

[pratiktc]

Coaches end up invariably getting judged by the success or failures of teams under them.

Reality is any coach's real job is to look to build and facilitate a positive work environment wherein players and teams can come together and develop into better units. Coach's ability to gel with captain vision and be sounding board for tactics is also key

The Fletcher - Dhoni era from 2011-15 saw extremely poor Test results (1-13 in Eng/Aus, home series loss vs Eng) and some good results (2013 CT, WC 2015 campaign). Overall on pure results it was objectively poor compared to the 4 year eras either side of it (i.e. Dhoni - Kirsten 2008-11 and Kohli 2015-19).

However a lot of the players - Rohit, Kohli, Ashwin, Rahane, Pujara, Jadeja who formed the backbone of India's cross format success over next decade credit Fletcher as a key presence in development of their techniques and their onboarding into international arena.

 

[Rana]

What are the matches, series, tournaments that Australia would have lost without him as coach. Please list them.

What am I supposed to say?

Would Australia have the same streak in that era if Waqar Younis was their coach?

 

[Rana]

@RyanRyan10

Who do you think is a better captain, Ricky Ponting or Brian Masaba? Do you think life was unfair to a guy like Masaba who was just not in the right place at the right time whereas Ponting was?

 

[Mamoon]

What am I supposed to say?

Would Australia have the same streak in that era if Waqar Younis was their coach?

Australia would have had the same success even without a coach. Buchanan was a non-factor.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I don't think he was a Phil Jackson or a Sir Alex. He was a good coach who was lucky to be coaching Australia at a time when they had one of their greatest ever teams. I am sure he had some contribution to their success, but you could have literally had anyone in that position and it wouldn't have made much of a difference on how dominant Australia were going to be during that era.

The coaches who make an impact always stand-out, be it good or bad. Some examples from 2000s onwards that illustrate this point: John Wright, Bob Woolmer, Greg Chappell, and, Mickey Arthur (as South Africa and Australia coach).

 

[Rana]

Australia would have had the same success even without a coach. Buchanan was a non-factor.

Well that’s a cop out? So if Australia appointed someone like Waqar Younis, they would be as good on that era?

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Well that’s a cop out? So if Australia appointed someone like Waqar Younis, they would be as good on that era?

Australians don't work well with non-Australian coaches. You've got to understand their dressing room culture and be a bit laid-back (Lehmann, MacDonald), instead of a hard-ass (Langer). But I think most Australian coaches could have replicated that success as coach with that team.

 

[Mamoon]

Well that’s a cop out? So if Australia appointed someone like Waqar Younis, they would be as good on that era?

Yes because you don’t need a coach to tell players like Ponting, McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer etc. what do in the prime of their careers.

Buchanan survived because he accepted his dummy role and became a part of the success. You can give him credit for that. A more vocal, authoritative coach would not have survived in that dressing room.

It is laughable to suggest that the aforementioned players in the prime of their careers needed a coach to tell them what to do. They barely needed a captain let alone a coach.

 

[Vikram1989]

Buchanan was responsible for few ideas extending boundaries off the field and on the field. Those were quite successful,radical and backfired spectacularly. I can recollect steve waugh used to say he will always comes with an new idea .

Buchanan introduced a data analytics first and proposed idea that main /aggressive bowlers should bowl more in odis as opposition are dragging the match by atleast 10 overs after playing the non regulars.he brought a certain sense of ruthlessness but not sure about the injury list with it.

Rotation policy was introduced in odi format for first time.Mcgrath skipped 2001 3rd odi against India as part of rotation policy. Compare that with pcb handling of naseem,shaheen. Rauf etc.

He used to challenge his own team players by public name calling. Warne got pissed off after one such incident and both were never on good terms.warne ridiculed the coach as who never played but imagines a lot of things.

Buchanan brought Mike young , a baseball coach to improve the power hitting. Same coach was brought by deccan chargers in ipl 2008 and made rohit great.

Buchanan brought the multiple captaincy idea to kkr as he tried to undermine ganguly captaincy.

Waugh always credited him as good man manager for enhancing positive attitude with new slogans such as " we don't care about yesterday's golden history, we aim for much higher ".

He may have not bothered much about team performance on the field as they steamrolled every one but he has pushed team professional ethics for sure.i think that's why he never got success any where else as he is not good on field coach like Fleming. He advocated Ross Taylor for nz captaincy (as nz director of cricket) while John Wright advocated mccullam .He wrote a book for optimisation of team performance as a business manager. That's what he is.

 

[Rana]

It is laughable to suggest that the aforementioned players in the prime of their careers needed a coach to tell them what to do. They barely needed a captain let alone a coach.

It’s laughable? Who’s laughing?

Who are the top 10 captains of all time if Ponting isn’t one of them? What number does Ponting rank? 13? 15? 30?


Let’s hear it.

 

[mominsaigol]

It’s laughable? Who’s laughing?

Who are the top 10 captains of all time if Ponting isn’t one of them? What number does Ponting rank? 13? 15? 30?


Let’s hear it.

1) Rizwan (Best captain of all time)
2) Babar
3) Misbah
4) Yousaf
5) Sachin Tendulkar
6) Brian Lara
7) Chris Gayle
8) Andrew Flintoff
9) Temba Bavuma
10) Shivnarine Chanderpaul

 

[Rana]

1) Rizwan (Best captain of all time)
2) Babar
3) Misbah
4) Yousaf
5) Sachin Tendulkar
6) Brian Lara
7) Chris Gayle
8) Andrew Flintoff
9) Temba Bavuma
10) Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Yeah this isn’t laughable

 

[mominsaigol]

Yeah this isn’t laughable

Jokes aside my top 10 rankings are

1) Steve Waugh
2) Clive Lyod
3) Ricky Pointing
4) Graeme Smith
5) Viv Richards
6) Steven Fleming
7) MS Dhoni
8) Hansie Cronnjie
9) Shaun Pollock
10) Imran Khan/Kapil Dev
11) Brandon Mcullum

Steven Fleming probably >>> Viv tbh. It's changeable.

 

[mominsaigol]

Jokes aside my top 10 rankings are

1) Steve Waugh
2) Clive Lyod
3) Ricky Pointing
4) Graeme Smith
5) Viv Richards
6) Steven Fleming
7) MS Dhoni
8) Hansie Cronnjie
9) Shaun Pollock
10) Imran Khan/Kapil Dev
11) Brandon Mcullum

Steven Fleming probably >>> Viv tbh. It's changeable.

Allan border as well.

 

[mominsaigol]

Calling the most successful coach and the highest cabinet trophy captain of all time as not even top 10 material is an argument very few are capable of making

 

[sweep_shot]

Aussie ATG team was so great that coach didn't matter at that time. You could've had Ashok Dinda as their coach and they would've still won probably.

 

[Kianig89]

Best modern captains

Cummins
Morgan
Ganguly
Strauss

 

[Rana]

Best modern captains

Cummins
Morgan
Ganguly
Strauss

What was Ponting? Archaic?

 

[sweep_shot]

What was Ponting? Archaic?

Recency bias?

 

[Rana]

Recency bias?

Who’s recency bias? Ponting?

 

[sweep_shot]

Who’s recency bias? Ponting?

I meant @Kianig89 probably didn't add Ponting due to recency bias.

 

[Rana]

I meant @Kianig89 probably didn't add Ponting due to his recency bias.

Ah yes

He’s itching to add Rizwan

 

[mominsaigol]

What was Ponting? Archaic?

Pointing, the rubbish captain who won 3 wc's in a row, Won ct, maintained an era of odi and test dominace, achieved the longest win streak in odi and test history.

Rubbish captain who got lucky with rubbish coaches.

Rizwan on the other hand, took a crumbling team with his own hands and led them to greatness. All hail Rizwan, greatest t20 opener of all time and the world's best no 4 batsmen.

What a captain, only someone like rizwan can make haris Rauf a world class bowler and shaheen the 3rd greatest pakistani pacer of all time. Don't forget pointing never gave birth to anyone, rizwan gave birth to saim and Kamran.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The coaches who make an impact always stand-out, be it good or bad. Some examples from 2000s onwards that illustrate this point: John Wright, Bob Woolmer, Greg Chappell, and, Mickey Arthur (as South Africa and Australia coach).

Duncan Fletcher springs to me mind for me.

Helped build a decent England team and did well with India too.

You can name some tangible things that most good coaches leave behind. I struggle to think of anything for Buchanan - yes the team were successful but they were odds on to win most things anyway.

 

[Rana]

What a captain, only someone like rizwan can make haris Rauf a world class bowler and shaheen the 3rd greatest pakistani pacer of all time.

He also transformed Salman Ali Agha in to Swann

 

[Mamoon]

Jokes aside my top 10 rankings are

1) Steve Waugh
2) Clive Lyod
3) Ricky Pointing
4) Graeme Smith
5) Viv Richards
6) Steven Fleming
7) MS Dhoni
8) Hansie Cronnjie
9) Shaun Pollock
10) Imran Khan/Kapil Dev
11) Brandon Mcullum

Steven Fleming probably >>> Viv tbh. It's changeable.

Pollock better than Ganguly and Ranatunga. My my my my my.

 

[Mamoon]

Pollock like Ponting was a bang average captain.

 

[mominsaigol]

He also transformed Salman Ali Agha in to Swann

Under the brilliant captaincy if Rizwan we have

Abdullah Shafique = Ricky Pointing
Saim ayub = Quinton de Kock
Babar Azam = Virat Kohli
Rizwan = T20 + Spin Bradman
Kamran Ghulam = Ab de Villers
Salman Ali Agha = Glenn Maxwell
Irfan Khan Niazi = Micheal Bevan
Shaheen Shah Afridi = Better then Waqar Younis
Naseem Shah = America's Beauty Pagent
Rauf = Waqar Younis
Abrar = Shane Warne

What a captain

 

[mominsaigol]

Pollock better than Ganguly and Ranatunga. My my my my my.

I forgot about them, I made my list in a hurry and didn't research, yes those 2 are >>>>>> Pollock, I agree and don't disagree.

But Pollock is SA's 3rd most successful captain of all time, and a brilliant test captain.

You're acting like he's rubbish, in the same way you're acting like pointing is rubbish.

 

[Mamoon]

I forgot about them, I made my list in a hurry and didn't research, yes those 2 are >>>>>> Pollock, I agree and don't disagree.

But Pollock is SA's 3rd most successful captain of all time, and a brilliant test captain.

You're acting like he's rubbish, in the same way you're acting like pointing is rubbish.

Pollock was nowhere near Cronje and Smith. He was an ordinary captain like Ponting. The only difference was that Ponting had a much stronger team.

 

[mominsaigol]

Pollock was nowhere near Cronje and Smith. He was an ordinary captain like Ponting. The only difference was that Ponting had a much stronger team.

Can I ask what criteria you're even using . How do you even measure captaincy success?

He has the 3rd highest win % in odi for sa after cronjie and Smith followed by the highest win % for sa in tests?

In fact his win% in odi is just slightly behind Smith?

I'm not comparing him to Smith since Smith has multiple Atg victories in odi and tests. And has records upon records, But how is Pollock an average captain when he's literally Sa's 3rd greatest cap?

 

[mominsaigol]

The only reason pointing is below waugh is because pointing inherited a team and didn't build it.

However maintaining a decade of dominance followed by building another atg team for Clarke by 2015 puts him at no 3 all time

 

[Rana]

Pollock was nowhere near Cronje and Smith. He was an ordinary captain like Ponting. The only difference was that Ponting had a much stronger team.

What’s your top 10 captains and what number does Ponting fall?

 

[Mamoon]

The only reason pointing is below waugh is because pointing inherited a team and didn't build it.

However maintaining a decade of dominance followed by building another atg team for Clarke by 2015 puts him at no 3 all time

Australia between 2002-2006 could have appointed a different captain every series and nothing would have changed.

 

[mominsaigol]

What’s your top 10 captains and what number does Ponting fall?

Top 10 is a difficult list and yes I forgot about ganguly and many others, that's my bad.

However Pointing is objectively top 3 regardless of how you look at it.

Nothing changes the fact that he was basically unstoppable for 10 years.

 

[Mamoon]

What’s your top 10 captains and what number does Ponting fall?

@mominsaigol’s list is pretty good but you have to take Ponting and Pollock out and add Ganguly and Ranatunga. You have to add Allan Border as well - far better leader than Ponting, and so were Clarke and Taylor.

Suicidal maverick McCullum needs to be removed as well.

 

[Rana]

Top 10 is a difficult list and yes I forgot about ganguly and many others, that's my bad.

However Pointing is objectively top 3 regardless of how you look at it.

Nothing changes the fact that he was basically unstoppable for 10 years.

I would take his word with a pinch of salt if he mentions captains before 2000. He’s not seen them play or captain. He’s not seen that era of cricket. So if this guy comes up with something like Clive Lloyd or Allan Border, he’s making up stuff.

 

[Rana]

@mominsaigol’s list is pretty good but you have to take Ponting and Pollock out and add Ganguly and Ranatunga. You have to add Allan Border as well - far better leader than Ponting, and so were Clarke and Taylor.

Suicidal maverick McCullum needs to be removed as well.

Ok what’s your list in which Ponting doesn’t make it?

 

[Mamoon]

Top 10 is a difficult list and yes I forgot about ganguly and many others, that's my bad.

However Pointing is objectively top 3 regardless of how you look at it.

Nothing changes the fact that he was basically unstoppable for 10 years.

No passionate Australian cricket fan would have Ponting even in the top 3 greatest Australian captains ahead of Border, Taylor and Waugh.

 

[Mamoon]

I would take his word with a pinch of salt if he mentions captains before 2000. He’s not seen them play or captain. He’s not seen that era of cricket. So if this guy comes up with something like Clive Lloyd or Allan Border, he’s making up stuff.

You have to respect history as well. I started watching cricket from 1997-1998 but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t respect the game before my time. None of us have watched Bradman play. Does that mean we should not recognize his greatness? What nonsense.