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

[mominsaigol]

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

Forgot about border, Taylor.

I'll remake my list, as I said i made it in a hurry. However I rank pointing > those 2. But below waugh.

 

[Mamoon]

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

I have already answered your question. Look at @mominsaigol’s and incorporate the changes that I have recommended.

 

[mominsaigol]

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.

@Mamoon is correct about Ganguly and rata >>>>>>> Pollock. I do not disagree.

But pollock is the 3rd greatest sa captain of all time and pointing is always gonna be in a top 5 list.

 

[Rana]

None of us have watched Bradman play. Does that mean we should not recognize his greatness? What nonsense.

Yes, I can name plenty of Batsmen who I would rate over Bradman because I never saw him play nor did see the standard of cricket that was being played.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

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.

The culture is a big thing that a strong coach tends to bring with him. Can be good or bad. Didn't feel that Buchanan brought anything like that. And if he really was particularly good or bad, players would talk about him. But they don't.

 

[RexRex]

Apart from Warne, nobody has spoken ill about him so he must have been a positive influence.

 

[mominsaigol]

Yes, I can name plenty of Batsmen who I would rate over Bradman because I never saw him play nor did see the standard of cricket that was being played.

True, however You gotta take into account eras.

In bradman's era cricket wasn't a money making machine, hence most players including bradman had other jobs. Bradman was stockbroker first and cricketer 2nd. Meanwhile cricketers in this day and age has recieved life long coaching and training since the age of 8-13.

Secondly bradman's era didn't have chest platings, helmets or even proper functioning bats making cut shots, sweep shots and unorthodox strokes impossible. Pitch ciration wasn't as good either.

Every one with the same resources as Bradman avg 40 to 60 but Bradman avg 99.94.

Take someone like Pointing back to 1930's and remove his skills, training, coaching, money and have him only play cricket part time while working multiple jobs + Those old bats and what not, then he'd probs be another 40-60 avg batsmen.

Logically I don't think bradman is better then even players like Labu. However again Labu is born 100 years after bradman.

Take labu back to 1930's with the same resources and he'll be avg 30-50 and would be way way way behind bradman as a player.

That's why it's useless to compare such long eras.

It's like saying Magnus is > Bobby fisher in chess, it's true however Magnus had access to practising with stockfish and supercomputer Ai engines. Magnus would get smoked in chess had he been born in Bobby fisher era

 

[BouncerGuy]

Just stay on topic now

 

[Mamoon]

Yes, I can name plenty of Batsmen who I would rate over Bradman because I never saw him play nor did see the standard of cricket that was being played.

YoBradman is the GOAT because of how far ahead he was compared to his peers. That is the true test of greatness.

The standard of cricket was the same for everyone. Bradman must have something special which allowed him to standout from the rest. These special attributes would have enabled him to be the best in any era.

 

[Wasim Ghulam]

Australian team post 2000 was combination of talent , Skill , Commitment and professionalism. Even Coaches with proven mediocre record would have had more success being part of that Team . It is known

 

[MHN1293]

True, however You gotta take into account eras.

In bradman's era cricket wasn't a money making machine, hence most players including bradman had other jobs. Bradman was stockbroker first and cricketer 2nd. Meanwhile cricketers in this day and age has recieved life long coaching and training since the age of 8-13.

Secondly bradman's era didn't have chest platings, helmets or even proper functioning bats making cut shots, sweep shots and unorthodox strokes impossible. Pitch ciration wasn't as good either.

Every one with the same resources as Bradman avg 40 to 60 but Bradman avg 99.94.

Take someone like Pointing back to 1930's and remove his skills, training, coaching, money and have him only play cricket part time while working multiple jobs + Those old bats and what not, then he'd probs be another 40-60 avg batsmen.

Logically I don't think bradman is better then even players like Labu. However again Labu is born 100 years after bradman.

Take labu back to 1930's with the same resources and he'll be avg 30-50 and would be way way way behind bradman as a player.

That's why it's useless to compare such long eras.

It's like saying Magnus is > Bobby fisher in chess, it's true however Magnus had access to practising with stockfish and supercomputer Ai engines. Magnus would get smoked in chess had he been born in Bobby fisher era

Irrelevant to the thread but as someone who follows chess i dont agree with this comparison. We cant say for sure who will triumph if both were in the same era but it would be pretty close. Magnus has completely dominated all formats of chess and no one is even close similar to bobby. Bobby probably had a better peak however over the course of 20 years magnus would probably acheive more

 

[mominsaigol]

Irrelevant to the thread but as someone who follows chess i dont agree with this comparison. We cant say for sure who will triumph if both were in the same era but it would be pretty close. Magnus has completely dominated all formats of chess and no one is even close similar to bobby. Bobby probably had a better peak however over the course of 20 years magnus would probably acheive more

Magnus has access to practise with stockfish + chess online which allows him to see computer algorithm moves, something a human player wouldn't make.

His identical memory allows him to study those patterns whereas a regular humans wouldn't play such moves.

Bobby fisher had zero access to these. Had magnus played in fisher's era he wouldn't have ai to analyse patterns.

He would probs beat bobby after multiple tried because eventually he would get use to his patterns, but not on the 1st try.

 

[TheSultan]

Personally, Buchanan seemed like a caretaker. The team and mentality was set up for him. This doesn’t mean he was useless. There could be coaches, who would try and change things. Sometimes being good enough to acknowledge that your job is not about making a change, it’s about continuing what you have.

Ponting was not an average captain, but he was more emotional than some of his cold predecessors like Steve Waugh. He does have the distinction of being the first captain to lose a series vs England after 18 years. However, he was also the first captain to whitewash England 5-0 too in the following ashes. A lot of Australian teams took their eye off the ball in dead rubbers - especially against England.

Ponting also had the unenviable task of picking up the Aussies after losing 2-3 ATGs.

 

[shaz619]

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

He was ahead of his time and had a very similar style to Bob Woolmer who I personally rate as the greatest cricket coach of all time. Bob obviously was more of a student of the game but if anyone reads his cricketing encyclopaedia, there are vast sections which emphasise the importance of mentally resilient teams/players, relations & general tricks of the mind, he really saw a big part of the game was all in the head and while Buchanan wasn’t the most knowledgeable technically, his school of thought really went down the same road as well. Yes, he inherited a phenomenal team but his so called unorthodox methods allowed Australia to exploit the weaknesses of other teams.

He prioritised the psychology of his players & developed great relationships with them, especially Ponting which was crucially important with him being captain and I could be wrong, but he was among a few to utilise data driven approach as well which would have given Australia a clear advantage when everyone else was so far behind in that regard.

I don’t think he was a fraud, perhaps misunderstood in later years. He also helped England win the Ashes in Australia, looking back I think his methods were very much suited to Andy Flower’s coaching style, and he can’t have been a bum if Flower utilised his services, he was perhaps smart enough to understand his system.

Just my opinion though I see there are far more wise heads in this thread @Rana

 

[Abid Z]

Most people commenting on this “Buchanan was an average coach …Ponting was an average captain” were running around in nappies and only now using selective articles to make redundant claims. The fact is Buchanan was an incredible coach of a fantastic captain at a time when the whole Australian system of regional cricket coaches and selectors was in complete unity. People talk about greats of the game that having McGrath, warne Hayden gilchrist meant the team was already awesome and there’s nothing you could do to make them more winnable.

This is a very skewed reading and we must consider the period before JB/rp and after. Pre 1999 and post 2007. Firstly in coaching terms this is a pretty long tenure. Many coaches don’t last 8 years and certainly since then we see them lasting only 2-3 years.

Secondly coaches operate very much with a system and good influential coaches are instrumental in changes taking place at board or regional level not just a cricket field. What happens in the cricket field is a very limited aspect of what a coach can do but they are certainly able to influence far bigger systemic changes and innovations.

Then just consider after 1999 some behavioural problems of players. Some like Ponting he nurtured. Others like slater were dropped. Langer and Hayden didn’t become an established opening dominant force till after 1999. But others turned up. Who even remembers Darren Lehman, Simon katich, Andy Bichel, Nathan Bracken, Brad Hogg. People think just because he had McGrath and warne he couldn’t lose but there’s much more to a team than a few players. Dropping Steve Waugh was a really difficult choice but it was typical of the ruthlessness of Australia at that time and then Mike Hussey turned up. What a replacement to have.

One can go on and on but you really had to live through that period to appreciate how good and ruthless the whole Aussie set up was and how so many other teams were going through their own changes but couldn’t quite capitalise on that the way Australia did.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I was still a kid when Buchanan was the coach so i think elder fans can give a better response as they would have observed him better. All I remember is that the world was changing in terms of technology usage and suddenly these few coaches were talked about a lot by the media for bringing technical inputs into the game. Pakistan also had a foreign coach in the late 90s and my friends in school used to talk a lot about how he made Pakistan great by sharing foreign know-how Also remember everyone wished to talk about South Africans and how Handie Cronje was always talking to his coach via microphone while on the ground . We had Anshuman Gaikwad, Kapil Dev as coach I think and we thought we are doomed coz ain’t nobody sharing foreign know-how with Indies bruh. We took a huge sigh of relief when John Wright brought a laptop to Bharat coz all the magic was believed to be in that Laptop. I miss school days man.