John Buchanan-What do you think he was capable of?

[Flem274*]

It's a question I've wanted to get round to asking for a while now.In your opinion was John Buchanan a good coach or was he just fortunate to have great players and a strong domestic comp at his disposal? How do you think he would be remembered if he coached say the WI or NZ? Do you think he could have improved Bangladesh or Zimbabwe? What do you think he was capable of?

I know this is a theoretical question that involves alot of estimates and guesswork but hey, its something worth talking about IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think John Buchanan was a good option for that team at that time. He pushed players to challenge themselves further, in different ways, to help keep their "killer instinct", for want of a better term, about them still. I don't think he'd do a great job with any other side, probably a "serviceable" one though.

 

[andyc]

I think John Buchanan was a good option for that team at that time. He pushed players to challenge themselves further, in different ways, to help keep their "killer instinct", for want of a better term, about them still. I don't think he'd do a great job with any other side, probably a "serviceable" one though.

Yeah, that's what I was going to attempt to say. He could make a great team better, but I think he'd struggle to make a poor side a good one.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, my thoughts have always been pretty much exactly as McNamara's and Cameron's TBH.

 

[Goughy]

Cant say for sure, but Im not sure Id agree with all the points here.

Many cricketers from 'lesser' countries dont know how good they could be and are not pushed to develop the way the Aussies system pushes players.

His indepth analysis and outside the box ideas could definately challenge players to improve and develop their game.

Certainly get ride of certain rough edges and improve areas that may be neglected otherwise.

I think he would probably have made a big difference to a team like WI. That is with one proviso though.

That is that they listen to him and buy into his methods. He isnt a traditional coach and different to what a lot of guys are culturally used to in a coach. Due to that I think a lot of guys wouldnt get full benefit as they wouldnt listen fully.

I doubt he would 'own' the team.

 

[howardj]

If, as the Buchanan lovers would have you believe, you were such a great coach, then surely your team would miss you when you left. Fact is, that Australia's (even without two all time greats in Warne and McGrath) quality of cricket has not suffered at all with Buchanan's departure. He has not been missed.

 

[Top_Cat]

If, as the Buchanan lovers would have you believe, you were such a great coach, then surely your team would miss you when you left. Fact is, that Australia's (even without two all time greats in Warne and McGrath) quality of cricket has not suffered at all with Buchanan's departure. He has not been missed.

So by that logic, Buchanan was a better coach than both Geoff Marsh and Bobby Simpson? The fortunes of the team were far better when both of those 'losers' left.

Fact is you could look at it the other way too; perhaps the measure of a good coach is that the team continues to do well when they're gone. No team should be so dependent on a coach that all falls apart when they leave because that's a failing of the coach in not setting up the team to do well when they do inevitably go. The legacy of Bobby Simpson is often talked about even amongst today's players. Why not the same standard apply to Buchanon? I just find it quite a bit more than a co-incidence that QLD won the Sheffield Shield for the first time (having only once come close about 10 years before) with him at the helm and that under Marsh or Simpson, things like dead rubber tests and losing on the sub-continent were a problem but under him, both of those little issues were knocked on the head. Regarding QLD, it wasn't as if the bankers were the ones who did all the work either. In the final it was unfashionable or new playes who did the job. A coach should be given credit for getting the best out of players. Certainly the Test careers of guys like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey and Lehmann were all but over before Buch came along and I don't think it's a co-incidence that players who'd been looked at as 'talented but unfulfilled' were picked and did well. He didn't make them bat well, sure, but I'm sure his input in telling them, for example, why they weren't in the side just yet, what they had to do to get into the side, etc. was very important in organising mentally because technically they were largely fine and they didn't develop a whole heap of talent overnight.

A coach doesn't make good players perform to their best. The players are ultimately responsible for that. A good coach creates the conditions where good players can do well but off their own back. So I guess what I'm saying is that Buch certainly can't be given credit for the fact that Warnie took 40+ wickets in England or Haydo's 375 but he can and should be given some credit for creating the right conditions for success. To quote the great binary God in Futurama "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

 

[Craig]

So by that logic, Buchanan was a better coach than both Geoff Marsh and Bobby Simpson? The fortunes of the team were far better when both of those 'losers' left.

Fact is you could look at it the other way too; perhaps the measure of a good coach is that the team continues to do well when they're gone. No team should be so dependent on a coach that all falls apart when they leave because that's a failing of the coach in not setting up the team to do well when they do inevitably go. The legacy of Bobby Simpson is often talked about even amongst today's players. Why not the same standard apply to Buchanon? I just find it quite a bit more than a co-incidence that QLD won the Sheffield Shield for the first time (having only once come close about 10 years before) with him at the helm and that under Marsh or Simpson, things like dead rubber tests and losing on the sub-continent were a problem but under him, both of those little issues were knocked on the head. Regarding QLD, it wasn't as if the bankers were the ones who did all the work either. In the final it was unfashionable or new playes who did the job. A coach should be given credit for getting the best out of players. Certainly the Test careers of guys like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey and Lehmann were all but over before Buch came along and I don't think it's a co-incidence that players who'd been looked at as 'talented but unfulfilled' were picked and did well. He didn't make them bat well, sure, but I'm sure his input in telling them, for example, why they weren't in the side just yet, what they had to do to get into the side, etc. was very important in organising mentally because technically they were largely fine and they didn't develop a whole heap of talent overnight.

A coach doesn't make good players perform to their best. The players are ultimately responsible for that. A good coach creates the conditions where good players can do well but off their own back. So I guess what I'm saying is that Buch certainly can't be given credit for the fact that Warnie took 40+ wickets in England or Haydo's 375 but he can and should be given some credit for creating the right conditions for success. To quote the great binary God in Futurama "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

Huh?

Hussey hadn't played a Test before then or you mean his chances of getting a Test cap were all but over?

 

[Richard]

I just find it quite a bit more than a co-incidence that QLD won the Sheffield Shield for the first time (having only once come close about 10 years before) with him at the helm and that under Marsh or Simpson, things like dead rubber tests and losing on the sub-continent were a problem but under him, both of those little issues were knocked on the head.

Sure, losses in dead-rubbers are a little, fairly unimportant issue but losing on the subcontinent isn't, winning on the subcontinent is one of the most important things in cricket.

 

[Jono]

Great coach, have a lot of respect for him.

 

[Freddie_Fittler]

Good coach, tactical. The calibre of players he had just helped.

 

[Mister Wright]

Great coach, have a lot of respect for him.

Agree with Jono.

I'm surprised no other team has approached Buchanan.

 

[bond21]

probably the best coach Australia and QLD has ever had.

 

[Slow Love™]

His occasional idiosyncratic public comments aside, he seemed a guy over-involved in head-games and who perhaps didn't pay as much attention to the basics. I'm sure he was competent, but I'm not sure just how much Australia, already an extremely strong and confident team gained out of his expertise.

He clearly wasn't very respected by Shane Warne, but in addition to that, I thought it was obvious that Steve Waugh didn't rate him much either. In addition to that, when Brett Lee was having as basic a problem as constantly overstepping in his run-up, Buchanan commented that he didn't know how it could be resolved, until IIRC, Dennis Lillee volunteered to help and promptly alleviated the issue. I also felt that for a fair period of his reign, our catching was fairly ordinary. And weren't we without a specialist bowling coach, a la Troy Cooley, for a period?

It all depends on what you expect from a coach, and a champion team makes that hard to identify. I can't help thinking of Alan Joyce though, who took Hawthorn to two AFL premierships because he was in the right place at the right time...

 

[howardj]

He clearly wasn't very respected by Shane Warne, but in addition to that, I thought it was obvious that Steve Waugh didn't rate him much either. In addition to that, when Brett Lee was having as basic a problem as constantly overstepping in his run-up, Buchanan commented that he didn't know how it could be resolved, until IIRC, Dennis Lillee volunteered to help and promptly alleviated the issue. I also felt that for a fair period of his reign, our catching was fairly ordinary. And weren't we without a specialist bowling coach, a la Troy Cooley, for a period?

QUOTE]

haha the no ball thing you speak of also happened in the 2005 Ashes Tour when Australia were plagued by that problem. Buch's response was: 'it's all about self-management". That is, he didn't help - but rather thought the boys should solve it themselves. That was the tour when he admitted that he had totally lost touch with the players: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/10/19/1485483.htm

So here we have one of the only series (Ashes 2005) where the Australian team was challenged under his tenure, where they really needed guidance... and what did the supercoach do? Help the boys? God no! He was off losing touch. Indulging in left-field theories of self management. That sure sounds like a great coach to me!