Mickey Arthur named Australia head coach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/15832525.stm

Mmmmm, sensible appointment of the best man available...
Panic at woeful loss of form...

Time will tell I guess...

I am not sure form (despite the recent victory, the 4th best [from memory] run chase in SA) has a lot to do with it Bob.

I would put it down far more to loss of personnel.

Rod Marsh (a foreigner) rescued England from their lack of "form", but more likely, self belief. While I don't believe there is a lack of belief in Australian teams, they can certainly benefit from a foreigner casting a different eye over the structure, and coming up with different ideas.

No team can immediately overcome the loss of the best spin bowler, and best wicketkeeper/batsman in history, plus the best seamer of the last decade or two.

England should enjoy their short time in the sun - it certainly won't last 15+ years, as did Australia's.

I think that just maybe you are putting too much emphasis on the role of Rod Marsh concerning the current test squad. It is 6 years since Marsh had anything to do with English cricket. If he truly was a genius then I would have thought that, by now, the Australian side would be dominated by cricketers from South Australia, rather than New South Wales...

Bob, when did the downward trend (?plunge) change in UK cricket?

Marsh is from WA, not SA.

He no doubt recognises the impact that the loss of 3 world class cricketers can have on a team (think Lillee, G.Chappell, Marsh), and the process of rebuilding.

In Australia's case, it then took about 10 years, rather than 20+ years for the Poms.

Marsh has, by my understanding, had a position reviewing cricket in South Australia since leaving the England position...hence the remarks...
Personally I always thought that Duncan Fletcher had a far greater influence on halting England's slide. Yes, he was also from outside England, but that is nothing new for the England side & something that Australia was always quick to 'crow' about...
For Australia the appointment of Arthur is a first in their history - which is why it is significant, whatever slant Australians would care to place on it!!!

The difference I see between Marsh and Fletcher (not discounting his impact) was that Marsh was instrumental in setting up the Academy ie the ongoing base of England cricket.

Fletcher inherited a reasonable team in the early/mid - 2000s, but the continuing success (cough ) of the team is down to having a totally new structure in place, to bring through the potential elite players ie the Marsh Academy.

Just as the Aussie coaches (Cooley etc) taught the Poms how to bowl.

jackspratt wrote:Just as the Aussie coaches (Cooley etc) taught the Poms how to bowl.

Oh no, no ,no.. I take it you mean Troy Cooley who left England in 2005 to become AUSTRALIAN bowling coach.

To put England's current success down to 2 Australian coaches who have been employed in similar positions for the last 6 years within Australian is stretching credibility rather.
If they were SO instrumental in England's success why have they failed so dismally to stop Australia's slide over the last 6 years....

Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard whom Cooley coached are no longer in the Test squad.
James Anderson, who is, has become world class only long after Cooley had been coaching in Australia!!