Former Australian cricketer Brett Geeves had taken another dig at Darren Lehmann, after the Australian coach said he didn’t listen to Geeves because “he wasn’t a good player.”
Last week Geeves questioned Lehmann’s philosophy for the tour of India, after Lehmann claimed opener Matt Renshaw was not certainty to go to India despite his 184 (the highest score made by an Australian all summer) against Pakistan at the SCG.
Lehmann hit back on the radio a few days later, telling hosts on FIVEaa he didn’t have time for Geeves’ comments.
As the pair have returned serve on each other, Geeves took another shot at Lehmann, calling the 27-Test veteran his ‘bunny’.
So of course Darren Lehmann thinks I am an average cricketer,” Geeves writes in his article for Foxsports.com.au.
It’s ingrained in him as a defense mechanism to either call me a s**t bloke or a s**t cricketer. Yet all he has unwittingly achieved is provide us with an example of the types of attitudes that still exist in our game: a recognition that the foundation for the code is real and that the views of anyone that didn’t play at a higher level than ‘Boof’ should be mocked, ridiculed and sent to the wasteland of internet-based journalism; regardless of the depth of knowledge, experiences and fact provided to support the view.
It is a completely flawed thought process and one that provides credence to my views that the AFL are a long way ahead of cricket when it comes to its coaching pathways and how it has embraced a number of different knowledge banks that aren’t from the elite player range.
As for Geeves v Lehmann? Well I know you are wondering.
In the two Shield games we played against each other he averaged 29 and I got nine wickets – including Boof’s scalp twice.
In four one-day games, where I took six wickets at 22, he averaged 31, and I got him once – and didn’t get to bowl to him in two others as he was already dismissed.
So across the four games I got to bowl to him, I dismissed him three times.
The code was made to be broken.
Anyone got bunny ears?