John Buchanan is one of the most successful coaches in international cricket. He presided over Australia’s golden era, guiding the team to two World Cup titles in 2003 and 2007 — both achieved without losing a single match — and overseeing a side that won nearly three-fourths of the Tests it played during his tenure.
In this conversation with The Hindu, the 72-year-old reflects on what it takes to build a successful team, revisits some of the memorable battles against India, and shares his insights on the modern game. Excerpts
How do you assess the current state of Australian cricket?
They had a strong Ashes series before the T20 World Cup exit. They did win 3-1, but I thought it was a very disappointing series. The skill levels of both sides were not what I would term ‘Test match standard.’ And I say that not just because the matches lasted two or two-and-a-half days, but because, from both a batting and bowling perspective, I saw players unable to adapt and adjust their skills to the conditions.
Wickets always play a role, but the ones I saw shouldn’t have dictated such short games. So, in a nutshell, I think it’s time for Australian cricket to do some soul-searching. That includes taking accountability for both good and bad outcomes. Australia’s record over the last three or four years across formats is still quite strong. Nonetheless, the results in T20 cricket are indicative of some underlying cracks in the system.
With players like Mitchell Starc, Steve Smith, and Josh Hazlewood nearing the end of their careers, how do you see the road ahead?
It ties back to what we just discussed. There will need to be turnover. In any team aiming for sustained success, you need a balance — experienced players alongside younger ones coming through.
Right now, particularly in Test cricket, Australia has a group dominated by older players, with very little infusion of young talent. The younger players who have come in occasionally, like Sam Konstas, haven’t been able to survive at the highest level. A lot of this comes down to the domestic system — the Sheffield Shield, the BBL, and the One-Day competitions. The issue is that the best players often do not participate in these tournaments. When they do get opportunities, they may opt out due to injury, rest, or time away from the game.
So, when your domestic system is no longer the best indicator of whether a player is ready for international cricket, then you’ve got a problem. That’s something Australia needs to examine very carefully.
Do you see any promising youngsters coming through?
I don’t follow the under-19 level closely anymore. But broadly speaking, I believe there is enough talent. The key question is whether that talent can be consistently executed at a higher level.
At the moment, the competitions these players are involved in are not sufficiently testing them. So while talent exists, the challenge is nurturing it into players who can perform consistently in international cricket.
What separates a good coach from a truly successful one at the highest level?
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — you need talented players. We were fortunate to have greats like Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, and someone like Ricky Ponting, who was close to that level.
Just below them were players like Jason Gillespie, Matthew Hayden, and Justin Langer, who were also outstanding performers.
Then you need strong leadership — Steve Waugh and Ponting, supported by senior players like Adam Gilchrist.
That leadership shapes the team culture — how you prepare, how you approach the game, and how you respond to both wins and losses. Losing hurts, but then you are ready to make amends the next time around.
I remember after the 2007 World Cup, I was asked if I had ever coached the perfect match. I said no — we came close a few times, but never perfect. What we did have, though, was the perfect team: players who constantly looked to improve themselves.
How did you manage a team full of big personalities and still raise the bar further?
It wasn’t always smooth sailing. Like any family, there were disagreements. Initially, it was about working with a small core group — Warne, McGrath, the Waugh brothers, and Slater.
Others like Ponting and Gillespie were still establishing themselves, and Gilchrist was just starting. The first 18 months were about understanding how the group functioned before trying to make a significant impact.
Over time, I formed a close working relationship with Steve Waugh and Adam Gilchrist. Together, we focused on building the right culture, planning processes, and training methods. Even though we were winning, it took about 18 months for everything to really solidify.
Success played a key role — early wins helped players believe in the direction we were taking.
You were ahead of the curve with data and fitness. Was there resistance from players?
There’s always resistance to change, especially when things are going well. But my view was that if we didn’t evolve, other teams would catch up and surpass us. Take the example of our ‘Target 400’ approach. When I introduced it, players were enthusiastic, but they questioned how we would get there, given that our highest scores were around 340–350.
So we used data to show that we were only maximising about 50% of scoring opportunities. That meant there was untapped potential. From there, we focused on areas like running between the wickets. Technically, many players weren’t efficient in that aspect. So that’s where a physical change would come in. We needed to actually get them to understand how to get low and power out of their legs to give themselves momentum to get down the other end. These small improvements would help us extract more runs, either by converting singles into twos or scoring off previously unused deliveries.
What were the highlights of your coaching career?
Three moments stand out: Winning Queensland’s first Sheffield Shield, coaching my first Test match in Brisbane, singing the national anthem, and finishing with the 2007 World Cup final. Those moments were deeply personal and meaningful.
Was there a player you were particularly fond of?
I’d say, Andrew Symonds. He wasn’t necessarily the best or the most disciplined, but he brought something special to the team dynamic. He could bat, bowl both spin and medium pace, and was an outstanding fielder. More importantly, we shared a strong relationship.
Which current Indian players have caught your eye?
Jasprit Bumrah stands out immediately. Alongside Starc, he’s one of the leading fast bowlers in the world. He’s composed, humble, and consistently delivers. I also really like Shubman Gill. I think he’s a very special player.
What advice would you give to Shubman Gill as captain during this transition phase?
First and foremost, he has to perform as a player. Leadership becomes very difficult if you’re not contributing with the bat. From there, he needs to back himself and his decisions. If you look at Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting, they had different styles. Steve was someone who would generally quietly confide in people, but then make the decision. Ricky Ponting would always confide in a way that was very obvious, but still make the decision. Gill needs to find what works best for him.
Your favourite India-Australia contests?
The 2001 and 2004 series stand out. 2004 was a real achievement for us. But it was on the back of 2001 for me, because I hadn’t been to India before then. I remember learning from E.A.S. Prasanna, S. Venkataraghavan, and B.S. Chandrasekhar. I got to meet Bishan Singh Bedi, just listening to them talk about spin bowling and how you do it and how you play it, and watching the Indian batters, how they play spin. So 2004 was a real outcome of what happened in 2001. The 2003 World Cup final against India was also an incredible performance.
Any regrets on enforcing the follow-on in that famous Test in Eden Gardens in 2001?
I regard it as one of my poor decisions as a coach. But it was not just about enforcing the follow-on. The game was set up nicely, and we had a big lead (274 runs). My job was not to get caught up in the emotion of what was going on the field. Except, I did. My job was to sit them down quickly as the players walked in and explain our options. I think they still would have all gone there (to enforce the follow-on), but I didn’t take the time to get them to think that if we had batted, we would have batted India out of the game. Our objective was to go there to win the series. But we enforced the follow-on.
It was the way we’d been playing, and that was the obvious choice for us to make. We’d won the first Test (in Mumbai), albeit that was a little bit masked by Hayden and Gilchrist’s performances. When I look back, they were playing sweeps, the balls were landing [in between fielders], and we had things going our way, which we probably ignored a little bit. And so the obvious decision was to enforce the follow-on, which we did, and the rest is history.
Can you elaborate on the strategy behind the 2004 series win in India?
Our strategy was to cut down scoring opportunities. Indian players are strong on the leg-side, so we used specific field placements — like multiple mid-wicket positions — to create pressure. We focused on bowling at the stumps and back-of-a-length deliveries, forcing batters to take risks. We also mixed in short balls to disrupt the rhythm.
The idea was to restrict boundaries, force errors, and take the crowd out of the game. In India, once the crowd gets behind the team, it can be overwhelming for the opposition. And Warne’s role was somewhat less; he was to play a supporting role, not necessarily a lead one, which didn’t fit his ego.
But by that stage, he was very much governed by all the players around him, and so they didn’t let him get away and let him go and do his own thing. And the other thing was that Adam Gilchrist really stuck to the plan (Ponting was injured for the first three Tests), which made a big difference as well.
What’s your take on India’s success, especially in white-ball cricket, and the overall state of Indian cricket today?
I may not follow it as closely as I once did, but my overall view is that Indian cricket is heading exactly where you would expect — a powerhouse of world cricket. There is an enormous pool of talent, and the competition to get into the national team is incredibly high. As a result, the players who do make it are generally very well prepared for international cricket. You can see that in their recent performances, including the T20 World Cup win. Their ODI side has also been performing very credibly. The depth of talent pushing through — whether into India-A or the senior team — will continue to ensure India remains a dominant force.
