The fourth paragraph also contains:I asked the question and I don't think the answers in that article really count as 'wild mood swings'. The writer is at pains to keep reiterating that none of the examples on their own tell the story and you have to add them up, likely because none of the stories seem particularly wild. Not saying there's no truth to the rumours, but just as equally, could be two people that don't get along because of different levels of intensity, and let's be honest, Australian cricket coach is a more intense job than media manager.
Some players didn’t like walking past Langer’s seat on the team bus lest they prompted a negative response. If things weren’t going well, the odd player would ask,“How’s the grumpy coach?”
Which is not a major story, but is an instantly recognisable feeling for anyone who has a hot and cold authority figure in their life. And to me, the FoxSports article about the changed training session around the time Langer found out he didn't get as much cash as the players from the doco, when combined with Langer's earlier apology for his behaviour on this matter, seems awfully coincidental. And of course that relates to Conn's main point in his article (as he literally says in the article), Langer blowing up about things that don't matter*, like Marnus' sandwich in the dug-out (so not onto the playing field meaning no-one can draw a long bow to ball tampering) and Ellis wearing a watch onto the field on his maiden tour under Langer (of course, Australian cricket is filled with weridos who hate it when players wear 'jewellery' onto the field, as we see and hear in most BBL's....)
Now, I'm reminded of Atherton's article during the KP saga, where he points out that if you mention every little grievance in a dressing room, you end up with a distorted picture, and I'm sure that's partially true here. I'm sure there were weeks where everything was fine. But equally, there's a death by a thousand cuts feel to it, and given everything that has actually happened since these stories first came out, I don't think there's very much reason to believe that the rumours about the "mood-swings" being an issue with the playing group are untrue. It's a fact that the CEO and Chairman got involved and shook things up. I doubt they did that because they heard only the story of Marnus' sandwich and they felt they had no other option. And once that happened, it's awfully hard to see how a contract that made both sides happy could ever been found (which of course is exactly what happened)
*I would argue even if Langer quote unquote deserved more money, an individual not getting a better deal than a union doing some collective bargaining falls very much in the "who cares" field.