By Stuart MacGill
October 22nd 2008 @ 12:55am
Related coverage
The Australian selectors generally get it right
Since the 2006 Ashes in Australia, we have witnessed a procession of senior players walking out the door for a variety of reasons. This has exposed a major weakness in the Australian cricket community. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the new players, however. The fact is that none of us have any idea about what a selector is supposed to do.
From time to time in my international career I felt as though I was, to put it diplomatically, a “little unlucky” to miss out on the team.
I think the most disappointing selection was the last tour of India.
The cruel reality of sport, however, is that teams are not picked to keep people happy. The Australian team selected on any given day is the team that selectors, coaching staff and, to a lesser extent the captain, feel has the best chance of winning a test.
Instead of sitting around in a pub telling their mates what team they would like, they put their reputations on the line and announce it to the world.
There are only a couple of things that I think a player should expect from the selectors.
You should never be reading about their opinions before you hear them first hand. You should always find out about your non-selection before the public does, and if you have been dropped because of a perceived technical, disciplinary or mental flaw, you shouldn’t be hearing about it for the first time when the axe falls.
The first two are dead easy, the third is generally the first casualty in a communication breakdown.
If a player is honest, and manages to make an objective appraisal of his non-selection (easier said than done!), all of the answers to his questions are generally right in front of him.
Missing out on a team probably doesn’t mean you’ll never play again, it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re useless, and it doesn’t mean that you’re from the wrong state. Occasionally you just have to realise that there’s simply a better option at that particular moment.
Unfortunately, deciding who is the best option is not up to the players.
However, providing the selectors have made it very clear to everyone the direction they want to take the team in and they make a reasonable effort to be consistent, you have to shrug your shoulders and try and change their minds for the next selection meeting.
Despite the fact that I always loved one-day cricket and enjoyed considerable success with NSW, Australian selectors made it clear to me very early in the piece that economy rate and not wickets was important.
I wish I had played more, but Australia has won three World Cups since I got the bad news, so maybe they knew what they were doing.
I guess the reason I have been thinking so much about this is that a number of my good friends in cricket have been a “little unlucky” lately: Beau Casson missed out not once, but twice; Phil Jaques was dropped after making a hundred; and Dougie Bollinger was overlooked in favour of Peter Siddle.
It is easy for me to say this now that I am not in the team, but I not only completely understand these selections, but I think I probably agree with them too.
All three of my mates will play plenty of cricket for Australia, and provided they understand that, it will happen sooner rather than later. It doesn’t help them or the guy who replaces them to hear, read, or see “experts” declaring the selections a joke.
Having toured the West Indies with Andrew Hilditch, I can honestly say that I found him to be a thoughtful, considerate and intelligent man who is trying to do the best job he possibly can. He hasn’t
been doing a bad job if you have a look at his track record.
And by the way, if you think that a player is crap, then it’s in your best interests for him to get picked, because if you’re right, he won’t be there for long.
Stuart MacGill played 44 Tests for Australia and took 208 wickets. He joins The Roar today as a columnist. Welcome aboard, Stuey!
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(8)
JohnB said | October 22nd 2008 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Great article – hopefully the first of many. If this struck a chord, the John Benaud book Matters of Choice is well worth a read to get some further idea regarding what goes into real-life selection – and how different it is from coming up with a notional team yourself.
The Cougar said | October 22nd 2008 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Like you say Stuart, for Beau Casson to “make an objective appraisal” of his non-selection for India after making his Test debut in the Windies (after your withdrawal, right?), would definitely be harder said than done. He must be livid, now that he’s not ranked in the top three spinners in Oz.
And hasn’t Doug Bollinger taken more wickets for longer than Peter Siddle? I can’t remember too many teams – certainly not Aussie teams – that have taken two left-arm quicks into a Test. Wouldn’t that probably be a new, tougher challenge for Indian batsmen, especially as they all like to carve everything on the stumps and even outside between mid-on and square-leg?!?!?! I reckon Siddle looks OK, but why should two left-armers be regarded as so left-field?
Michael C said | October 22nd 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I reckon the last time there was a valid opportunity to criticise selection was when Steve Waugh as tour captain ensured that Brett Lee played every Test of an Ashes tour – - where he struggled and subsequently succombed to injury. At the time, Waugh had Damian Fleming in the wings – a bowler much more suited to English conditions.
The outcome was that the tour captains role in selection was reduced. That was a fair indication that there had been some concern.
Otherwise, certainly – - they do a reasonable job all things considered. And many of us compare the selections of the present ‘committee’ vs previous ‘committees’ quite unfairly.
The Cougar said | October 22nd 2008 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Does anyone else think that the Indian tour is starting to mirror the 2005 Ashes in that the Indian quicks (like Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard etc) are swinging the ball both ways and a long way right through the innings, yet all our fast bowlers are bowling straight ones? Particularly Brett Lee – why can’t he swing the ball at the moment when someone like Zaheer Khan, who has never really looked that threatening, is doing a great impersonation of Wasim Akram all of a sudden?
Have India imported a container full of Morris Mints from England?
sheek said | October 22nd 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Welcome to the Roar Stuie,
Yes, agree communication channels should be better between players & selectors. You shouldn’t be reading or hearing your demise & /or shortcomings second hand in the papers or on the radio or TV.
It was disgusting Bill Lawry heard of his sacking as test captain back in 1971, via opening partner Keith Stackpole, who heard it on the radio. It also affected the mindset of his replacement Ian Chappell, who was determined not to have the same thing happen to him. Consequently, Chappelli probably retired prematurely first time around (pre WSC).
The then selectors – Bradman, Ryder & Ridings – not only let Lawry down by failing to communicate their concerns during his tenure with him, but also Australian cricket, because Chappell was determined not to be caught out the same way.
But being a selector is a tough gig. You pick a player believing he will deliver in a particular way. But when he doesn’t, it makes the selectors look silly.
One of the most inspired selections was Ian Healy for the Pakistani tour in 1988 after only 4 first class games. This included the Sheffield Shield final where the selectors believed they saw Healy’s ability to mix it under the highest pressure. They were right!
One of the biggest blunder selections, or sackings, was Michael Slater in 1996. Slater was still batting exceptionally well, but the selectors were concerned about his cavalier attitude to both batting & life. They hoped sacking him would reign in the excesses of his nature.
What they didn’t bank on was upsetting the whole karma of the Australian team. All the players got very nervous. Fellow opener & skipper Mark Taylor lost his form horribly, & Slater was extremely bitter for a long time.
Being a selector is an inexact science. You rely on the player to play his part, which doesn’t always happen. A bit like preparing a horse for the Melbourne Cup!
On a much, much, much, much more important note Stu, what good shirazs can you recommend?
Rickety Knees said | October 22nd 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Good article Stuie.
Look forward to more of your insights.
Mick of Newie said | October 22nd 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
A great insight. One point there is a big difference between losing out on a lineball selection like Jaques, Casson and Bollinger have which can be personally disappointing and demanding you be selected because of your performance. I don’t think their respective mothers could argue that Australia would have won the last test if they had played.
challa said | November 24th 2008 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
A tough job but im up for it if there is an opening. I will do it for expenses alone!