Comments on: The Australian selectors generally get it right

By: challa

challa — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:15:05 +0000

A tough job but im up for it if there is an opening. I will do it for expenses alone!

By: Mick of Newie

Mick of Newie — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:55:29 +0000

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.

By: Rickety Knees

Rickety Knees — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:43:48 +0000

Good article Stuie.

Look forward to more of your insights.

By: sheek

sheek — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:26:42 +0000

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?

By: The Cougar

The Cougar — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:38:21 +0000

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?

By: Michael C

Michael C — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:26:19 +0000

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.

By: The Cougar

The Cougar — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:21:32 +0000

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?

By: JohnB

JohnB — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:12:41 +0000

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.