Two more years for chairman Hilditch? Amazing!
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 20 Oct 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
Australian cricket team captain Ricky Ponting, left, talks with the chief selector Andrew Hilditch right, during a team training session at the Gabba Cricket Ground in Brisbane, Australia, Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006. AP Photo/Mark Baker
Last week, Cricket Australia issued a brief statement confirming that the chairman of the selection panel for Australia’s national cricket teams, Andrew Hilditch, has been re-appointed for two more years.
This means that Hilditch will preside over the selection policies and processes involved in trying to regain the Ashes in 2010/2011 after a series this year when they were lost in part due to selection blunders.
He will also be in charge of preparing to defend the World Cup 2011, won so splendidly in South Africa recently.
It’s been said that, as far as cricket is concerned and, crucially, on the matter of who is selected to represent Australia, that this is “a nation of 20 million selectors.”
There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of this nation of selectors will be opposed and aghast at the news that chairman Andrew Hilditch has been given two more years in charge.
But Hilditch the person and Hilditch the selector should be separated.
He is an intelligent, well-spoken, if somewhat reclusive person, a successful Adelaide lawyer, and someone who behaves in a way that fits the description of a ‘nice guy.’
About the only historically significant moment in his Test match career (as a journeyman opening batsman) came in a Test against Pakistan when he obligingly picked up a ball that had been blocked by his partner, handed it back to the bowler and on appeal was given out.
This is the first and only time in Test cricket a non-striker has been given out handled ball.
This gesture of helping an opposition bowler suggests a person of amiable, helpful temperament. You could never imagine any of the tough men of Australian cricket, Ian Chappell or Steve Waugh, as it were, stooping to such generosity.
This raises the issue of whether Hilditch is actually tough enough or ruthless enough, psychologically, to be a great selector.
Peter Young, the public affairs chief of Cricket Australia, made the point in announcing the two more years that cricket supporters “don’t see or appreciate” how much Hilditch does in carrying out his duty.
One reason for this may well the fact that Cricket Australia is notably uninformative when it comes to dealing with the media and the public.
Hilditch himself is on record as saying that as far as selection and the processes involved were concerned, “We had a really good Ashes series, generally speaking.”
This is a bit like the captain of the Titanic saying that up to the time the ship hit an iceberg, it had had a really good voyage.
The fact is that Australia lost the Ashes series with England’s two best players, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, each playing (in only some of the Tests) on one leg.
There were selection blunders made in the composition of Australia’s Ashes series squad and during the Tests themselves. There were mistakes of captaincy made, even though there was a selector present for all the Tests.
What were the duty selectors were providing to the team aside from fronting up on television, as Merv Hughes did frequently, and spouting out his inconsequential nonsense?
Where was the selection and Cricket Australia soul-searching after the wrenching Ashes defeat?
Where is the presentation of a plan to bring the Australian Test team back to its former status and glory?
The 20 million selectors have been kept fully in the dark about the things they don’t get to see. Why?
Surely the selectors owe it to the public to give them the sort of insight on selection matters and policies that other major sports provide.
Am I the only cricket supporter in Australia who believes that it is amazing that Hilditch has been given two more years as the chairman of the selection panel?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (4)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (13)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (0)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (4)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Andrew Hilditch, Australian Cricket, Cricket, Cricket Australia, Merv Hughes
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:44am | Report comment
No Spiro, you’re certainly not the only one but I can’t help but feel that you’ve misplaced some of the blame. The Ashes were 5 tests, in theory, 25 days of cricket and the selectors had 5 chances to get it right or wrong. In my eyes they made a mistake in dropping Hughes even though Watson did extremely well in his stead and of course not picking a spinner in the final test.
It’s pointless to speculate on the (non) selection of Brett Lee and Stuart Clarke, their form and fitness are unknown to the other 20 million selectors but there is only one way of winning a test match and that is taking 20 wickets, I think Australia’s bowling lacked direction at times but as I say, we shouldn’t judge them for this.
For me the big problem was Ponting’s lack of awareness of the game situations. Australia have been blessed with Border, Taylor and S Waugh as captains but Ponting just isn’t cut out to lead Australia, he’d be suited to lead England maybe but he doesn’t seem to have that edge of his predecessors. Too often did I sit, shaking my head in disbelief that he continued to try with pace bowlers who were being ineffective or with part-timers when we needed but one wicket to snatch a win.
For 25 days of cricket, Ponting was in charge, the coach should have been in charge of Ponting and at the end of the day, Australia were good enough to win, the selectors, even with their mistakes picked good enough sides to win a series and the captain and coach as well as the players didn’t bring in the results.
However that Hilditch has been reappointed, well I think my qualms with him lie elsewhere. A certain Cameron White for example, for mine a rubbish player barely talented enough to get a run at state level and yet he holds a place in T20 and 50 over cricket while SA’s Shaun Tait and the extremely talented second-coming of Boof Lehmann, Mark Cosgrove can’t get a look in.
Also and more importantly, the inexperience of Australia’s bowling lineup. You’ve got a part-time spinner who has admitedly improved but is already 28 and has played 7 tests, the next best solution is apparently a 37 year old or another leg-spinner who for some reason, cannot get a run.
Without Brett Lee who I fear will remain injury prone for the rest of his career, you’ve got M Johnson, S Clarke, B Hilfenhaus and P Siddle currently in the selectors minds with an average of 17.5 tests between them at an average age of 27.75 years.
The selectors have left Ponting with a new team with experience at first class but not at international level, there are too many players coming through at once and this is what Hilditch should be responsible for, ensuring that captains have a few young players that come through gradually rather than a mass exodus leaving Australia with a team with barely any Ashes experience going on a trip to England.
We need full-time selectors (the money is there so USE IT) and we need people with a genuine idea about the game. Hilditch may be a thinker but I get the feeling he steers clear of the South Australian’s and picks Victorians so as not to appear biased. We need a panel that picks the best players for each and every game in all three formats, always with one eye on the future.
Rob said | October 20th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
I think you should stick to football. Ponting’s record as captain is better than those Waugh, Taylor and Border and, as you’ve suggested, he was given a very green bowling attack to work with which really wasn’t good enough. Exactly what is a captain supposed to do when his main strike weapon can’t even hit the pitch? I disagree entirely that ponting had a “lack of awareness of game situations”, and believe that he did the best job possible with an attack that just wasn’t up to the job.
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Rob,Ponting’s record (and this has been much discussed in the press) is that he will be remembered for losing the Ashes twice, something none of Border, Taylor or Waugh managed.
“Exactly what is a captain supposed to do when his main strike weapon can’t even hit the pitch?” – Ponting should have ensured via the selectors that he wasn’t taking a totally inexpierenced squad to England for one, secondly when England’s tail wagged (which they did pretty regularly) he had no idea how to get them out, like a bull to a rag he just kept going and going expecting something to happen and not trying something different even for an over or two. How can that be anything other than a “lack of awareness of game situations”?
The same when he couldn’t get Monty Panesar out, I’m sorry but when you’ve got two part-timers trying to take an absolute bunny’s wicket then your captain is doing something wrong, yes it was getting dark but 10 years ago the Aussies would have bounced him out.
Ponting’s record speaks nothing of his captaincy. He was given the greatest team of all time, a well oiled machine and anyone could have lead them to victory. Don’t think it was Ponting telling McGrath to bowl line and length or Ponting setting Warne’s fields, this was done for him.
Rob said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Ponting’s record has, as you say, been discussed at length. Here’s something that I think is worth reading:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/30/ponting-for-the-record/
For those who like to look no deeper than the surface, ignoring things like the rare form of the 2005 england bowling attack (simon jones swinging the ball at will, harmisson in career best form, ditto flintoff), McGrath’s injury, brett lee smashing a ball to deep cover at edgebaston when we needed 4 to win – had he hit 5 yards either side the match was over, warnie dropping KP in the last test, some shocking umpire decisions; and the woeful performance of the australian attack in 2009, they _will_ see that ponting lost two ashes series as you suggest. Hopefully such people will inclined to look a little deeper. I’m aware that Border, Waugh and Taylor didn’t lose two ashes series. I’m also aware that none of them won an ashes series 5-0, nor did they go through a world cup campaign undefeated – something ricky did twice.
Regarding your comment “ponting should have ensured he wasn’t taking a totally inexperienced squad”, where exactly was he supposed to find these experienced front line bowlers? At this point, our stocks are bare, about which Ricky can do nothing. Agreed he stuck with Johnson when he was bowling poorly; I think he did so because when he hits his rhythm he’s a matchwinner. The only way he was going to get that rhythm was to keep bowling him. Maybe it’s worth re-igniting the debate about warm up matches.
As you say, ponting was given the greatest team of all time. He used that team to equal waugh’s record of consectutive test wins, go through world cups undefeated, and win an ashes series 5-0. We should be asking why Border, Waugh and Taylor didn’t measure up to Ricky.
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
“where exactly was he supposed to find these experienced front line bowlers? ” – Well thats the entire point Rob. Ponting stuck with the familiar faces and didn’t push for someone like Mitchel Johnson to get in the side earlier, or Stuart Clark who at 34 has played 20-odd tests. The responsibility for having such an inexpierenced squad has to lay both with the selectors and Ponting but I feel Ponting stuck with the older players to mask his ordinary captaincy.
As I said, he didn’t have to captain the side he inherited from Steve Waugh, god I could have done it and Australia could have played with 10 men and still clean-swept the Ashes. McGrath was the most consistent bowler probably of all time, Brett Lee with his pace you didn’t need to do a lot but put some catching men in place, Warne and MacGill had all of their fields determined in advance. The “backup” bowlers of Gillespie, Bichel and Kasprowicz would have been first choice for any other country in any other era. All Ponting had to do was stand at second slip and watch the old-heads win matches for him, he didn’t even have to throw anyone the ball, they more-or-less sorted it out themselves.
It’s easy to captain a great team, it’s not easy to captain a team going through a transition phase and I think Ponting has been found out.
As for the World Cup’s, well the first he had an amazingly good side. I mean look at the scorecard for the final, 4 players had a bat (including Ponting) and India were NEVER going to make 359. The last WC they won by default, there was no-one else who was even really competitive.
Regardless of bad decisions and key moments that perhaps lost the Ashes in both the last English series, Steve Waugh was the type of captain who would have done something about it. His best innings were when Australia were on the ropes, indeed one of his 3 ODI tons was against SAF in the WC, he came in at 3-48 and SAF were all-over the Aussies, he ground out 120* and Australia won with two balls remaining and won the WC.
Thats what a great captain does, they take wickets when they need them most, they make runs when nobody else does. Warne took 40 wickets in the 2005 series and Ponting still lost the Ashes. In the last series he had Australia in a winning position in two tests that he didn’t win.
I’m a big fan of Ponting’s batting and I’m not a big fan of Steve Waugh (I was a Mark Waugh fan) but I don’t believe Ponting is of the right calibre to be Australian captain, it should have been given to Warne upon S Waugh’s retirement, regardless of his off-field idiocy as we’ve seen in the IPL and with Victoria on a few occasions, he was also excellent.
mushi said | October 21st 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Didn’t push for Johnson to get in earlier? Could you imagine what would of happened had he dismantled the pace attack of our halcyon years and Johnson struggled. Pundits such as your self would have crucified him.
Dropping one of the most feared bowling attacks of all time to put in a pace bowler who had ups and downs early in his career would have been met with a colossal backlash.
Also you say it si easy to captain with a quality side and yet refer to Waugh as a captain we were spoilt to have? Either one or the other is incorrect.
Waugh’s legacy as captain is one of the most overstated pieces of cricket history. He had a side which was littered with all time greats and yet ponting, with the same side yet with many players past their prime, got better results.
I fail to see what evidence there is to suggest Waugh would have done something about it? What would eh have done – jump in a time machine and reassemble his team of all time greats.
Yes Warne was a better option for captaincy, but he was also a better option than Steve Waugh. (who he didn’t rate as a captain)
Rob said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I’m going to stop here. It seems we just plain disagree; witnessed by the fact that the I disagree wholeheartedly regarding the “shane warne for captain” bandwagon. Before I close, I’d like to say three things:
1) I’m sorry for starting my original post with ‘you should stick to football’; that was unnecessary.
2) The reason I got my back up is I’m sick of people bagging Ricky Ponting. He inherited a great side and did great things with it. As you say, anyone could have captained the side Steve Waugh had, which demonstrates that Steve Waugh is essentially an unproven skipper (same goes for Mark Taylor). As you say, it would have been simple to captain Waugh’s team: try the world’s best fast bowler, if he doesn’t work, try the best spinner of all time. There is no evidence to suggest that Waugh would have had the faintest idea if his bowlers weren’t doing their job.
3) Great skippers don’t take wickets when they need to, great _sides_ do; it’s a team game. The skipper creates a plan, the bowlers bowl to that plan and the fielders do their job. Ricky has been stuck with bowlers that can’t hit the pitch – there is no strategy for such poor bowling.
Chris said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:25am | Report comment
Spiro ( and as a Brumbies fan I can’t believe I am saying this): You are absolutely spot on. His treatment of Stuart Clark says it all.
Brett McKay said | October 20th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
this was one of those stories that I had every intention of going back to and then completely forgot about. This is an unbeleivable development. Two more years?!? Which means the promised full and open review amounted to nothing, or that nothing was found to be defective. Huullllooooo??!? The Ashes are – literally – still at Lord’s!!
Can we also assume that Hilditch will remain part-time in this role??
fox said | October 20th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Mediocrity has its rewards, apparently.
Whiteline said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Sutherland is the softest touch of all and he has been there without question it seems for the best part of a decade. I can’t recall James making many tough calls except when he’s gone back on his word to players after consultation or direction from his Board.
Fox said it all in 5 words – what really needs to be said after that?
Rickety Knees said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Spiro – like you I am gobsmacked. It has now become apparent that the ACB have become an old boys club. Ponting is a great one day captain but unfortunately tries to play test cricket the same way. As a direct result he has now lost the Ashes twice but remains as captain – where is his accountability. Hilditch has been there with Ponting during this period. The fact that both are still there beggars belief.
drewster said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
First Coach Neilson gets an extended Contract after a bad series, Then Selector Hilditch get an extension after a bad series.
WTF! is going on in the boardroom of Cricket Australia? And Spiro myself and nearly every other Aussie Cricket Fan is with you on this. Well written by the way Spiro, To not use one expletive in describing the incompotent, incontinence of the board and it’s decision is truly an act of great journalism.
Timmuh said | October 20th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
To take a quote completely out of context (somewhat like political coverage in a Murdoch newspaper); “This gesture of helping an opposition” could equally be employed as an explanation as to why Johnson played every Test despite barely being able to determine which pitch was being played on in numerous spells.
FIsher Price said | October 20th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
It’s an ‘in club’.
Australia could lose its next two Test series against decent opponents and neither Hilditch nor Ponting will vacate their roles unless they choose to.
Greg Russell said | October 20th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
1. “Peter Young, the public affairs chief of Cricket Australia, made the point in announcing the two more years that cricket supporters “don’t see or appreciate” how much Hilditch does in carrying out his duty.”
Someone famous once said “I don’t care if the President of the United States only works four hours a day, as long as he does his job well.” The same goes for Hilditch: I don’t care how hard he works – all that counts is that he carries out his job well. We all know his record in this respect.
2. “About the only historically significant moment in his Test match career (as a journeyman opening batsman) came in a Test against Pakistan when he obligingly picked up a ball that had been blocked by his partner, handed it back to the bowler and on appeal was given out. … This raises the issue of whether Hilditch is actually tough enough or ruthless enough, psychologically, to be a great selector.”
I’m actually debating with myself whether this is more significant than the other well-known thing about Hilditch as a test player, which is that he was a compulsive hooker even though it kept getting him out. While I agree fully with Spiro’s point about Hilditch not being tough enough (cf. Trevor Hohns, who made many hard but correct calls), it seems to me that the compulsive hooking is also very significant: Hilditch had a fatal flaw that either he could not see or else he could see but was incapable of remedying. Whichever it was it does not matter. I would suggest that he has fatal flaws as a selector too.
That said, one could argue that it’s more the responsibility of his employer, Cricket Australia, to see these flaws and take action.