Michael Clarke shouldn’t be a Test selector
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 31 Oct 2011 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Michael Clarke
The rights and wrongs of Simon Katich’s comments about his chances of wearing the baggy green cap again with Michael Clarke as a selector can be debated endlessly.
The main point though is that Clarke, as captain of the Australian Test side, should not be a selector, too.
It is immaterial whether Clarke has never forgiven Katich for their tussle in the dressing room when the metro kid wanted to leave the ground to spend some quality time with Laura Bingle rather than join in with the team songs and drinking rituals at the end of a successful Test.
There are many instances in the Australian team over the decades when team-mates could not get on. The split between Don Bradman, a Mason, and the Catholic clique led by Bill O’Reilly is the stuff of cricket legend.
Bradman and Keith Miller didn’t get on, either.
Nearer to the present, Stuart Macgill was never a popular member of the Australian Test side, even though he was a successful in terms of his wicket-taking when he got Tests when Shane Warne was out of action.
The new selection panel involves a chairman, who will be John Inverarity, two other assistant selectors, the captain of the Test side and the coach.
It is clear from this that the incumbent players will have the advantage of being supported, generally, by two votes out of the five with the captain and the coach.
But if the captain does have a problem with a particular player, who is either in the side or out of it like, say, Katich, with the support of the coach, the captain will only have to get one out of the other three votes to get his way.
Leaving aside a situation like that of Katich, what happens if say the captain’s form goes off and there is someone playing in his position who has much better form, the runs on the board as it were to stake his place in the side?
According to the latest precedent with the huge amounts of money the Australian captain makes these days it is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas every week to think that a captain would allow himself to be sacked.
David Lord, my esteemed colleague, does not agree with John Inverarity being made chairman of selectors. I acknowledge his argument that someone like Rodney Marsh would be a better choice. If there were only three selectors, a panel without the captain and coach, I believe Marsh would be the ideal choice.
But the way the panel is organised I can envisage split between the two co-selectors pushing for new blood and two in-house selectors, the captain and coach, wanting to maintain the current side. In these situations the chairman needs to be an emollient person, a quality of thoughtful decision-making which Inverarity, a former school-master, coach, dedicated player and shrewd captain, appears to have in abundance.
Greg Chappell, Peter Roebuck and Ian Chappell (all strong-minded men with differing views and agendas in cricket) all seem to agree that Inverarity is a good choice. This is good enough for me.
Ian Chappell makes the additional point, though, that he believes that there should ‘always be at least one attacking batsman on the Australian selection panel.’ The reason for this is that in tough times ‘that type of former player is more likely to react aggressively rather than conservatively.’
Implied in this is that the Australian way is to be aggressive rather than conservative in cricket matters. This is an excellent point. The great strengths of Australian cricket have been its pragmatism (if a batsman scores run, who cares how he does it) and its boldness, especially with its belief in giving young players a chance to make their names in the game while they are young.
So it is important that the two co-selectors are bold types. Marsh is an obvious candidate, and so too Geoff Lawson.
Lawson has told reporters: ‘I’m someone who is very much in touch with the modern game at international and state level. I coach it, work at it, I’ve been with the media and the players.’
He was also a good Test players and one of the best captain NSW has ever had.
I reckon if the Cricket Australia board is fair-dinkum about giving the selection process a shake-out for the good then Lawson is a must as a national selector.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Michael Clarke
October 31st 2011 @ 8:11am
Brendon said | October 31st 2011 @ 8:11am | Report comment
I’ve pointed out many times its not unprecedented for a captain to be a selector. Steve Waugh was a selector on tours and in 1999 against the West Indies it was his decision to drop Warne for the 4th and final test and it proved to be right. Australia won the game and tied the series 2-2.
I think the biggest problem with the captain and coach being selector is that during home series they’re not going to be able to watch all the domestic cricket being played so it will be virtually impossible for them to make decisions on players outside the national team. On tour its different and I see the value of having a captain and coach as selectors when you’re limited to a squad of players as opposed to 6 state teams and dozens of domestic players during the summer. In a squad of players the captain and coach is inolved with everyone and you could argue they would be in the best position to decide who plays.
October 31st 2011 @ 10:47am
jameswm said | October 31st 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Steve Waugh didn’t head off to trendy bars during test matches with one of his young chums in the team. Waugh could be objective when he had to be.
Brendon you’re ignoring the obvious (and natural) situation of captains and coaches sticking up for the incumbents, their mates.
I don’t have a problem with the captain and coach being consulted on selections, but I do have a problem with them sitting in on meetings where teams are selected.
November 1st 2011 @ 3:09am
Brendon said | November 1st 2011 @ 3:09am | Report comment
So we all have to be bogans and drink VB and drive VL Commodores? I dont care where Clarke drinks or who he dates.
October 31st 2011 @ 11:03am
soapit said | October 31st 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
but warne was also a selector and had to be over ruled by waugh and the coach (forget who it was). it was only when we were staring at a series defeat that waugh made the hard decision after warne had been out of form all series.
October 31st 2011 @ 9:11am
Brett McKay said | October 31st 2011 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Spiro, your reasoning around John Inverarity’s appointment on a panel including the captain and coach is very sound and on the money. Indeed, Lordy’s opposite stance is the first article or comment I’ve read or seen that doesn’t applaud his selection. CA rarely win universal support on an appointment, but John Inverarity’s might be as close as they get to it..
October 31st 2011 @ 9:52am
Matt F said | October 31st 2011 @ 9:52am | Report comment
It does seem really pointless to have the captain and coach as selectors for two main reasons.
1) Because of their roles in the national team they will have very little time to watch domestic cricket, thus won’t be familiar with many potential candidates for a national team spot. It also means they’ll have an inherent bias towards those currently in the team due to them being a known quantity.
2) If the captain is going through a really bad, extended period of bad form he’s not going to drop himself, no matter who the captain is at the time.Whilst, naturally,the captain should be given every possible chance to regain his form in the team, there will eventually come a time when the tough decision must be made.
I don’t know why we’re changing the structure of the slection panel as the current (I guess now the former) model served us well for a long period of time. The problem was always the four men on the panel rather then the panel itself.
October 31st 2011 @ 11:01am
Behold said | October 31st 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Personally I like the captain and coach being selectors but I think they should only have a limited role in selection by this I mean that the three main selectors (Chairman and the two part-time selectors) chose a squad.
- 16 players for an overseas tests series/one day series
- 14 players for an overseas t20
- 14 players for a home test/odi/t20
and then from these squads the final playing 11 comes from all five selectors. This is similar to how it works at the moment on tour with the selection panel choosing the tour party and then the selector on the ground, captain and coach choosing the playing 11. It seems idiotic that previously the captain and coach have had a larger say out of the country, then they do inside the country. Ricky Ponting has made many comments recently to this point. This also makes it easier for the selection panel to depose an under performing captain i.e. White from the t20 team.
November 1st 2011 @ 3:12am
Brendon said | November 1st 2011 @ 3:12am | Report comment
That was how things worked on tour. Selectors picked the squad and I believe the coach, captain and vice-captain picked the teams. Makes sense.
October 31st 2011 @ 11:34am
Uncle Arthur said | October 31st 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
The question may well be a moot point by the Boxing Day Test match in Melbourne if Clarke continues to flounder in his own batting form.
The Melbourne crowd will be howling for his head if he is still not making runs. This Simon Katich business will add petrol to the bon fire of anger towards Pup down in the southern capital. He is more unpopular than Kim Hughes ever was I can tell you.
I just have no idea how this player was made captain of Australia. He is just not the man for the job. Now with Hilditch out of the way, maybe common sense will prevail from now on.
October 31st 2011 @ 12:08pm
Brett McKay said | October 31st 2011 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
by the same token, Uncle, it may well be a moot point by Boxing Day if Clarke continues where he left off in Sri Lanka – only Mike Hussey made more runs for the tour than did Clarke, and there was only 2 runs between them (Hussey 562 @ 62 in 10 digs, Clarke 560 @ 70 from 11)
October 31st 2011 @ 2:37pm
Galaxy Hop said | October 31st 2011 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Don’t bother, Uncle’s obviously a one-eyed navy.
October 31st 2011 @ 8:14pm
Uncle Arthur said | October 31st 2011 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
Actually, I would have thought Katich a better choice of captain than Clarke and I believe he is a baby blue so that is irrelevant. Clarke just does not make runs when it matters and those runs he made in Sri Lanka were VERY streaky. He will be under the pump now Hilditch is gone, there was obviously some agenda there between the selectors and Clarke’s faction.
October 31st 2011 @ 11:37am
Chris said | October 31st 2011 @ 11:37am | Report comment
It’s ok to have a captain as a selector.
You just have to have the right person as captain. I don’t think Australia currently falls into that category.
I was never a great Ponting fan, but compared to Clarke he was an angel.
I just hope that we, one day, have another man like Steve Waugh.
October 31st 2011 @ 11:41am
Bruce Rankin said | October 31st 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Spiro,
Agree with you in spades. Also with Brendon and Matt F about the captain and coach role on tour, when the full selection panel is not there….. a vaild role for captain and coach then. But at home, no, for the reasons stated.
The story about Don Bradman and the Masons is fascinating – but incomplete without mentioning Clarrie Grimmett…. beautifully told in Ashley Mallet’s book ‘Scarlet’. Grimmett had had a brilliant series in South Africa in 1936 taking 44 wickets. Back in Australia SA were playing Victoria at the MCG in a Sheffied Shield game, Bradman batting and getting deliberately peppered by the Victorian fast bowlers….captain Hans Eberling noting that Bradman avoided the strike where he could. As thay left the field at end of play, Grimmett was there at the door of the dressing room and said to Bradman “Oh you’re a bloody squib Bradman!” Grimmett never played for Australia again, neither the 1936/37 series or the 1938 tour to England, Frank Ward being Bradman’s choice – not a success. Bill O’Reilly was ‘heartbroken’. as he said in the Foreword to Mallett’s book. Grimmett continued to be the outstanding spin bowler in Shield cricket for several seasons despite being in his mid-40′s. Far superior to Warne as the record shows.
Similarly I wonder if Waugh dropping Warne in the last test v West Indies in 1999 was behind Warne’s obvious ongoing dislike of Steve Waugh?
Both illustrative of potential problems if the Captain is also a selector.
Coming back to Simon Katich, he was justifiably bitterly disappointed in his axing, given his track record. Sadly, going public with your criticisms is a sure sign you’ve lost the argument…. appealing to the public is one way to guarantee the selectors will dig in rather than change their minds. Katich should have simply said “OK I’m very disappointed but I’m determined to get the runs and and hopefully get selected again.”
In all forms of rugby and football, coaches/selectors are routinely axed when their teams fail to win a competition or championship. That’s the nature of the beast. It’s always the coach’s (and/or head selector’s) fault – not the players – for not winning. Similarly in cricket the current ‘villain’ of the piece, head selector Hilditch has been replaced. Little note is taken of the fact that world class players in Steve Waugh, McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Gilchrist, Langer and Martyn progressively retired in the 2000′s and there has not been equivalent talent thru the Cricket Academy to replace them. That takes time.
My feeling is Hilditch & Co probably did a pretty good job with the talent available to them. Nonetheless, after several years there is inevitably a time for new blood. Hopefully Inverarity and co will succeed, albeit not a good decision with capain and coach as selectors during a domestic season. Of course they should be consulted and advise, but the final decisions best to remain with the selectors.
October 31st 2011 @ 3:40pm
Brett McKay said | October 31st 2011 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Bruce, to Katich’s great credit, even back in May when he lost his contract and had a bit of a shot at the selectors, his general theme was “OK I’m very disappointed but I’m determined to get the runs and and hopefully get selected again.”
Why he decided to reignite his evidently smouldering feud is the head-scratcher now, especially given Clarke will be playing Shield games on return from South Africa..
October 31st 2011 @ 3:52pm
jameswm said | October 31st 2011 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Katich was asked a question in an interview. He didn’t go out there to reignite the fire.
October 31st 2011 @ 4:02pm
Brett McKay said | October 31st 2011 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
I know he answered a question James, and I know he didn’t just walk into the presser and lob grenades. What I mean is why did he answer the question the way he did, what did he really have to gain by indirectly bringing up Clarke?
October 31st 2011 @ 5:47pm
Jeb said | October 31st 2011 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
What does he have to gain? I guess he feels like he hasn’t got much to lose. He prob feels like that no matter how many runs he scores (and let’s remember he was and is scoring them) he won’t make it back. So… he told it like it is or rather how he sees it.
You could also read the comments as a bit of a challenge to clarke and the selectors. If he does make it back then it’s justifiable for clarke to say that everything katich has said is rubbish.
October 31st 2011 @ 12:29pm
WoobliesFan said | October 31st 2011 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Nice one Spiro.
No way should Clarke be on the panel of selectors. It’s a conflict of interest. I don’t understand why CA created this. What’s their reasoning?
Then we have the problem with Clarke himself – the kid is too contrived…..he’s not genuine enough to inspire 100% trust or the strong enough to lead us into battle.
Let’s face it guys —> CA is in a bad place….we’re up for 3-4 years of absolute and utter frustration and buffoonery until we get it right (unlikely) or a new generation of talent comes in a saves us (unlikely), OR we get it half right with a little bit better talent then we currently have (likely).
October 31st 2011 @ 12:30pm
Will said | October 31st 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Here we go again.
At the end of the day, coachs, selectors and roar fans have very little impact on the side’s fortunes.
Deal with it.
October 31st 2011 @ 12:47pm
Zac said | October 31st 2011 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
In what other sport does the captain of a team have this sort of power. I can’t imagine Neill, Lockyer or Horwill being asked to select teams. You need to pick the best players first.