‘High performance’ Howard drops a cricketing clanger
By David Lord, 10 Jan 2012 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- argus review, Australian Cricket, Cricket, pat howard, wallabies
Pat Howard and James Sutherland speak at a media conference in Melbourne. AAP Image/Julian Smith
Related coverage
It’s taken only three months for Pat Howard, Cricket Australia’s inaugural general manager of high performance, to rattle the cage.
Yesterday he dropped a bombshell, or more a clanger, by suggesting future Test selections will be governed by the standard of the opposition, not by form. A highly dangerous variation of the proposed rotation policy.
The higher-rated countries like England, South Africa, and India will face the best team Australia can muster at the time.
Lower-rated opponents like New Zealand, the West Indies, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh will do battle with a smattering of emerging Australian talent for a taste of Test cricket.
“But we will never put a ‘B’ Australian team on the paddock,” was Howard’s promise. Try selling that to first choice Australian players ‘rested’, and to New Zealand et al.
It’s a provocative view from the former 20-cap Wallaby utility-back-cum-rugby coach-cum-pharmacist who freely admitted on appointment he knows very little about cricket.
And he’s just proved it. What better way to devalue the coveted baggy green cap and deny the more talented Australian batsmen and bowlers the chance to cash in against the lower-performed countries to bolster their career stats.
He has the future of Australian cricket in his powerful hands, answerable only to Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland.
Howard is in total charge of the selection panel, where he sits in on every selection meeting. He’s also in charge of every Test and first-class player and coach in the country. Lock, stock, and barrel.
And he knows very little about cricket. Which begs the question, how did Howard get the job in the first place?
He came from an identical position in rugby, a sport he has known inside out since the moment he could walk and talk.
His grandfather is legendary inside-back Cyril Towers, who captained the Wallabies in some of his latter 19 caps between 1926 and 1937. His father Jake Howard was a seven-cap teak-tough prop from 1970 to 1973.
But even with that superb background, and his own Wallaby experience, there was no high performance from Howard as the ARU’s general manager of high performance over the last four years, with the Wallabies winning just 58.9 percent, or 33 of 56, internationals.
Since rugby turned pro in 1996, only Eddie Jones has a marginally worse Wallaby coaching record, with 57 percent. But the mark is way below Rod Macqueen’s 79 percent, John Connolly’s 64 percent, and Greg Smith’s 63 percent. Even in the amateur days leading into professionalism Alan Jones had a 76.67 percent win record, Bobby Dwyer 63.01 percent.
The only Howard highs were capturing the Tri-Nations for the first time in a decade last season, and the 59-16 flogging of Six Nations champions France in 2010.
The lows, a 10-game losing streak to the All Blacks with just three wins in 15 meetings, the loss to Samoa at the beginning of last season, a very costly loss to Ireland in the last Rugby World Cup – and the meagre 58.9 percent.
Hardly a background that justifies making radical recommendations in a sport where Pat Howard is still wet behind the ears.
We haven’t heard the last of this left-field proposal by a long shot.
- Explore:
- argus review, Australian Cricket, Cricket, pat howard, wallabies

January 10th 2012 @ 6:41am
Viscount Crouchback said | January 10th 2012 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Rather a reactionary viewpoint, old boy. The modern rotation system – especially of bowlers – is very much a necessity given the demands of the modern game. Otherwise you end up with your best bowlers crocked during key series. People scoffed at Andy Flower when he allowed Andrew Strauss to miss a tour of Bangladesh and when he withdrew Finn and Broad from Test matches for “strength and conditioning” but he was proved absolutely right.
Indeed, as an Englishman, it alarms me just how sensible the new Australian cricket management seems to be!
January 10th 2012 @ 8:31am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Viscount, when considered alongside more Australian debutants in 2011 than in the last thirty years, and very close to the most in history, there’s already been a period of blooding new players/managing injured players/resting fit players before this announcement just confirmed it. So, yeah, rather reactionary indeed.
It’s worth remembering before we all start teeing off, that without the type of policy in place that Howard and CA have now confirmed exists, the likes of Cummins, Pattinson, Starc, Warner and Cowan would not have debuted in the last few months. Instead, the team would’ve persisted with out of form and injured players.
And when you consider this policy also extends to ODI and T20 cricket, it’s really just about squad development and player management. We can call it “[devaluing] the coveted baggy green cap” if we like, but what’s worse, that, or failing to build depth and/or running our players into the ground??
January 10th 2012 @ 10:06am
TomC said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I didn’t hear Howard’s comments, so I’m not sure if he was referring to the entire team or just the bowlers, but I absolutely agree Viscount that rotating fast bowlers is quickly becoming a necessity in international cricket.
A fast bowler may have to bowl upwards of sixty overs across a five day match. That puts a huge strain on the body. Obviously plenty of quicks in the past managed it but it only makes sense to rotate them to avoid long term injury if you can. You only need to look at poor Shane Bond to see the dangers that await young fast bowlers.
January 10th 2012 @ 7:18am
Ian Whitchurch said | January 10th 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Speaking as a Bangladesh supporter, Im more than happy to play a second rate Australian selection, because that means we get to play them at all … New Zealand has about a century of Australia showing how much they want to play the smaller sides at cricket.
My expectation is that if we thump them, next time they send a full strength side out on the paddock.
The same thing happens all the time in Association Football – for example, A-league players get picked for the Socceroos when playing matches against lesser opposition.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:42pm
Mark Young said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Spot on Ian, You are dead right about the different Socceroo squads.
Good point
January 10th 2012 @ 7:48am
Vas Venkatramani said | January 10th 2012 @ 7:48am | Report comment
I’m with you David in that it’s not ideal that the baggy green could potentially be cheapened by the notion of second-rate players getting debuts against Bangladesh in Darwin or Cairns.
However, this is the only way cricketers will survive the rat race of the current schedule. While most cricketers (I can’t surely say all) aspire to play Test cricket, they are still professionals seeking to extend their income streams, and so will be lured to T20 cricket.
It’s ODI cricket that looks the real danger. But board want ODI cricket because that is the real revenue raiser.
The only hope is people take the Michael Clarke route and back out of T20 cricket with a view to playing Test cricket. If players make that decision themselves, the choice for the likes of Pat Howard to remove them from the Test side becomes far less necessary.
Otherwise, I may just slip into my dream of Twenty20 dying a ultimately painful death, which could be the best thing for cricket all-round.
January 10th 2012 @ 4:00pm
anopinion said | January 10th 2012 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
“the Baggy Green cheapened”. We are talking about players 1-19 here not a raffle to see who wears it. The Australian First 11 is a dynamic organism effected by injuries, pitches, weather conditions and opponents. The selections should reflect this by being pliable.
January 10th 2012 @ 8:40am
Ben Carter said | January 10th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Hi David – agree that it was a weird way to put it. Rotation based on fitness is one thing, rotation based on who the opposition will be is another entirely. It sounds a tad (er, well…) arrogant (just a BIT)….. But as others have said, maybe sending what would be (let’s not beat around the proverbial) Australia ‘A+-ish’ (then, at least, if Australia ‘B’ will never be sent out onto the field apparently) might just accomplish two things for cricket. One – get Australia playing against Zimbabwe/Bangladesh/New Zealand more often and two – end up losing to those countries and making us pay the price for our misguided decision, go back to the drawing board, think again and try harder!
January 10th 2012 @ 3:57pm
anopinion said | January 10th 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Ben do you really think their may only be two outcomes? I thought maybe more. As an example we may discover a few players who should be considered for the first 11.
January 10th 2012 @ 8:44am
Chris said | January 10th 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Another ill thought out and poorly researched article from David Lord. Gee, what a surprise…
If the amount of cricket that is currently being played continues at the same level, there will be a rotation policy whether anyone likes it or not, and whether there is an official policy in place or not – simply due to injuries. It is becoming quite clear that many players (especially the bowlers) are physically unable to play every game scheduled. So rather than waiting for a player to get injured, why not be sensible about it and structure their playing time to avoid the injury.
And let’s assume for a moment that there was no rotation policy – can you imagine the outcry when a critical player was injured playing a series against Bangladesh right before an Ashes series? I would bet my life savings David Lord would be screaming to high heaven about the appalling and short-sighted administration.
While it is early days, the initial signs are that CA is moving in the right direction in just about every aspect under its control. It’s not perfect, and I suspect it never will be, but I’m prepared to give them some credit when its due.
January 10th 2012 @ 8:52am
QLDER said | January 10th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Howard might need to be reminded that the Australian “A” team recently lost badly to a “Lower-rated opponent”.
January 10th 2012 @ 4:03pm
anopinion said | January 10th 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
You might need to be reminded the Aussie Team has lost many games with what they believed was the best 11. A few changes and what do you know, a few other players who can bat and bowl.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:01am
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Many of the responses seem to be missing the point – the problem is not rotation policy per se, it is the metric being used to determine rotation that is downright wrong.
Rotation to manage workloads is certainly acceptable especially given the sheer volume of cricket played at present. Deliberately labelling some series “icon” series and saying that you’ll put your strongest possible team out against England, India and South Africa but not necessarily against anyone else is … poor management philosophy, arrogant, stupid communication policy, not to mention rude and insulting to the other 5 test playing nations and to those cricketers that will play in the “non-icon” series.
Imagine how it will feel for a player, let’s call him Tom Cooper, to come out and debut against Pakistan, perform reasonably well (a couple of half-centuries, no ducks, an average in the 40s), to then be dropped for someone else just because the Argus report has fingered him as a central figure for Australia’s future. How will it feel when he plays against the West Indies and Sri Lanka but never against South Africa or England.
Framing the policy around the opposition is disgusting and not in the spirit of the game.
Players should be rotated and rested based on their workload as required, not on the quality of the opposition.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:04am
Ben Carter said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Hi Red Kev – don’t know if “Tom” would “never” get to play against ENG/SAF. Perhaps he will work his way up to greatness and therefore be picked for the elite-level series (supposedly) after stints against PAK/WIN/SRL, etc. But agree that the issue isn’t rotation, it’s the formula behind it…
January 10th 2012 @ 9:18am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Kev, Howard in his announcement used the example of James Pattinson, who debuted against NZ partly out of necessity, partly out of experimentation. So successful was his introduction to Test cricket that he became “undropable” for the (I’m not saying ‘icon’) series against India. The point is if one of these kids are blooded against lower-ranked opposition, they’re still going to have every chance to build a case for keeping their spot going forward. And also, it’s not like CA would be making mass changes to a team from one series to the next, either. More likely, where injuries and fitness allow, it might only be a couple of players at a time.
And actually, when you consider workloads and inevitable injuries, it’s hard to see a time where fit and available players are rotated out of a series against say, a Pakistan or NZ. I don’t know that the quality of the opposition would come into it much at all..
January 10th 2012 @ 9:41am
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Two problems with that.
1 – Your inferences are all well and good but that’s not what he said. They specified opposition as the trigger for rotation. That’s wrong.
2 – You’re relying on debuting with 5 wickets or a century. That is a very poor mechanism for putting together a test side. Who would you rather – Greg Blewett (all-rounder, debuted with a century, average career) or Steve Waugh (all-rounder, took 27 tests to score a century, rated as one of our best players).
January 10th 2012 @ 9:56am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Kev, I know they specified opposition as a trigger, as I said above, that’s been happening for most of 2011 anyway. It’s why Warner and Cummins and co went to Sri Lanka. My point is that it would be fairly rare that the squad was fully fit and fully available to allow this trigger to be used.
And I’m not relying on anything in terms of debut performance. Pattinson has done very well in he first foray into Test cricket, to the point he held his spot for Melbourne. Mitchell Starc didn’t do quite so well, and was dropped for Hilfenhaus. Now Starc is back in the 12 for Pattinson. That’s not relying on 5fas or centuries on debut, that’s selecting a team based on what happened and who’s in form. What’s wrong with that?
January 10th 2012 @ 10:15am
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
There is nothing wrong with rotation – the underlying philosophy that CA is espousing however is wrong.
Your position basically amounts to “the end result is the same and desired so the methodology and reasoning don’t matter”. We got around the corner and are still on the way to the city, it doesn’t matter that we drove through that house.
Directives like this mean that players are earmarked to debut against certain opposition. It stops dropping and debuting based on performance and form. It gives the selectors leeway to keep (as a random example) an underperforming R Ponting in the side against England and South Africa because they want to test his replacement against the West Indies. They lock onto that rather than seeing the poor form of their incumbent and the good form of the new guy. The selectors have already proven that they get tunnel vision on their “plan” – they look at Tim Paine as wicketkeeper and next captain rather than noticing that their current gloveman is well below test standard.
January 10th 2012 @ 10:25am
Chris said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Although there’s nothing wrong with targeting a lower ranked opposition team to debut someone, rather than throwing them into the furnace of an Ashes series (for example).
This was the reasoning behind many people arguing that some or all of Ponting, Hussey, Haddin should have been dropped at the start of the NZ series to allow young, inexperienced players to get a couple of Test matches under their belt before facing the Indians.
January 10th 2012 @ 10:43am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:43am | Report comment
But Kev, this has been going on for years, it’s hardly a new development. Why did Beau Casson tour the Windies all those years after Warne retired? Why did Steve Smith debut against Pakistan in England? It will still be possible for young players to debut in an Ashes series, that’s not changing, they’re now just expanding the whole idea of building a squad into including times – and they will be few – where “officially” players might be blooded against so-called lesser opposistion. But is anything really changing?
January 10th 2012 @ 11:54am
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
They went on tour for two reasons Brett (a) as injury cover for the test matches because injuries and accidents happen; and (b) to play the tour games which served the dual purpose of integrating them into the team/squad and resting front-line players with high workloads. The difference is that they played in first or second class matches, not test matches.
What is changing is that you are changing the focus away from managing workloads in the best interests of the player. The focus is now on these so-called “icon” series. This sort of selection creates an artificial hierarchy within the playing group – an elite who are rested against weak opposition and automatically selected for the Ashes.
The philosophy is just plain wrong. It entrenches the boys club mentality behind selections. Players they want will be afforded time and opportunities; everyone else will be bumped in and out of the team with “rotation” cited as their new excuse.
January 10th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Kev, they did play Test Matches though. Casson played his one and only Test when Stuart MacGill suddenly retired, and Smith made his debut at Lords.
Let me concede this to you: yes, placing one series above another and selecting accordingly, is a flawed philosophy when viewed in isolation.
But I don’t think this can be viewed in isolation, because this will very rarely be the case. That’s why I keep mentioning workload and injury management because all three will be (and always have been) factors in selecting squads and teams.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:42am
David Lord said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Brett, James Pattinson is a perfect case in point of rotation. Had he been fit and firing, he would have been rested for the WACA, without doubt THE BEST wicket for a genuine quick in the country. How dumb is that?
January 10th 2012 @ 9:50am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
David, the WACA might well be the best wicket for genuine quicks, but regardless, a fifth Test in six weeks for a 21 year-old still developing body is a heavy workload. What would be dumber, resting him as they planned, or playing him again and allowing the current early stages of bone stress to develop into a proper stress fracture??
January 10th 2012 @ 10:08am
TomC said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Why is that dumb? He’s just being replaced by another quick in Ryan Harris.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:53am
Disco said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
‘Icon’ series is straight out of the $utherland textbook.
January 10th 2012 @ 11:22am
jameswm said | January 10th 2012 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Red Kev
The rotation based on the strength of opposition and importance of series is right, not wrong.
Think about it. If Pattinson and Cummins can only play say 10 of our 13 tests in the year, should they be having those 3 tests off during the Ashes? Or should they play only 2 of the 3 tests against the WIndies each, and one of the 2 v SL?
Rotation based on workload obviously, but also based on importance of series. It makes sense.
I’d even suggest those two that in a home Ashes series, they should each play tests 1, 2 and 3, but only one of 4 and 5 (Melbourne and Sydney back-to-back). Another fast bowler (say Harris or Hilfy or Starc) should then play both of those two.
If we’re playing a 3-test series in SA for the no.1 ranking in 1-2 years’ time, do you want all your best players available for all 3 tests in SA, or do you want 3-4 of them due for a rotation rest, because they’ve just come off a gruelling 4 tests back to back against NZ in Aus/NZ? Obviously, in that scenario, they play only 2-3 of the 4 tests against NZ, and are ready for all 3 tests against SA in SA.
Howard is right, at least in relation to the fast bowlers.
And on the Tom Cooper example – his job is to score so many runs in the tests he plays that someone else gets dropped when the rested player returns. Make yourself undroppable. Mind you – right now, it seems that if you’ve scored a century in your last 10 tests, you’re undroppable. And if you haven’t scored one for two years…
January 10th 2012 @ 12:06pm
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Your example highlights exactly why it is wrong.
Bowlers:
Opposition is irrelevant and in fact removing the opposition makes the argument stronger.
7 tests within 12 weeks. 2 away followed immediately by 2 at home followed by 3 away. Rest will be required most likely for one or both of the home tests.
Batsman:
You require them to score a century within 2 or 3 tests to displace someone. That is simply not sensible.
January 10th 2012 @ 12:34pm
jameswm said | January 10th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
No I’m only talking about bowlers. I’m not that worried about batsmen and not convinced rotation is needed, however if a batsman has a niggling stress-related injury and a rest is recommended, then they can be rotated out to make sure they are fully fit and unlikely to break down during a more important series.
As for bowlers, I disagree that in this scenario rest is required for both home tests. Playing back to back is the biggest problem, so resting in back to back tests isn’t that wise. Better to spread those rests out.
There is certainly merit in say Pattinson and Cummins resting one each of the home and away tests, and then playing all 3 in SA. That makes playing 5 of 7 tests.
I’m saying if workload wise the physios are saying they should play 5 of the upcoming 7 tests, then you determine which of the 5 they play by the importance of the series.
January 10th 2012 @ 1:11pm
Red Kev said | January 10th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
No you determine which tests he plays in the best interests of the player.
January 10th 2012 @ 2:29pm
jameswm said | January 10th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Sure Kev but if the physio says you can play 3 of the next 5 tests, it doesn’t matter which 3 because workload and stress on the body are the issue, then you save your best players for the biggest tests.
Makes sense.
As Brett says, you need a squad of say 5 top fast bowlers. With Pattinson, Siddle, Cummins and Harris, we’re almost there. Hilfy, Starc or Cutting most likely to fill the last place, and more than one of them in a couple of years when Harris is physically past it.
January 10th 2012 @ 4:09pm
anopinion said | January 10th 2012 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
We should not be worried about “Tom” because this is a team game. “Tom” gets his chances and it is up to him to take them. The most important thing is the team and all teams need experience, form, fresh blood and enthusiasm. The trick is to select the correct mixture at the right time.
A certainty in sport is that you will rarely get to play your best team at the same time, versatility is important.
January 10th 2012 @ 9:44am
Patrick Angel said | January 10th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
David, you recently wrote an article about how our pacemen need to be managed better to avoid injury, and now slam this bloke (who you were hammering before he’d even began) for doing something about it.
This allows the team to really guage where the youngsters are and give breaks to the top level cricketers. Every other sport will change players if they’re facing less stiff opposition.
Before people go on about “disrespecting opposition”, you have to see the extent. If they drop the whole team, then that’s ridiculous, but say two pacemen and a batsman, then it’s long term thinking.
January 10th 2012 @ 10:31am
David Lord said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Bowlers only Patrick, never batsmen,
January 10th 2012 @ 10:47am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
why should batsmen be immune to rotation? If David Warner (for eg) continues playing three forms for Australia in the next year, there will have to be times where he sits out games…
January 10th 2012 @ 10:23am
Luke said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I think a rotation policy is fair enough. But it has to be used at the right time and in the right way. This rotation policy idea based on opposition strength, I agree is stupid. And opens the door for nasty little surprises if we don’t take some teams seriously.
For “Live” Tests, ODI’s and T20′s (“Live” meaning games where the series hasn’t been decided beforehand) against any opposition, then the best 11 players should be picked every time. But if the match is a “dead” rubber then I see no harm in playing the fringe players and giving the top liners a break.
January 10th 2012 @ 10:40am
jamesb said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
someone should tell pat howard that Australia doesn’t have the depth to put in a “B” team to play against NZ, WI, Bangers or ZIm
January 10th 2012 @ 10:45am
Brett McKay said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:45am | Report comment
James, that’s the whole idea of building the squad, so the depth is there…
January 10th 2012 @ 11:05am
jameswm said | January 10th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Crikey James – you don’t put all the B players in at the same time. Look up rotation.
January 10th 2012 @ 10:39pm
jamesb said | January 10th 2012 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
unless its rotation with fast bowlers