Selectors get it wrong with Warner call, again
Columnist By David Lord, 15 Feb 2012 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Andrew Hilditch, Cricket, cricket selectors, David Warner, John Inverarity, Steve Waugh, Trevor Hohns
David Warner has saved Michael Clarke's blushes with his commanding century AAP Image/Tony McDonough
Related coverage
A pattern has emerged between the last three Australian chairmen of cricket selectors, Trevor Hohns, Andrew Hilditch, and John Inverarity.
All three were ordinary Test cricketers, to become ordinary chairmen, making ordinary decisions.
Yesterday was the latest when Inverarity tried to explain why Ricky Ponting has been recalled as ODI skipper, with incumbent Michael Clarke sidelined by a hamstring tear.
The 25-year-old David Warner is the vice-captain, but he was overlooked as the panel dug into the past, instead of having vision for the future.
Said Inverarity: “David Warner is a young player making his way. He displays considerable leadership potential, but the panel is of the view that he should not, at the moment, have the added responsibility of captaincy.
“David has been gaining valuable experience under Michael Clarke, and now will have the opportunity to grow his leadership as vice-captain to Ricky Ponting”.
Where the panel lost the initial chance was appointing George Bailey on international debut as Twenty20 captain over Warner.
Boring negative thinking, but in keeping with the pattern.
Former Test skipper Steve Waugh never had a negative thought in his career, that’s why he had a 71.9% win-rate in the five-day game, and 63.2% in ODIs.
Yesterday he slammed the Ponting decision as retrograde, and supported Warner as skipper. That was the positive outlook.
And it was a positive outlook that greeted the Argus Review, until it suggested a five-man panel including the captain and coach.
Bad call, bad result.
Apart from the Warner snub, two serious communication lapses underline what is amiss with this panel. And the buck stops with Inverarity.
To this day, all-rounder Shane Watson hasn’t been officially notified he is the vice-captain of the Test, ODI, and Twenty20 sides. It matters not he hasn’t struck a blow in all three through a calf injury, but he should have been advised of his triple appointments.
Keeper Brad Haddin was told he was to be rested from the ODI squad for three games. Those games are gone and Haddin still isn’t back in the squad as he prepares for the NSW-Western Australia clash at the WACA as the alternative.
There was an opportunity to recall Haddin as promised for next Friday’s ODI against Sri Lanka at the SCG and install him as skipper. After all, he was vice-captain to Clarke in the four-Test series against India.
It didn’t happen, and if I was Haddin I wouldn’t count on retaining the Test berth for the West Indies in April. This panel doesn’t stick to its word.
So it’s a pity we can’t time-freeze the last three selection panel appointments.
If David Boon was the chairman in the Hohns-Hilditch era, and Rodney Marsh was chairman now, it would be a whole new ball game.
Two knockabout good blokes who were class cricketers, both charismatic, revered by their peers and fans, and excellent communicators.
Hohns, Hilditch, and Inverarity don’t qualify for any of those assets.
Had Boon and Marsh been in the big chair, there would have been none of this negative rubbish, and every potential rep player would know exactly where he stood. Boon and Marsh would see to that personally.
That’s their nature.
As a result, the ordinary, ordinary, ordinary pattern would never have surfaced and 16 years of yawning hard-to-fathom selections could have been avoided.
If only.
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.
February 15th 2012 @ 6:39am
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 6:39am | Report comment
You can add to that list of communication blunders the call to Steve Smith just before the semi-final of the BBL to tell him he’d been dropped from the Australian T20 side.
The judgements will of course all come after the back-to-back Ashes but we may see another broom come through if those series get botched.
February 15th 2012 @ 7:35am
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Oh and Harris is now in the press refuting the claim that the is injured at all, saying he didn’t want to be rested.
I have less faith in Inverarity with each press conference.
February 15th 2012 @ 11:54am
Chaos said | February 15th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Harris is injury prone and breaks down more then a Alfa Romeo. He can hardly complain about being rested.
February 15th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
That’s exactly why he has the right to complain.
If he is fit and good enough to play (and he is still considered Australia’s best fast bowler last time I checked) then he should be playing. He misses too many matches due to injury anyway.
If he’s been dropped for poor performance that’s fine. But they haven’t said that (although is bowling so far in the ODIs has not been great).
If he is injured that’s fine. But he isn’t injured.
February 15th 2012 @ 11:10pm
Bearfax said | February 15th 2012 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
You’ve got to understand guys. the conservative party is in control. No risks. And only select West Australians if you’re making changes. Ho hum. Pedestrianism is on the rise. Dull is good, excitement is bad..
February 15th 2012 @ 7:11am
Dave said | February 15th 2012 @ 7:11am | Report comment
David. Nice provocative opening to the article. Wish I had been an “ordinary” test cricketer. You probably do too.
You say Trevor Hohns was an “ordinary” chairman of selectors? What is that based on? He presided over the most successful period of Australian cricket, and when required had the balls and intuition to move on some aging greats of Australian cricket team (eg. Healy, Waughs etc). There were no “transition periods” like we have at the moment, and the team continued to dominate.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
February 15th 2012 @ 3:24pm
Aaron said | February 15th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Spot on Dave.
David – Inverarity has arguably not put a foot wrong since stepping into the frame. They’ve blooed some potential star young quicks, given guys like Warner & Cowan a gig in the Test arena, been gutsy enough to remove a horribly out of form Haddin (temporarily or permanently remains to be seen), and backed Clarke to the hilt. All have proven fantastic moves.
The move to have Punter fill in was the conservative approach. Warner is still learning to lead, and a quick glance at his record in ODIs has his place in the side at severe risk (stats alone I mean), hence the captaincy was a further burden. Punter knows it’s temporary, Warner continues to grow & mature, Clarke comes back asap, and the Aussie side positions itself with the best chance to win the match. All wins surely?!
February 15th 2012 @ 8:21am
Vas Venkatramani said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
I have to wonder if Trevor Hohns’ reign as selector is a failure, than what constitutes a success?
February 15th 2012 @ 8:34am
Chris said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
I really wanted this lot to be a success, but my hopes are fading fast.
Couple of points though – I don’t think there have been 16 years of hard-to-fathom selections – it’s probably the last couple of years that the problems really seem to have arisen. And if the vice captain isn’t capable of filling in when the captain is unavailable then I don’t understand why the position exists (much like the 12th man role these days…).
It appears that two words come to mind when trying to describe the selectors – gutless and inconsistent.
February 15th 2012 @ 8:48am
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
OK, just to offer an alternate perspective, let’s pretend the Australian cricket team is actually a big company.
The President is going to be out of action for a few weeks in a slow period of the year, and someone needs to act in his position. The new young VP has only been in the role for about two months, but everyone knows already that he has a bright future ahead of him, and that one day, the company will be in good hands when he becomes the Pres.
But for the short term, now, just while the current President is away, the board decide the safest option is to temporarily promote the former President, who is still on the board, and still knows the company well. The board reason that the VP isn’t quite ready just yet, and as such, it just makes sense to recall the former head.
It’s safe, it’s sensible. But is it really that outrageous or controversial??
February 15th 2012 @ 8:52am
Johnno said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
It is Brett. I have my tickets for the SCG match and I am thinking of not going to as a protest , if they give punter the captaincy then Katich must be returned for the ODI’s. It is that drastic,.
February 15th 2012 @ 9:12am
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Johnno, ask yourself what your ‘protest’ would achieve. CA already have your money, and crowd figures are normally based on ticket sales anyway. So even if you don’t go, in CA’s eyes, you did go.
(And Katich is sitting out a Shield game this week due to lingering concussion from being hit last week in Hobart, so let’s try and maintain some semblance of reality here..)
February 15th 2012 @ 3:31pm
Aaron said | February 15th 2012 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Johnno
Thank goodness you are nowhere near any important decision making roles. By the sounds, you’d be the sort of bloke who found the behavious of the Italian cruise ship captain rational!!
February 15th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Johnno said | February 15th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Aaron it’s called reveloution, and people power is strong in 2012, and I am taking a stand for liberty and for what is right. But i will be attending. If i was head of selectors had formal power cricket in Australia would be so much better off Aaron.
February 15th 2012 @ 4:15pm
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
“…and I am taking a stand for liberty and for what is right. But i will be attending.”
more Johnno gold….
February 15th 2012 @ 4:21pm
Johnno said | February 15th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Ha Ha Brett. I just had to throw in some Johnoo gold.
February 15th 2012 @ 8:53am
Pete said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
You’ve fallen in to the trap of using logic there. A fatal flaw…
February 15th 2012 @ 9:08am
David Lord said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Good call Pete, whatever happended to logic with cricket selections?
February 15th 2012 @ 9:13am
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Pete, sometimes, very occasionally, it has a place…
February 15th 2012 @ 9:59am
langou said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:59am | Report comment
The main role of vice president (or similar) whether that be a business, a committee or political organisation is to assume the role of presidential duties when president is away. The business comparison is way off because to the best of my knowledge and life experience, no business would ever give someone the vice-chairman/director/president role on the basis that they might learn and one day be able to take the role. To think they have appointed a vice captain who they don’t believe is good enough to captain a single game seems like a mistake.
February 15th 2012 @ 1:48pm
jameswm said | February 15th 2012 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
langou said
“The main role of vice president (or similar) whether that be a business, a committee or political organisation is to assume the role of presidential duties when president is away”
So given the president might only be away for a month of the year, are you saying the vice president can sit on his/her hands for the other 11 months of the year?
February 15th 2012 @ 7:09pm
Warren said | February 15th 2012 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
Langou, exactly. You don’t appoint a VP because they MIGHT be able to do the job at some point in the future…
You give them the job (and announce it) because you have faith they can do the job in the absence of the leader. Period.
James, that is ridiculous. You undertake the VP role in addition to other duties, not at the expense of them.
February 15th 2012 @ 7:37pm
Lolly said | February 15th 2012 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
He’s got the job because Watson is injured and Haddin is not in the team at present.
Is this really so outrageous to go back to Punter over a player who is hardly holding his place and is about fourth in line to the throne?
February 16th 2012 @ 10:06am
jameswm said | February 16th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Yes it’s ridiculous, Warren. But I didn’t say it.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:01am
Matt F said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Edit: Comment placed in the wrong spot
February 15th 2012 @ 12:21pm
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Actually Brett your analogy is both outrageous and controversial. It may be safe and sensible as you describe it but it is also probably illegal.
The flow of power in companies is enshrined in legally binding documents – it varies exactly what they are but examples would be terms of reference for the board, articles of incorporation of the company, operating policies and procedures, position descriptions attached to contracts of employment, etc.
Except in rare cases (such as if the structure of the company is set up that delegation of authority can be given to any suitably qualified candidate) the Vice-President would be required to take on the role of acting-President in if the President was “out of action”. For someone else to take the reins the board would have to remove the VP via a quorum vote (not a small matter) and then appoint a new interim President.
February 15th 2012 @ 1:13pm
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
way to ruin my logic, man….
(I will admit to not considering the legal angle. But you get my point…)
February 15th 2012 @ 1:29pm
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
I do, and I agree with your point, just not the example.
I also agree with David’s underlying point about the NSP not performing well (odd selections, poor communication) but not with several of the specifics he used in the article.
February 15th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
see Kev, I’m not sure the communication has been that bad from the Selectors, simply for the fact that there HAS been statements made about selections. An explanation like what we saw for why Warner was overlooked hardly ever came from the Hilditch reign, and if it did it would’ve just been “Ponting is the way we’ve gone”.
I think to a degree, the mixed messages (or at least the public perception of mixed messages) issue is being interpreted as a poor communication issue, where really the two are completely different. I think on the whole, the communication, or at least the public statements regarding teams as selected has been quite good..
February 15th 2012 @ 3:05pm
Red Kev said | February 15th 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
They are not separate, poor communication is poor communication. It doesn’t matter if it is one line or a three page memo if the message is not clear (and I don’t think anyone would contend that Inverarity and co have been clear about what they are doing or what they want from players or from series) it is poor communication.
February 15th 2012 @ 3:15pm
LT said | February 15th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
I think poor communication given that Haddin’s management confirmed in today’s paper that he/they had not been contacted re this latest scenario – ie the ‘rested’ period of three games is up, but he’s not named as selected for the next block of games, and no mention of his name anywhere in the presser/public statements.
A bit bloody rude aside from anything else. Bad manners. Plus didn’t the Argus review (and Invers when he was appointed) bang on about better communication with players, emphasised that this had been a recognised problem in the past and expressly stated that it should be addressed?
February 15th 2012 @ 9:06am
jamesb said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
the selectors have no idea. Why make Warner VC inthe first place if his not ready to captain,
February 15th 2012 @ 9:07am
Disco said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Should Ponting even be in the team?
February 15th 2012 @ 9:09am
Dan said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Ordinary selector you say? What about the selections of the young quicks Cummins, Pattinson and Starc this summer? The recall of Hilfenhaus? The selections of Warner, Cowan, Forrest and Wade? All great selections that have benefited the team. “Ordinary” article more like it!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:15am
Chris said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Dan, with the injuries to the fast bowling ranks, I wold argue that the selectors didn’t have much choice. The real test for the selectors is when they have a full list to choose from. If you had Harris, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Siddle, Cummins and Pattinson to choose from, who should they pick? That’s when they start to earn their pay.
Equally, how can Ponting justify his position in the current ODI team with a batting average of 3 and the worst strike rate? It’s not like Australia doesn’t have capable limited overs players to choose from. With the current squad I would choose a lineup of Warner, Wade, Forrest, David Hussey, Michael Hussey, Marsh, Christian, McKay, Lee Starc and Doherty.
February 15th 2012 @ 9:35am
TomC said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Right. Well I think it’s definitely time I stopped bothering reading David Lord. A pointlessly insulting article attacking a far more reasoned analysis of the situation than Lord is obviously capable of giving.
And all because Lord think it’s mad that anyone would baulk at giving the captaincy to a batsman with a ODI average of 20 and a domestic one day average of 29.
And it would be just completely insane to appoint selectors because they are ‘knockabout good blokes’.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:01am
Chris said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
TomC – Ponting has an average of 3 in this series (only Doherty is worse), and has the worst strike rate. If the selectors were picking players on form, Ponting wouldn’t even get in the team, let alone being made captain.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:04am
Matt F said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
3 matches isn’t exactly long enough to drop someone, especially with Ponting’s record. If he’s still not making runs towards the end of, or after, the series then we can make that call with more certainty
February 15th 2012 @ 9:31pm
AndyMack said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
An average of 3. Classic, you cant just use the last three games, hardly a fair indicator in cricket. I’m glad you are not a selector, dropping people every time they fail…..
GO PUNTER!!!!!
February 15th 2012 @ 10:19am
David Lord said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Do you really know what good knockabout blokes are TomC? They communicate, they know how their peers are feeling, they care. And when push turns to shove, they take time out to explain their reasoning, they never take a dictator’s stance. And their word is their bond. Obviously you don’t know any knockabouts TomC, you’re missing out.
February 15th 2012 @ 1:03pm
rl said | February 15th 2012 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
David, I think I understand what message you are trying to convey, but you have delivered it poorly. A “knockabout bloke” implies a bit of a joker, one of the lads – on that basis I agree with Tom in that is NOT what should be a defining characteristic of a selector.
My reading of the term doesn’t include all those other characteristics you have mentioned, and “knockabout blokes” probably aren’t the ones you’d entrust to do serious jobs. The yanks use the term “a stand up guy”, but not sure that really captures what you want to say. Not sure what the Aussie equivalent is, but the point is that “knockabout bloke” is a poor choice of term for what you were trying to say.
But you and Tom should both take it outside nonetheless!
February 15th 2012 @ 10:02am
Matt F said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Whilst it is a little unusual for a team to not select their vice captain as the stand in skipper, I’m not sure Warner is ready to be ODI captain yet. There’s 2 main reason why.
1) He’s played a grand total of 13 ODI games. Since his recall to the ODI team in South Africa recently, after a 2 year absence, he’s played 5 games. The 3 different formats of cricket are very different from each other. Having good tactical nous for T20′s doesn’t nescessarily transfer over to ODI’s.
2) He averages 20 in ODI cricket and, as TomC pointed out, 29 in ODD cricket. Surely he needs to actually prove that he can play the one day format well before he can captain it? There’s been alot of criticism about picking George Bailey as essentially a specialist T20 captain, well Warner would have been very close to the ODI equivalent.
2 other points about your article:
Hohns was the chairman during our most succesful era and was responsible for making tough calls on the likes of Healy, Slater, Waugh(s) etc. If that’s “average” then what exactly does it take to be considered succesful?
I’d say that Steve Waughs captaincy record had a lot to do with the quality of the team which he was fortunate enough to be in charge of rather than the fact that he “never had a negative thought.” Look at the difference between Pontings captaincy record with the great Australian team, and his results afterr many of them retired, to see how significant the teams quality is to getting results. Let’s not forget the fact that the team that Waugh was lucky enough to captain were selected mainly under the Hohns chairmanship………..
February 15th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Chaos said | February 15th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Agree about Waugh. Good captain but had a champion team. It’s easier to set attacking fields when you can throw the ball to people like Mcgrath and Warne. Even Gillsepie was very accurate. It’s hard setting a field to Mitchell Johnson. He does pick up wickets but seriously how can you put pressure on the batsman when you know that half-tracker or leg stump delivery is coming? It also nice being captain when you have the luxury of the wicketkeeper coming in at 7 who could turn 5-121 to 5-350 in a blink of the eye. Harder when you have a keeper that charges the bowler at 5-21.
February 15th 2012 @ 7:19pm
Warren said | February 15th 2012 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
You are correct Matt. But if he is not ready, then don’t make him VC.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:05pm
David Lord said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Matt F, David Warner has played 13 more games than George Bailey when the Tasmanian was appointed Twenty20 captain on debut for the two-game series against India.
February 16th 2012 @ 9:24am
Matt F said | February 16th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Yes and I was, and am, against Bailey’s appointment as well. Both appointments (Bailey as T20 captain and Warner as ODI captain) would have been undeserving