Australian cricket selectors deserve a massive pay rise
By Ryan O'Connell, 5 Feb 2013 Ryan O'Connell is a Roar Expert
109 Have your say
Australian Cricket selector John Inverarity speaks with spin bowler Nathan Lyon. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Related coverage
Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel deserves a significant pay rise. Considering some of the vitriol directed as the selectors this summer, that statement is sure to cause a stir, so allow me to quickly explain myself before I’m completely lambasted.
In the wake of the release of part one of Shane Warne’s Cricket Manifesto, it was more intriguing gauging the response to it, rather than its actual contents.
By and large, most people felt that Warne made some valid points while also making some ill-informed ones.
Central to the latter point was the fact that some of the individuals that Warne appointed for a role in his ‘Dream Team’ of Cricket Australia officials would need to take a pay cut to fulfill the position that Warne had pencilled them in for, especially those in a selector role.
While the first reaction to that oversight by Warne was to scoff that he hadn’t done his homework and that his suggestions were therefore unrealistic, the ensuing thought that popped into my mind was that those tasked with making the major decisions on playing personnel in Australian cricket may not be being paid very well.
Which in turn opens Cricket Australia up to mocking phrases like ‘You get what you pay for’.
In cricket, you could argue that there is only one individual (or individuals) more important than the players: those that actually choose the players.
After all, you can be the best player in the land and the most influential player in the team, but if the selectors don’t pick you, you cease to be important.
Which is a very hyperbolic way of illustrating that the selectors’ job is extremely important.
It’s therefore very alarming to learn that these very important roles may actually not pay very well, relatively speaking.
If the selectors’ role is so important, surely they should have a salary that reflects it?
While I can appreciate that travelling around Australia watching Sheffield Shield games in empty grounds may not sound that glamorous, it’s the output of such excursions that truly matter.
It’s an obvious point, but the decisions that the selectors make have a drastic impact on Australian cricket.
With that responsibility and pressure should come the financial remuneration to match it.
Yet it appears that may not be the case.
I would hate to think Cricket Australia don’t currently have the very best candidates for the National Selection Panel because the positions don’t pay highly enough.
I understand that you can’t just throw money around irresponsibly, but I would argue that allocating a significant portion of Cricket Australia revenue towards the NSP is actually one of the more astute and responsible things CA could do.
Where should the extra money for the selectors salaries come from?
Obviously I don’t have vision of Cricket Australia’s books, but if you cut the pyrotechnics budget of the Big Bash in half, there would be a significant amount of money freed up.
Which do you think is more crucial to the success of Australian cricket: fireworks or well paid selectors?
Failing that, reducing player salaries by just 1% across the board would ensure the selectors’ bank accounts receive a healthy boost.
If one of the most important – if not the most important – positions in Australian cricket isn’t currently attractive, desirable, aspirational and well paid, I think Cricket Australia should make it its number one objective to ensure it is.
It’s no big deal though.
It’s only the immediate and future success of Australia cricket riding on it.
Ryan is an ex-representative basketballer who shot too much, and a (very) medium pace bowler. He's been with The Roar as an expert since February 2011, has written for the Seven Network and NBA Down Under, and been a regular on ABC radio. Ryan tweets from @RyanOak.

February 5th 2013 @ 8:22am
Red Kev said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Interesting story. The only thing I can think to add is that the actual number they are paid should be viewed with the caveat that all their travel, accommodation and food would be paid while on CA business. I am also guessing top notch health cover is included courtesy of BUPA and a free phone courtesy of Vodaphone…there would be decent perks involved in the job. 100k might not seem like a lot in comparison to the $1M Maxwell is paid for the IPL or in comparison to the lofty earnings of a sports journalist like yourself (easy Mr O’Connell that’s a joke) but it is still a decent salary.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:01am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:01am | Report comment
I’m glad you added the joke line, Red Kev!
Yes, I’m sure there are certain perks that come with the job, and the salary ‘decent’. However, considering the importance of the role, I believe it should be more than just that.
February 5th 2013 @ 12:24pm
Chaos said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Good point but haven’t Vodaphone pulled the pin on the sponsorship?
February 5th 2013 @ 8:24am
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I’ll do it for free.
February 5th 2013 @ 9:56am
Brett McKay said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Not for any length of time you won’t, JGK…
February 5th 2013 @ 10:45am
Col said | February 5th 2013 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Why not?
Having “Australian Cricket Selector” on your resume would open a stack of doors in the corporate world, post selecting, where the increase in salaries would more than make up for a couple of years on the road not making a buck.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:06am
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I’d do it for at least two years.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:12am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:12am | Report comment
For free for two years??
February 5th 2013 @ 11:22am
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Yep.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:44am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:44am | Report comment
You’re either a hobo or filthy rich!
February 5th 2013 @ 12:29pm
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Neither. I just love cricket.
February 5th 2013 @ 12:52pm
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
As do I, but a dog has to eat!
February 5th 2013 @ 12:55pm
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Long service leave and a whole stack of accrued annual leave will help me!
February 5th 2013 @ 12:58pm
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Ahhhhh! Nice one. Put your hand up!
February 5th 2013 @ 8:28am
jamesb said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:28am | Report comment
So what your saying is the selectors deserve to get paid more so they could do a better job, because ATM it’s “pay peanuts get monkeys”
In the past, Australian selectors did there job without the massive pay and still put out reasonably competitive Australian teams.
I think the problem with the current selection panel is they are outfoxing themselves. They have selected 3 or 4 ”allrounders” in the squad to have a flexible squad, yet they didn’t pick a clear number 6 batsman. George Bailey could have been a good selection. But they left him home. The selectors saw Baileys stats this season, and whilst he has struggled, you also got to bear in mind, Bailey’s home ground is Bellerive, which can be a dicey deck from time to time.
That’s why selectors should watch as many Shield matches as possible to have a look at players performing at different pitch conditions. If they are selecting sides by comparing averages on the CricInfo site, hey I’ll put my hand up as a selector.
You say a massive pay rise.
Yes please! if I became one LOL.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:05am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:05am | Report comment
James, I’m not suggesting that the current selectors would do a better job if they were better paid. I’m sure they’re doing the best job they can. What I am suggesting is that if money was not an issue and we merely wanted the very best people in the role, would we still have the same selectors we do?
We very well may, I don’t know. But I just hope the salary isn’t a restriction in having the best candidates in the roles.
And taking that a step further, it’s somewhat surprising to learn that Bichel and Marsh are only employed part-time. That doesn’t seem to be giving an important role it’s full respect.
And just staying on that point, if Bichel and Marsh are part time, and Clarke and Arthur’s international commitments keep them from watching a lot of first class cricket, it means we really only have one full time selector, Inverarity. That’s a concern, no?
February 5th 2013 @ 2:43pm
Brian said | February 5th 2013 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
the problem is I see no evidence that better paid selectors would do a better job. Your argument reminds me of the same tripe our leading CEO come out with to justify paying themselves $8 mill a year. As if they wouldn’t bother for $7m.
Quote the opposite paying them too well would only attract the likes of professional selectors interested in pursuing selecting as a career rather than Australian Cricket.
If your really going to look at it objectively than shouldn’t the job be open to all nationalities. I don’t know who groomed the English team that won the Ashes in 2005 or the Kenyan team that made the World Cup semis or who was in charge when Warne was selected to debut. This is what I would look for a proven track record rather than more money for the existing unproven NSP to do what the rest of us on this blog happily do for free.
February 5th 2013 @ 2:56pm
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
“. . .rather than more money for the existing unproven NSP. . “
Your comment completely missed the point of the comment you were replying to. I’m not advocating that the existing NSP get pay rises.
I’m asking whether we have the very best people in the existing selectors roles, and praying that we do, as opposed to not having the best people because CA don’t pay enough.
It’s not about upping the salaries and seeing who applies, it’s about assessing what it would take to get the best people making the most important decisions in Australian cricket.
February 6th 2013 @ 9:01am
Andy_Roo said | February 6th 2013 @ 9:01am | Report comment
They are part-time because there are often week-long gaps between games, particularly at shield level.
February 6th 2013 @ 9:08am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 6th 2013 @ 9:08am | Report comment
They should be getting to State training sessions then.
February 5th 2013 @ 8:31am
sledgeross said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:31am | Report comment
I was thinking about this yesterday mate. What would I do differently to make AUssie cricket better, call it a sledgiefesto if you will.
After 2 Crownies (it was AB medal night after all) and finishing off my wifes Moscato (and 2 super doopers!), I bemoaned the fact that I probably couldnt do that much better (despite my vast knowledge and opinions lol). We just dont have the talent, especially battingwise. We could pick any of the current top 10 batsmen in the country and I feel they would all do a similar job. I could say that 10 years ago as well, but teh talent just aint there. these blokes are averaging over 10 runs less that what they should be.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:06am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Two Super Doopers? They still make them???
February 5th 2013 @ 8:40am
rossco said | February 5th 2013 @ 8:40am | Report comment
anyone who selects steven smith in a side doesn’t deserved to be paid !
February 5th 2013 @ 11:07am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Just to clarify, Rossco, I wasn’t suggesting the current selectors necessarily deserve a payrise for their efforts, but rather that the actual roles themselves should pay more.
February 5th 2013 @ 9:25am
Fivehole said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:25am | Report comment
The job is pretty sweet, and lets face it not really demanding of 40+ hours a week. Until they produce better results, no need for an increase.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:08am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Hi Fivehole, please see my comment directly above to Rossco, in terms of the current selectors.
February 5th 2013 @ 9:25am
Atawhai Drive said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:25am | Report comment
On the subject of selection, what are we to make of Ashton Agar?
He is heading off to India with the Test squad, and will be a net bowler throughout the tour.
But I read he will also play in the opening (two-day) tour match.
So what is his status, exactly. Does he qualify for a baggy green?
And, putting my own selector’s hat on, why Agar ahead of Adam Zampa?
February 5th 2013 @ 9:32am
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:32am | Report comment
India don’t have any leggies do they? Hence Agar as the net bowler.
February 5th 2013 @ 9:39am
Atawhai Drive said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Fair enough. Horses for courses.
February 5th 2013 @ 11:07am
JGK said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Zampa would be better off playing Shield anyway (which is another reason to be disappointed that SOK isn’t going to India and freeing up a spot in the NSW team).
Having said that, with all the damn rain in Sydney, Zampa might barely get a bowl over the rest of the summer while the seamers clean up.
February 5th 2013 @ 10:05am
Brett McKay said | February 5th 2013 @ 10:05am | Report comment
AD, I’m viewing similarly to how they took Starc to the Caribbean last year as development player. Just a good opportunity for a promising young bowler. It might also be a case where taking him will have minimal impact on WA in terms of Shield cricket for the rest of the season, given they’re out of the race.
He’ll play in the opening warm-up match simply because the rest of squad won’t get there until the following week. And no, he won’t get a Baggy Green. He might get a CA Australian cap, but it won’t be a Test Match-only Baggy Green.
As for why over Zampa, that’s a fair question, though I’d go back up to my point about minimising impact on Shield sides. NSW will lose Smith now, and are only 7pts off the pace, so Zampa might be a reasonable chance of playing and having an impact.
And Agar being LAO turns it the same way as Zampa anyway, so it might also be six-of-one….
February 5th 2013 @ 12:36pm
Kristin Carville said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Another reason he is probably being taken over to bowl in the nets is to ensure that the batsmen get plenty of practice against spin.
Lets not forget the party trick that India tried to pull on England recently when the Poms played warm up games against teams that played no spinners, with the idea being the English batsmen would not have adjusted to the turn and then would be spun out in the tests. Worked for the first test, but then England took note and ended up beating India at their own game. Lets hope we can follow suit.
February 5th 2013 @ 2:47pm
Brian said | February 5th 2013 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
I don’t think its that hard to practice against spin. If you rough up the pitch enough a Lyon, Zampa can be like facing Warner or a Murali on a spinning pitch. Not easy to stay in of course but it can be good practice.
February 5th 2013 @ 1:06pm
jameswm said | February 5th 2013 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
I like the idea. It gives the young sprog a big boost, and gives the batsmen another leftie to face int he nets. Good initiative.
I think he’s playing the first tour game because Doherty, Starc, Johnson etc will still be in Australia finishing the one day series – or will have just arrived.
February 6th 2013 @ 1:07am
lolly said | February 6th 2013 @ 1:07am | Report comment
I thought he is only going over for a week while WA don’t have a Shield match – for the net bowling and the first tour match. I’m sure he’s not over there for the duration.
February 6th 2013 @ 11:22pm
David said | February 6th 2013 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
Agar is going to India for 7 days, NOT the whole tour. This is partly because the squad is going over to India in three stages, and there will only be eleven others there when the first 2-day match is played. Of course he doesn’t get a baggy green – you have to be selected in the Test team for that.
February 5th 2013 @ 9:34am
A1 said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I’ll put my hand up for the job!
February 5th 2013 @ 10:58am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 10:58am | Report comment
I’ll be honest, A1, when I wrote the sentence “I can appreciate that travelling around Australia watching Sheffield Shield games in empty grounds may not sound that glamorous”, in the back of my head I was actually thinking it’s almost my dream job!
February 5th 2013 @ 12:27pm
Chaos said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
It would be a pretty good job (if you where single or had grown up kids)… otherwise not sure my missus would appriciate me never being home.
February 5th 2013 @ 12:53pm
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Mine would go halves with CA!
(Just kidding, just kidding.)
February 5th 2013 @ 9:40am
A1 said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Why doesn’t Warne put his hand up to be a selector if he’s that worried about Australian cricket?
February 5th 2013 @ 9:53am
Christo the Daddyo said | February 5th 2013 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Because then he might be held to account.
Much easier throwing rocks from outside…
February 5th 2013 @ 10:07am
Brett McKay said | February 5th 2013 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Ryano, given it’s unlikely Warnie will play in the BBL next summer, perhaps CA should re-direct the marketing money he was being paid to play (outside the Stars salary cap, which is another discussion altogether) to the underpaid selectors!!
February 5th 2013 @ 11:09am
Ryan O'Connell said | February 5th 2013 @ 11:09am | Report comment
That would certainly boost the pay packets!