The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Cricket is more than just a numbers game

Usman Khawaja is one of the few Aussie cricketers that should be guaranteed selection for the rest of the summer. (AP Photo/Tertius Pickard)
Roar Pro
27th February, 2013
15

Australian cricket’s armchair selectors have had somewhat of a ground-breaking summer.

The puzzling selections of Bobby Quiney against South Africa, Hastings in Perth, five bowlers in Sydney and the omission of Stephen O’Keefe for Glenn Maxwell and Xavier Doherty on the plane to India have created a summer unlike many others for Australia’s millions of ill-informed and unsanctioned selectors.

Like you I’ve joined the party bandying about all sorts of criticisms despite my Sheffield Shield observations being limited to CricInfo’s impressive array of domestic stats.

And here is where a lot of the debate and criticism of the National Selection Panel becomes tiresome and irrelevant.

Very few people watch the Sheffield Shield, the true testing field for Test cricket hopefuls. Of the people that do watch the Shield religiously even less have access to details such as players off field behaviour, application to training and impact upon team dynamics.

I believe the number of people armed with all this information across the State sides totals single figures.

Essentially you are left with the National Selection Panel which I therefore conclude the most qualified candidates for Test cricket selection, regardless of how brain dead they can appear to be.

Why? Because like it or not, the other variables that we’re not privy too are important. Incredibly important and no one can make intelligent decisions without being armed with all the relevant data.

Advertisement

If winning cricket matches was a simple as picking the blokes who top scored or took a bagful of wickets last week the Argus review would not have identified selection as an area for significant improvement.

While I’m not saying selectors can’t be wrong or shouldn’t be criticized, look at the last home Ashes series for a crash course in suicidal selections.

I’m simply saying is we should gives the players selected the benefit of the doubt and support to exceed rather than the oft written comments along the lines of I hope we lose so player ‘X’ is dropped for player ‘Y’.

I wrote an article a few days ago (Tall Poppy Syndrome is Alive and Well) on our propensity to cannibalise our own sporting stars and the vitriol directed at a young Australian that has done nothing more than strive to represent us and get picked in a touring squad has been downright appalling.

Especially from a misinformed crowd of hecklers that probably don’t watch the Sheffield Shield and at the very least know very little about the sub-surface qualities of the various alternatives being thrown around.

I will qualify this article by stating I was disappointed Stephen O’Keefe wasn’t selected to tour India as I believe he is the best fit spin bowler in the country.

This is based entirely on the mediocre offerings of Nathan Lyon in the Test arena, the handful of times I have seen fringe spinners bowl and the ever reliable CricInfo statistics.

Advertisement

This is my opinion which perhaps mirrors your own and the majority of readers on the Roar but I can acknowledge I’m not placed favourably to be picking a Test squad and those that are well placed to aid our success have this responsibility.

So I’m willing to back Lyon, Doherty and Maxwell and hope against my own judgement that they will be successful. Shouldn’t the rest of Australia?

I’ll leave you with an illustration of the importance of attitude and team dynamics at the selection table in a cricket side.

I play mediocre level park cricket with a group of mates and have managed to be relatively successful in the past five years, winning four premierships.

The fifth year we ended up runners up. However it was that year that we fielded our most talented side, on the sole basis of two outstanding players.

It was the only year we have had two players score multiple centuries, the only time we’ve had two players pass 500 runs in a season and of finally the only time we’ve had two players average over 35 let alone 60.

Statistically it was our best side hands down. We regularly posted scores of 300 and bowled teams out for under 70. We cruised into a grand final unbeaten having beaten our opponents by more than 200 runs in our only previous encounter.

Advertisement

The two however were toxic to the dynamic of the team. They were players far better than the level of competition we played at, that didn’t get along.

The side was silently split into two camps as the two fought for control of the side. Sure enough the situation eventually exploded in the field on grand final day and despite having the opposition two for nothing we managed to drop our bundle and they posted 240.

The bickering and in-fighting continued after the days play and into the next morning until we were dismissed for 75 in an absolute shellacking. And based on the final 48 hours the side became untenable, disbanded for a year before rejoining sans toxic influences in a new district for more premiership glory.

The underlying cause of the terrible performance in the field was the lack of camaraderie and team morale eroded by the dynamics of the side.

Statistically the two players would be the first players picked in any side I’ve played in over the last five years. But four times I’ve learnt that success boils down to more than just individual runs and wicket.

In this case it had to be one or none of them to ensure the team could be successful.

We all want to win in India and then back-to-back Ashes series. The simplest way to achieve this is for players selected over the next 18 months to perform in the Baggy Green and I for one will continue cheering on the eleven men chosen to run out for Australia.

Advertisement

Because for me Australians being successful and sweeping all comers in three days like the good old days is more important than my favourite player getting picked.

close