Who should replace Howard, Inverarity, and Arthur?
Columnist By David Lord, 14 Mar 2013 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Darren Lehmann, Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, Rod Marsh
Cricket legends Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh. AAP Image/Julian Smith
Related coverage
As the Australian cricket team’s Indian tour debacle drags on and on, the three key posts need replacing.
Let me preamble replacements with most of the muck that has been hitting the fan has come since the controversial and hotly-debated Argus Review that Cricket Australia called for after the 2010 Ashes humiliation.
One of those suggestions was a team performance manager to be the buffer between Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland, and the selectors.
The suggestion was flawed before it began, and made even worse when former Wallaby Pat Howard was appointed, knowing precious little about cricket.
Disaster.
My choice to replace Howard is Belinda Clark, the greatest woman cricketer Australia has produced, and currently the boss at the Australian Cricket Academy in Brisbane where she is producing future baggy green cappers.
Belinda is one of only three women who have been inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame – the other two Rachel Heyhoe-Flint, and Enid Bakewell, two former England captains, and class cricketers.
Belinda (42) played for Australia from 1991 to 2005 in 15 Tests averaging 45.95 as an opening batswoman with a top score of 139, and 118 ODIs averaging 47.49 with a top score of 229 not out, the first male or female to crack a double ton in a ODI.
She has scored the most runs by an Australian in ICC women’s World Cups with 1,151.
Has scored the most Test runs by an Australian with 919, and the most ODI runs with 4,844.
And has captained Australia a record 101 times.
Stella stats, and just as good an administrator – perfect for the job.
The selection panel must be reduced to three, all full-time and not like now a full-time chairman and two part-time selectors.
More importantly with no captain, and no coach. I’ve said it many times, but it’s worth repeating, selectors select, players play, and coaches coach.
They NEVER mix.
John Inverarity to be replaced as chairman by Rod Marsh, they are alike as chalk and cheese.
Inverarity’s so timid, so earnest, so worthy – Marsh is a rough-cut diamond who doesn’t suffer fools and right now the Australian team needs a no-nonsense chairman who will tell it the way it is.
No problems with Andy Bichel staying on, he was an honest, 100 percenter every time he represented Australia, with the third selector to be former Australian vice-captain Geoff Marsh, so relation to Rod.
There will be some knockers who will say Geoff has two sons Shaun (29) who has already scored a Test ton on debut, and Mitchell (21) the youngest ever at 17 to play a domestic one-dayer.
Have no fears, Dad will only support his sons selections if they deserve it.
Geoff Lawson would be another first-class choice as a selector, but he’s doing such a top job as an ABC radio commentator, as well as writing for The Herald and The Roar, cricket would be best served if Lawson stayed right where he is.
And finally Mickey Arthur should be replaced by the most outstanding coach in Australia – Darren Lehmann.
“Boof” by nickname, but sure not a boof-head coach, he has superb communication skills, taking Queensland from the basement to the penthouse.
Like Rod Marsh, Lehmann is a no-nonsense believer, None of the current problems would have ever surfaced if Lehmann was the coach.
Time for James Sutherland to make his move, and for those of you who believe he’s part of this mess, think again.
He’s been the boss for over 10 years, and I’ve found him first class, he never shirks an issue.
And he won’t shirk this one.
Can’t say the same about the board, Let’s see if those men stand up to be counted, or close the door, bunker down and hope the muck stops hitting the fan.
Just as they have done before, the reason why Don Argus surfaced.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Darren Lehmann, Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, Rod Marsh
March 14th 2013 @ 6:19am
Allanthus said | March 14th 2013 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Who should replace Howard, Inverarity and Arthur?
I vote for Sheek, Red Kev and Johnno….
March 14th 2013 @ 7:10am
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Lol, I wouldn’t even wish that on New Zealand.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:22am
Timmuh said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I don’t wish to be personal, so I will simply say I support two of those candidates.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:33am
langou said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Two more than me Timmuh
Actually Johnno as the team dietician could be okay, those Indian takeaway meals may work a treat. Maybe Red Kev as a team motivator – always good to have someone upbeat and positive in that type of role.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:24am
Christo the Daddyo said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:24am | Report comment
There would still be a bunch of rules though…
Skinfold tests – anyone looking remotely ‘cut’ would be stood down and told to go to the nearest KFC for intensive carb-loading training.
Diet – beer, beer and more beer. Except when playing in Queensland, when you are free to mix it up a bit with Bundies.
Adherence to behavioural standards – all players WILL get on the turps after every game, starting in the dressing room. Ice baths will be replaced with kegs of beer. Massage tables will be replaced with pop up bars, serving more beer on tap. When suitable plastered, cab vouchers will be provided to all players to party on at the nearest pub. Note the word ‘pub’. This does not include nightclubs.
Uniform – polo shirts that are scientifically designed to show off beer guts will be mandatory. Facial hair (minimum of a moustache) is also compulsory.
Cricket Australia’s budget will also see a healthy return to profit with the removal of the following personnel – the NSP, High Performance Manager and anyone with the words ‘diet’, ‘fitness’ or ‘trainer’ in their titles.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:28am
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Love your work
March 14th 2013 @ 11:32am
Reccymech said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Aaaah……I just had a 70′s moment where you referenced the ‘tache. Yep, totally concur, although, my addendum to the ‘tache is that it must be the compulsory ‘Porn Moe’. Now that would be a cricket team to be proud of.
March 14th 2013 @ 8:02am
Rellum said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:02am | Report comment
I can’t see Boof working with Clarke, especially if he thinks Usman doesn’t put in under Boof’s watch.
March 14th 2013 @ 8:41pm
Praveen said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Khawaja is a hard worker and boof would be out best coach
March 14th 2013 @ 8:41am
JGK said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:41am | Report comment
I’d do Invers job in a second.
And Howard’s role doesn’t need a replacement. It needs abolition.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:28am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Abolition true JGK, but the Argus Review has become the board’s bible,only trouble is for the most part there are precious few pluses.
March 14th 2013 @ 5:20pm
Julian said | March 14th 2013 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
We need informed NSP management.
March 14th 2013 @ 8:50am
A1 said | March 14th 2013 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Why does Marsh keep on getting your love Lordy? You act like he doesn’t currently get a say at the selection table and Inverarity always ignores him. Bichel too.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:05am
rl said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:05am | Report comment
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment – love Marshy, but he is also culpable for the completely rubbish team selections that have transpired of late (and arguably are a contributor to the poor team culture).
Maybe he would be a good chairman, and he’s shown himself to have a great eye for young talent, but he’s also proving to be a crap selector.
And I’m not so sure that boof isn’t a boofhead – prob a good coach, but taking to twitter to comment on this schemozzle as he did is extremely unprofessional and inappropriate, and has immediately outed him as not fit for the top job.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:57am
Happy Hooker said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:57am | Report comment
That’s an easy one A1. Just harks back to good old days when they were trying to get World Series cricket off the ground.
Lordy incapable of objectivity on that front.
March 14th 2013 @ 3:22pm
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
You have just made a big mistake HH, I was involved in the lead-up to World Series cricket up to my ears. Obviously your memory has faded, mine hasn’t.
March 14th 2013 @ 4:01pm
steggz said | March 14th 2013 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Um, he was talking about R. Marsh, not you. Not everything is about you.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:09am
Paul said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Couple of things.
Firstly, I don’t see what Howard’s non cricket background has to do with it. He’s not required to play, or to coach, so why does he have to have played cricket? It obviously wasn’t a pre-requisite when the position was created.
I’m not defending him, he may indeed be useless, but bringing up the rugby background just makes it look like you have a chip on your shoulder.
Also, why defend Marsh and Bichel? I don’t know how you can differentiate between members of the selection panel, other than the fact they are ‘good blokes’. Surely they are all equally responsible for the inconsistent and confusing selections?
March 14th 2013 @ 9:27am
Christo the Daddyo said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Yes to both points
March 14th 2013 @ 10:50am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Already said Paul, there’s the distinct possibility Marsh and Bichel are outvoted 3-2. But we’ll never know.
March 14th 2013 @ 12:03pm
Matt F said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
There is not a “distinct possibility.” There is simply a possibility and a highly unlikely one at that. For all you know it could be 5-0 every time.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:13am
cuzza said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Lets face it, this article is poorly thought out.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:21am
BigAl said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:21am | Report comment
. . . but I do love the way he’s thrown a woman’s name into the mix to give himself some ‘new age’ credibility !
March 14th 2013 @ 10:45am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:45am | Report comment
BIgAl, you denigrate a great lady and great cricketer in Belinda Clark, an apology to her would be the very least you can do.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:11am
Paul said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:11am | Report comment
In fairness though David, you didn’t do a very good job of justifying why BC would be the right person for the job. What are her achievements at the ACA? What improvements has she implemented?
I don’t see how listing a bunch of on-field stats, however impressive, is relevant to the role…
March 14th 2013 @ 1:18pm
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Paul, why do you think Belinda was appointed by Cricket Australia to the vital job of managing the Australian Cricket Academy in Brisbane? Because she is highly-qualified and the right person for the task.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:25am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Looking forward to reading your reply and alternatives cuzza.
March 14th 2013 @ 10:50am
cuzza said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Lordy this article is ridiculous and typically written without any thought or research. In what is Belinda Clark suitable for the role of high performance manger? Have you seen her resume? Not stats but her actual qualifications? Do you know what a high performance manager does? What are the KPI’s for the job? A double hundred does not make one qualified for this position.
How do you sheet all the blame onto Invererity and Marsh and Bichel don’t take any? Do you really think Rod Marsh just sits in selection and agrees with everything Invererity says? That is junk writing.
The worst comment is your suggestion Henry Lawson should be a selector. Henry is actually considered a ignorant fool by most cricket pundits. (Besides, if he was a selector then we would just have NSW playing for Australia). It was no surprise to see he did not receive one vote in a recent poll asking people who the best commentators were. Henry belongs on Foxtel evening sports panel were all insignificant ignorant under researched ‘journalist’ belong.
Good choice too with Geoff Marsh and YOUR assurance he wouldn’t favour his sons.
I actually don’t have any alternatives Lordy because I am am not calling for heads to roll. The facts are simple, four players were told to reflect on the performance of the tour and report this reflection in any manner they wanted, and they failed.The four who should be axed have been axed.
Stick to the couch with the Wilson’s Henry and Tracy Holmes.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:10am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:10am | Report comment
cussa, no heads to roll after two serious floggings and probably more in store. Just blame the players, not how they were trained or coached, or selected, what dream world do you live in?
March 14th 2013 @ 11:25am
cuzza said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Oh my bad, sorry, so we just make changes for the sake of it. My dream world David is made up of considered judgements not based on biased and ill-researched comments and jobs for the boys. (Henry Lawson??? Really???).
March 14th 2013 @ 11:37am
langou said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:37am | Report comment
David, you can’t go around sacking people simply because we lose two games badly in a row. What if we replace all the blokes you are talking about and then we lose another two matches badly in a few months time – do we then go and sack everyone again?
Admit it, you have no idea which selectors are advocating you whom. You have no idea the CV, skills or performance attributes of Clarke – you don’t even know if she is interested in doing the job. You have no idea of what is going on in the inner sanctum of the Australian cricket team and who is doing a good job or not. I would be surprised if you could even tell me what the role of Pat Howard is.
That is not a dig at you. None of us know whether Marsh is agreeing or disagreeing with the selections as all this happens behind closed doors.
You have simply reacted to two loses by claiming a bunch of prominent figures should be sacked
March 14th 2013 @ 1:02pm
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
langou, it’s not just the two losses, it’s a litany of mistakes made by Howard and Inverarity over the season, and how differently Arthur reacts to winning and being flogged. He should be at his best after floggings, but he’s a blame-thrower, a butt-coverer, never his fault. If Howard, Inverarity, and Arthur were worth their salt, not one crisis would ever have surfaced, they would have been nipped in the bud before they took hold and were made public. Man management has been missing big time. Howard’s job description is as I said, a buffer between the selectors and James Sutherland, and to overseer all forms of cricket down to grass roots while Sutherland takes care of the massive internal admin duties of a CEO. Before the Argus Review, Sutherland did both jobs, an impossibility.
March 14th 2013 @ 1:12pm
Red Kev said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
I have to agree with David on those points – great leaders never take credit and always take the blame. Arthur is a classic mid-level manager, shifting work and responsibility elsewhere.
March 14th 2013 @ 1:34pm
cuzza said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
High performance manager overseeing grass roots cricket? Are you making this up as you go along?
March 14th 2013 @ 11:49am
Bearfax said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Cuzza, I cant comment on your position regarding Lawson, B. Clark, Marsh and R. Bickel, though I do agree with your G. Marsh statement, if only because it avoids appearances of likely bias either way.
But I disagree strongly concerning the axing of the four and its because of what Howard said in interview. You did watch it didnt you, because it raised some very significant points about the ‘Homework Saga’.
Points he made.
1) there was a sense of a falling off of discipline, but he acknowledged that no single incident deserved sacking. All were minor issues including the ‘homework saga’
2) No notice was apparently given that the ‘homework saga’ was going to be the ‘line in the sand’ issue.
3) The minor indiscretions were committed by many of the players, not just the four axed. He admitted that it had been occurring throughout the squad.
4) He acknowledged that some of the ‘four’ had not committed any indiscretions prior to the ‘line in the sand’ issue and some had. This seems to mean 2 of the ‘four’ had not come under adverse notice in the past. This is while suggesting that many of the squad had committed past indiscretions.
Read between the lines Cuzza and this all comes from the horses mouth. It seems a significant number of past misdemeanours had occurred committed by a significant number of the squad, not just the four. None of these incidents including the ‘homework saga’ deserved axing (his words).
Yet here is the crunch issue. If none of the incidents deserved axing, but a compilation of numerous incidents required such action, why were two of the four axed when he admitted that they had not committed prior offences and that the Homework saga’ alone did not justify axing.
These four have been scape goated Cuzza for actions of perhaps a majority of the squad. They have been made to assume the blame for the actions of the many. And remember they were apparently not warned that such action was to take place. To blame these four exclusively for the fault of the many is hardly fair is it.
March 14th 2013 @ 1:32pm
dasilva said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
+1
I agree completely there
The only way the punishment was justified was if this was a repeat offence scenario
The two players who were repeat offenders should have been suspended whilst the other two gets an official reprimand
Suspending all four equally just means the two players get scapegoated for the entire squad misdemenour.
March 14th 2013 @ 1:33pm
dasilva said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Sorry that comment was directed at Bearfax
March 14th 2013 @ 2:59pm
Bearfax said | March 14th 2013 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Trouble is desilva, we dont know if there are other repeat offenders not included in the four. The implication is that there are. If so how do you justify penalising one group and ignoring another.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:00pm
desmond said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
OH MY GOD this is brilliant! Everything that crossed my mind in this post you just smashed it’s like you were reading my mind while i was reading this. Rattling off Belinda’s cricketing stats as if they have any relavence to a high performance manager, henry lawson as selector and picking Geoff marsh for no other reason that the one and only lordy assured us, blaming anyone he can and generally a typical knee jerk reaction from Davey. Well said cazz. David learn to enjoy cricket bud
March 14th 2013 @ 9:21am
Rellum said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:21am | Report comment
I am all for Arthur and Howard getting the boot. But tweaking who is in the lead roles of the test team just is shuffling the deck.
We need to fix all the skills training, coaching and lower teers of the game so that we produce players with the skills and concentration to play at the highest level. We have gone backwards in a big way on this, the paucity of batsmen now is the strongest evidence of this.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:23am
steggz said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Why don’t we blame the players? They seem to be the ones not living up to the standards asked of them.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:26am
cuzza said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:26am | Report comment
steggz, that is more ridiculous than Lordy’s column, are you really asking the players to take responsibility for themselves? It is un-Australian not to look for a scapegoat! What would the players coaches and managers talk about in the press if they didn’t have someone else to blame for their clients lack of ability?
March 14th 2013 @ 10:27am
langou said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Keep up Stegz
Clearly it is Howards fault that our batsman are playing across the line and going for silly paddle sweep shots early in their innings.
The only player that should be getting any blame for Australia not scoring runs is Maxwell, our number eight batsman on debut who was picked as a specialist bowler
March 14th 2013 @ 9:28am
Atawhai Drive said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Inverarity timid? David is confusing personal style with character. The man has been a leader all his life, in a variety of ways. He’s not brash or blokey but he’s no shrinking violet.
He’s not much of a selector, on the evidence we’ve seen. But selection is no easy task in an era of diminished resources.
Howard’s rugby background is not necessarily a bad thing. Peter FitzSimons has a piece on Howard in the SMH this morning that is worth reading. The issue is the exact nature of Howard’s role, how he fills in his day _ a point made by other Roarers.
Having said that, Belinda Clark would be much more than just a tokenistic choice in Howard’s role were he to be eased out.
I struggle with the coach being a selector. And the captain for home Tests. But on tour? Tour selectors in South Africa in 1957-58 were skipper Ian Craig, VC Neil Harvey and Peter Burge. Seemed to work well enough.
March 14th 2013 @ 9:31am
Brett McKay said | March 14th 2013 @ 9:31am | Report comment
You’ve borrowed a bit of Warnie’s logic here David. In keeping Andy Bichel and promoting Rod Marsh, you’re essenially suggesting they just sit quietly like churchmice in selection meetings and go along with the orders of Invers, Arthur and Clarke in every regard.
And if they truly can’t ague their positions well enough, then why do they keep their jobs??
March 14th 2013 @ 10:36am
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Brett, what are the chances of Marsh and Bichel being outvoted 3-2? We’ll never know that answer, but it’s very possible.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:49am
Hansie said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:49am | Report comment
So they keep their jobs based on the possibility that they keep getting outvoted? Apart from being a frivolous comment, that makes both Marsh and Bichel sound weak, which makes me wonder whether they’re the men for a crisis.
March 14th 2013 @ 11:56am
Brett McKay said | March 14th 2013 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The same chance as the votes going 5-0, David. And that makes the logic of removing one selector and keeping the other two somewhat twisted…
March 14th 2013 @ 1:12pm
David Lord said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Brett, the difference is we know what Inverarity, Clarke, and Arthur think, they take great pains to make their views public. But we haven’t heard a peep from Marsh and Bichel, Why is a good question, have they been gagged because they are officially only part-time selectors?
March 14th 2013 @ 1:41pm
BennO said | March 14th 2013 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Well have they? You’re a journalist so it’d be great if you could find out the answer to that for us.
March 14th 2013 @ 4:30pm
Brett McKay said | March 14th 2013 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
I have no idea why, but my guess is that it’s the Chairman’s job to do the speaking.
Either way, it still doesn’t explain why Marsh and Bichel stay while Inverarity goes. It would seem to me if you want real change at the selection table, they’d all go..
March 14th 2013 @ 12:59pm
tenschooners said | March 14th 2013 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
…..or marsh and bichel might have different selections or they could have the same selections as one other and therefore be part of the selection woes or invers and arthur might be getting out-voted or……..