Chappell appointed first fulltime cricket selector

As great a cricketer as Chappell was I have my doubts about his ability as a national selector, especially after the totally inept display in both batting and bowling produced by Australia on day one of the Boxing Day test. England came to play, Australia did not and meekly surrendered to good accurate bowling for a paltry 98 runs. Australia was found wanting in every department and the choice of players sadly out of form must rest with the selectors for even considering them for inclusion. The total lack of grit, application and skill in a number of the "batsmen" was obvious. If this is the best team available out of all the players in Australia then Australian cricket is indeed in a very sad state. It was the selectors that chose Hughes after he had failed in the Shield Matches and the Perth Test, in reality he never should have been chosen in the first place after showing poor form in the most recent 1st class matches. To pick a four prong fast bowling attack on a wicket that will always take spin at some stage has placed a tremendous burdon on Steve Smith to act as what, the spinner or number 6 batsmen.... there are players around who are better at number 6 than Smith so what exactly was he picked for, his batting or his ability as a part time spinner. As for our four pacemen the glory of the Perth test was soon forgotten as they looked very ordinary on a wicket that held no demons for the English batsmen, perhaps they could sit and review how England bowled, straight, forcing the Australian batsmen to play rather than spraying the ball all around the wicket posing no danger at all. Now it was Chappell who selected this team and he must accept the responsibility for picking players way out of form... it would seem there is simply not enough innovative thinking or planning by the selection panel so perhaps it is time for new blood who have a different approach, the likes of Shane Warne and Steven Waugh might get Australia back to a world ranking of Number 1 rather than slipping rapidly towards the bottom of the list.

To give a caveat for the selectors, there has been so many injuries on the bowlers side, I don't think they have been able to plan long-term in quite the way they would have wanted to. The batting is a different keg of beer. It looks like heads have been in the sand for some time. Chappell will already know who is a future international out of the U19 team that won the World Cup. I'd put money on that as he coached and selected them.

I agree with all what Spiro and Vinay have said about Chappell's intellectual ability. Most great players do things largely on instinct, but Chappell is rare in that, as also comes through in his brother's TV commentary, he's a great player with a deep intellect about the game. He is also a talent spotter par excellence. However I am not as sanguine as Spiro and Vinay about Chappell's appointment in the here and now. I agree that Chappell assembled the 1989 team, which subsequently transformed into the great team of the 1990s and 2000s, and I also agree that probably no-one else could have done the talent spotting behind that 1989 team. But it arose from an era where Australia was so low that it had nothing to lose. Under such circumstances one can have a theoretician and change agent as head selector. But is Australian cricket at the point once again? Yes, the team is still undergoing transformation, and contrary to what Ricky Ponting said after the Lord's test against Pakistan, the process of change is not coming to an end: the Headingley test against Pakistan made all too clear that there is more change to come than there yet has been. But I still don't think that the current times call for someone as theoretical as Chappell, and so I am made nervous by him being on the selection panel again. He did some interesting things with India, but any objective reading of his tenure is that the Indian team only reached its potential after he left the job, not while he was in it. Oddly for someone who was a very good and seemingly popular captain, his man management skills are lacking, and these are times where man management skills are important. But anyway, let's see how it goes. Incidentally, Spiro suggested that Chappell might help for the Ashes. I think it's too late for that. Andy Flower has already won the battle of long-term planning for the Ashes, having assembled a team with the specific ingredients to succeed: the height of Broad and Finn, the swing of Anderson, the middle-order aggression of Morgan and Prior, and so on. This is not to say that it will all work for England, but it is to say that England have done the better long-term planning, and it's too late for Chappell to change that. Spiro was probably thinking of short-term planning, but I have never seen that as Chappell's strength. He is good at seeing where players will be in five year's time, which is why he selected Healy and Steve Waugh. What he can do is things like have a look at all the players in Australia's victorious U19 side from earlier this year and discern who of them has what it takes to be good or great at senior international level. As with Healy and Waugh, the benefits of such work will take years to accrue. And I would hope that performances in Australian first-class cricket remain the primary index for selection. Josh Hazlewood is a terrific talent, but it makes me nervous that he gets selected before he has really done anything for NSW.

Greg Chappell is the best thing to happen to Australian Cricket in this 21st Century. He was largely instrumental in overseeing the transition to Allan Border and the encouragement of players like Ian Healy and the Waughs. Greg Chappell has been the head of the Centre of Excellence in Brisbane for a few years and has seen all the young talent. He also had a significant input into Australia's under-19 World Cup triumph this year. He will challenge the incumbents and inspire the next generation. And more importantly he will not fight shy of the hard decisions. He had the guts and foresight to drop Ganguly from the Indian team and look at the results now.

Greg Chappell is a deep thinker about cricket. He has written a book, for instance, on the mechanics of batting, with a nod towards the unconventional methods that Sir Donald Bradman used. He will give an intellectual and practical edge to the selection and coaching of the top side, something that has been lacking in recent years. Hopefully, he will become the power point of the selection and coaching process, with Andrew Hildtich having a more formal, procedural role. This is a good move by Cricket Australia. In the last Ashes series in the UK Australia has lost the battle of tactics. Chappell should ensure that Ricky Ponting makes some more informed judgements about when to bat and who to bowl and what fields need setting to parrticular batsmen. His confidence in a stable team is re-assuring. As I see it the team for the first Ashes Test virtually selects itself. The top five, with Michael Clarke batting ahead of Hussey, selects itself. The number six position is one area where the selectors can choose between Marcus North, Stephen Smith or even another out and out batsman like Phil Hughes. . Brad Haddin is the wicketkeeper, Nathan Hauritz the starting spinner and then a mix of three from from the other seamers. This is where some selection nous will have to come into play as it is becoming problematical whether Mitchell Johnson can be sustained as an all-rounder when Shane Watson fills this role probably better.