Lehmann’s deep knowledge and understanding of the sport, as one of the shrewdest captain-tacticians I’ve ever seen, makes him the perfect replacement for national selector Andrew Hilditch, when his contract runs out at the end of the World Cup.
The Queensland appointment renders him ineligible.
More’s the pity, with Cricket Australia being forced to make changes to the four-man panel that has been abysmal, at Test level:
- Ashes losses in England in 2005, and 2009 – and this season.
- The latter a first-time loss at home since Mike Gatting’s 1986-87 tour – and the first time in history the baggy greens have been thumped three times by an innings, in a series.
- A 1-1 result with lowly Pakistan, in England.
- And a 2-nil loss to India, in India.
Dumping Mervyn Hughes as a selector was a step in the right direction, his replacement Greg Chappell a massive improvement.
With the exit of Hilditch, Chappell will take over as chairman, another major up-grade.
David Boon, a quality selector since 2000, must stay, but Jamie Cox – a rabbit in the headlights selector, and out of his league for four years – must go.
That leaves just two of the current four-man panel – Chappell and Boon.
In a perfect world, Chappell, Boon, Lehmann, and Geoff Lawson, another proven switched-on captain-tactician, would be the very best panel imaginable.
Players would have the utmost confidence in that quartet, a far cry from what’s happened recently.
*Just ask tried-and-tested offie Nathan Hauritz, with 63 wickets at 35, but totally ignored for the Ashes campaign this summer, replaced by two untried left-arm journeymen – Tasmanian Xavier Doherty, with a first-class bowling average of nearly 50, and Michael Beer, after just five first-class games for Western Australia, averaging 46.
* Or Brad Haddin, publicly praised by Hilditch as the number one keeper in all three formats, but left out of the Twenty20 side against England, in favour of Tim Paine.
* Or why the out-of-form Mitchell Johnson, and Ben Hilfenhaus, were dropped from the second Ashes Test, but stayed, and netted, with the selected team in Adelaide.
* Or the reinstatement of opening batsman Phillip Hughes for the final three Ashes Tests, when he was hopelessly out-of-touch for NSW.
All of those decisions were baffling at best, little wonder England retained the Ashes 3-1 – leaving the selectors rightfully under the pump.
And generating the most laughable quote of the summer- “I think we did a pretty good job,” – from Hilditch.
It’s no secret, Australian cricket desperately needs a selection panel that recognises talent, not veering off in different directions, searching for miracles.
Sadly, Lehmann is now out of the equation, which prompts another thought.
Currently in the four-man panel, a 2-2 vote gives the decider to the chairman, creating a dangerous formula.
It begs the question – why have four selectors, why not three?
There are a maximum three first-class games in Australia at the same time, so three national selectors fits the bill.
A split decision gives an instant, clear-cut, result.
So Cricket Australia, the ball is in your court – let’s have Greg Chappell in the chair, David Boon, and Geoff Lawson, as the next national selection panel.
And sit back to watch the baggy greens fight back from being ranked number five behind India, South Africa, England, and Sri Lanka, to resume their place as the world’s best Test side.
That translates to regaining the Ashes, losing three of the last four is totally unacceptable.
JohnB
Guest
Benaud's book covering his time as a selector is one of the best cricket books in my view. He pointed out in that that selection was almost never a voting exercise but much more a matter of consensus, so having an even number of selectors is not an issue. I always wondered how someone like Hilditch, who presumably is very intelligent and was a better batsmen than he is often given credit for but still somehow didn't have the cricket brains necessary to stop himself compulsively hooking, could have the cricket brains for the chairman of selectors role (or to be a selector for that matter). Not sure whether being tactically adventurous (like Lehmann and Lawson) at first class level (where the nature of the competition rewards that approach) is necessarily what you need in a test selector. Finally, while he was a very great player, the jury is still out for mine on Greg Chappell in off-field roles. No great results at state level in Australia, a fractious time in India and a first year in his current job he'd probably rather forget. Maybe that's unfair and it's too early to tell, but premature to regard him as the saviour.
fisher price
Guest
Quite an understatement! But my feeling is Ponting doesn't really want sharp tools (complex characters, shall we say) around his dressing room. Hence we see Justin "I love Test cricket!" Langer as 'batting coach'.
fisher price
Guest
Indeed, the Hilditch-Neilsen-Ponting triumverate is good for delivering Test match losses. Sutherland should go too.
fisher price
Guest
And bowl fast. There is an obsession with seamers bowling at 140-150km/h, which means attributes like swing and accuracy are undervalued. For example, Copeland has been fit and firing all season, but when future Test prospects are discussed, it's merely quicker (and injury-prone) alternatives that get a mention. And the woeful Johnson is still a Test bowler.
fisher price
Guest
I think his columns are rubbish. He's still too close to the inner sanctum to say anything worthwhile.
Jason
Guest
Nice sentiments David but it is hard to see that Lehmann could ever have a prominent role in the current CA set up given his indiscretion back in 2003 and the fact that he played ICL (see what they did with Dizzy). Berry might have a shrewd cricket mind but I would have serious doubts as to his impartiality towards players from certain states. What's John Benaud doing these days?
Whiteline
Guest
Ryan, James Johnson, Siddle et al are not sharp tools. I heard an interview with James Anderson and the guy has half a clue. If someone has the ability to learn they can do virtually anything. Johnson has been around the scene for a decade......
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Hey James, Mate, I know you weren't defending Cooley. I just get frustrated that we have a full-time bowling coach who seems to not do any coaching!
jameswm
Guest
Ryan I wasn't arguing that Troy Cooley is a genius. I agree with what you said - Hilfy lacks proper bowling plans, Siddle is straight up and down and only very occasionally gets some swing, and Johnson can't self-correct. I don't really get it though - I was a swing bowler and I could get any ball to swing in any conditions, though obviously some more than others. It's not that hard.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
True, the Poms are bred in different conditions, but it's a disgrace when the touring side uses the conditions and ball better than the home team. Way back in August, many months before the Ashes begun, England bowling coach David Saker had a case of Kookaburra balls sent over to England so that the English bowlers could get used to the balls that would be used during the Ashes. The Poms use the Duke ball when they play at home. Saker (who opened the bowling for Victoria, Tasmania and Australia A, and was Victorian bowling coach for a few seasons), believed that his bowlers needed to get over their misguided perception that the Kookaburra ball doesn’t swing – so he had them train with it, and taught them how to make it swing. No one can argue with the results, particularly Jimmy Anderson’s returns. It seems Australian bowling coach, Troy Cooley was caught napping. We were outcoached. If Saker can get a team of bowlers to swing and seam a ball they don’t normally use, on pitches they don’t normally play on, then why couldn’t our own bowlers get the ball to ‘talk’? Surely Cooley needs to take responsibility for this? Yes, ultimately it’s up to the players to execute his directions, but the coach needs to take just as much heat as the players, especially when Cooley was willing to take so much credit for England’s 2005 win, and Australia’s 2006-2007 win. Why isn’t Cooley being asked why Mitchell Johnson’s control is so terrible? Why Hilfenhaus only seems to have two deliveries in his armoury? Why Siddle, lion-hearted as he is, is generally gun barrel straight? And why a touring side can get the ball reverse swinging after 20 overs, yet the home team can’t? Ironically, Cooley has accepted the position of head coach at our Centre of Excellence. Let’s hope he does a better job preparing our younger cricketers than he has with our Test team for the Ashes. It also means that the position of bowling coach is open again. And there are worse suggestions that stealing Saker back. Or, here’s an idea, not let him go in the first place? Failing that, someone like Damien Fleming, our last consistent swing bowler, should be offered the role.
jameswm
Guest
England had the ball hooping everywhere under Troy Cooley too, and he did bugger all for us. Remember the Poms are bred in different conditions, where swing is the biggest weapon. Aussies bowlers are taught to "hit the pitch" from a young age - with Siddle a classic example.
Whiteline
Guest
James Spot on!!
jameswm
Guest
Hiiditch's contract is up, but he's already said he wants it to be extended. In his own words, he's "done a good job", so why are we assuming his tenure won't be extended? In any case - a different selection panel is only part of the solution I'm afraid. 1. we need a coach/manager who actually has a clue - as well as technical coaches who can actually improve players (Hughes, Johnson, Haddin's keeping and battting attitude, Clarke's flaws). And a coach who will actually tell players if they've done wrong - eg waffling outside every innings 2. we need a better test captain, and Katich is bleedin obvious. Punter to remain as a test batsman and captain the one-day side, and Cam White to captain the T20 side. This removes the Hilditch-Neilsen-Ponting triumverate which has been at the head of the problems: - the sense of entitlement, - the belief that everyone else (ie any critic) has no idea, - the sticking with your mates, and - the general lack of common sense.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
'Chuck' Berry actually has an incredible cricket brain, and I'd have a lot more confidence in him than I would Hilditch. Whilst Berry is a polarising character who gets under people's skin, being a selector is not a popularity contest. Nor should it be. His talent identification and tactical nous will be welcomed at South Australia. Likewise, it's great to have another brilliant cricketing brain coaching Queensland. Lehmann is one of the shrewdest minds in the business, and his cricket IQ will serve Queensland well. It’s great to have these smart ex-cricketers involved in the Australian set-up, and not plying their trade overseas. We need to hold onto our coaching talent a little better. David Saker’s impact on the Ashes series, as England’s bowling coach, cannot be underestimated. While England had the ball hooping all over the place, the team that was supposedly playing at home, with their own brand of balls, couldn’t get the ball to ‘talk’ at all. That’s a sad indictment on the Australian coaching set-up. Let’s not waste the serious amount of brilliant cricketing brains we have at our disposal. Steve Waugh, Shane Warne, etc, should all have an official role in Australian cricket.
Whiteline
Guest
Thank you Brett, I can stand up again now.
Brett McKay
Guest
certainly not, Whiteline, I'm saying that on the upside, Berry's SA appointment means he can't replace Hilditch either...
whiteline
Guest
Brett I hope you are not seriously suggesting Darren Berry......
Chris
Guest
Ineligible as he's still playing, but Stuart Clark has impressed me with with his thoughtful and well written columns in the Fairfax press in recent times. Perhaps he could be looked at in a few year's time?
Brett McKay
Guest
On the upside, David, neither can Darren Berry....
A1
Guest
What about Warney?