Injured Australian captain Ricky Ponting (right) and acting captain Michael Clarke (left). AAP Image/Dean Lewins
Don Argus has managed the impossible. He’s nailed the problems within Australian cricket, yet got it horribly wrong, all in the one statement.
Cricket Australia released the long-awaited Argus Review yesterday that was charged with finding why the baggy greens were flogged 3-1 in the last Ashes series and why Australia is a lowly fifth in the world Test rankings.
In short, what’s wrong with Australian cricket?
The background:
With the former BHP Billiton chairman in charge, three former Test captains – Allan Border, Mark Taylor, and Steve Waugh – were on the investigation panel with Malcolm Speed, the former CEO of Cricket Australia and the ICC.
It was a formidable group that interviewed 61 cricket-orientated personnel ranging from players, coaches, and interested parties, to the media.
But how Cricket Australia could describe the Review as independent when Border, Taylor, Waugh, and Speed are all high-profile and deeply entrenched members of the establishment, made a mockery of the description.
And the Review.
The result:
Three national selectors – Andrew Hilditch gone, Greg Chappell gone, and Jamie Cox gone, with coach Tim Nielsen about to go.
The Review didn’t have to be rocket scientists to come to the conclusion the selectors, and the coach, were solely responsible for the Ashes flogging.
Not only did the selection panel do a diabolical job throughout the series, but chairman Hilditch’s inane comments throughout the five Tests constantly made headlines for all the wrong reasons, culminating in the most incredible quote of all time.
“We did a pretty good job,” was Hilditch at his most unpredictable worst.
Jamie Cox has been way out of his league from day one, but I must admit I’m surprised Greg Chappell has been pilloried by the Review as being abrasive and unsettling to the team.
That doesn’t compute.
Ricky Ponting apart, Chappell was 10 times the cricketer compared to the rest of the team, and he’s forgotten more about cricket than the entire team, including Ponting.
Could it be Chappell has been telling some home truths to the more “precious” members of the team, who have spat the dummy to the Review?
Whatever the reason, selection will be deleted from Chappell’s national talent manager’s brief, at a time when he was all set to be selection chairman.
This is where the Argus Review loses the plot completely.
It suggests a full-time chairman, two casual selectors, plus the captain, and coach: a panel of five, one more than before.
Unbelievable, no way.
Selectors select, players play, and nair the twain shall meet.
Throw them all in together, and that could open a tin of worms capable of decimating a side.
How could any player with a problem go to his skipper or coach for resolution, knowing he could be dropped for being honest about what was worrying him.
Michael Slater went through that process in England in 2001 and was shown the door, ending a stellar career on an unfair sour note.
Besides, three selectors is perfect.
There are only three first-class games on in Australia at the one time. The panel needs minimising, not maximising.
A full-time chairman is warranted with Rod Marsh and former chairman Trevor Hohns the early front-runners.
Need go no further than Marsh, who would be an outstanding selection, the proof resting in the fact he’s been an integral cog in England’s machinery to become the world’s number one Test side, just as Hohns would be a second time disaster.
Heaven forbid, he honed Hilditch.
But the other two selectors must be full-time, as well. Their additional brief would be to find tomorrow’s internationals, and not rely entirely on state selectors to produce new talent.
Selection potentials are exciting, with Darren Lehmann, Geoff Lawson, Steve Rixon, John Dyson, and Tom Moody all highly-qualified to fill those two spots. All of them have been successful coaches as well as selectors.
Dean Jones has also indicated he’s interested, but as he’s the Matt Giteau of cricket, he shouldn’t be considered.
Which leaves current coach Tim Nielsen, whose brief will be up-graded in lieu of the Review, and he must apply for the new position. Clearly, Nielsen won’t be qualified enough to cope with a more accountable role.
That leaves the five I’ve nominated as selectors for coaching potentials, and you can add former South African coach Mickey Arthur, now with Western Australia, as a contender.
As if the Argus Review hasn’t made enough mistakes, it’s gone one further promoting a new general manager post to overseer all facets of team performance, selection, coaching, the Centre of Excellence, and dealing with state officials – answering only to CA boss James Sutherland.
A big brother, doubling up on responsibilities. If everyone did their job properly, CA doesn’t need a general manager.
There were many other issues covered by the Review such a player contracts, Sheffield Shield, wickets, and grade cricket, but we have covered what immediately impacts on the national team.
And it doesn’t make good, nor encouraging, reading.
Argus’ own words in summation – “Lack of accountability, and the objective of really performing was something that wasn’t in the jargon that was coming through”.
That being the case, how did CA chairman Jack Clarke, the entire CA Board, and chief exec James Sutherland, escape the Argus net?
Surely, the buck stops at the top.
Clarke was honest enough to admitL “It is clear, with the benefit of hindsight, there are some issues that could have been addressed earlier”,
All of which makes the Argus Review just a bit better than a non-event, providing far more questions than answers.
And it took seven months to get there?
samvadi
Guest
Aussies cricket decline has been visible for a long time. Being a non-aussie (but a big fan of Aussie cricket) the first thing that went against my grain was the Michael Clarke was anointed Ponting successor way back. It was almost as if he was crown(ed) prince (in his cricketing infancy) waiting for the monarch to drop off his perch. (And the monarch took his own sweet/sour time about it) So no other player had a chance to claim the leadership of the side inspite of merit. The big Q is - is CA willing to strip MC of captaincy if Australia gets flogged in India? - they are already half way there. With the banishing of Katich, and retirement of Mike Hussey, decline of Brad Haddin - i think Shane Watson is the only choice to lead the side. The last time Aussies were in such a pickle - the dearth of talent in almost every department - was in the post-Chappell era. But at least they had Alan Border then - Does CA have today's version of Alan Border?
opinionated
Guest
Captains and coaches cop a lot of flack when the side loses. They should have an input of some sort into selection. They also have valuable information on the 15 players on tour that selectors may not have first hand. Things such as who fits in well with the team and has a good team ethic, who looks sharp in the nets, players with the right frame of mind and commitment of players. Anyone can look at the stats and see who has made runs and taken wickets so you dont have to go to matches to see that. So once a 15 is selected to tour then coach and captain should definately have a say into the playing 11 and who out of the 15 should be considered for the next tour.
jamesb
Guest
don't worry Todd I've pointed the finger at james Sutherland for long time. Actually last summer I was having a debate with the late vinay Verma about Sutherlands failures right here on "the roar"
The Corporate Box.
Guest
The Argus report accurately identified all of the areas that CA lost sight of during the Golden era then failed to fix after Warne and McGrath retired. But this is normally the role of the CEO and the Board, in this respect they failed. Why? Because they dont possess the mix of skills necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. Who on the CA board is capable of seeing the lack of accountability or the conflicting interests of states and National teams? Who would've called for clearer measurement and KPI's? Visit the CA website and examine the occupations of the directors. Not a single match with the challenges facing CA These skills and experience are missing because the CA board is a collection of state representatives chosen not on the basis of their skills and experience but largely on their tenure serving a state association.
Hugh Jarse
Guest
Chappell should never have been appointed to any position related to team selections. As a player and fair-weather captain, he showed contempt for the selection process and held the selectors of the time to ransom.
Elizabeth
Guest
Having watched Offsiders yesterday and then read a few of the comments, reports on the 'review'...plus flicking through a copy as well, I am surprised by the lack of focus on the youth - our future cricketers. CA has always had a document called Backyard to Baggy Green but I have never seen anything put in place and was hoping the report may deal with some of these issues as well. From personal experience through the Australian Festival of Cricket (which was closed down due to lack of support from CA) we have seen a few youngsters starting to really make inroads but the road to top level is not clear. One promising player is thinking of leaving cricket because he can't see a way forward, unlike AFL who are constantly in contact with junior clubs, etc. While I agree with most of the comments here, I think it is a time to get back to basics... not make CA more confusing! Let's look at what we were like when successful (and not just on the field due the great talent playing for us) and then try to replicate some of those areas. As for selection panel - all you need is three but maybe have a second tier under that of a few that nominate players to the panel, especially for up and comers - that way, this 2nd tier can get around to local and state games and truly see what talent is out there rather than just picking the ol' faithfuls. This may include a role of finding young talent to groom. Finally, I have an issue re contracted players. I don't think you need 25+ contracted players. When you look at the list, some of these have not played for months while others really shouldn't be playing! Shame the Argus report didn't really go into this either, apart from making contracted players more 'accountable' - how?? Maybe look at having a core on contracts but then look at negotiating with others for certain games / forms of the game. And he board of CA...well that is another whole story!!!
dasilva
Guest
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/528482.html According to this article. Yes Bob Simpson was a selector until he was removed from the selection panel in 1994.
Chris
Guest
Brendan I think there's another review currently underway looking at governance. Maybe that's covering match scheduling and that sort of thing. Totally agree re. grounds. This is soemthign that needs to be looked at. Maybe CA or someone should consider threatening to take tests off these cities (or at least off their current grounds) if the pitches don;t start resembling their traditional manner rather than resembling Bangalore or some sub-continent featherbed....
Todd Sham
Guest
Surely the buck should stop with James Sutherland? How did he escape censure? He is like Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. Yet no one has pointed the finger at him. Australia will not win the Ashes for another 10 years. The saddest part is yet to begin.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi David - checked a couple of news reports and heard James Sutherland on ABC radio yesterday... Wasn't it Ian Chappell who once recommended the best selection panel is one, followed by three, then none? Five is too much. Captain/coach should have input/a say into selections and offer ideas/suggestions, but as formal selectors? At home? When on tour, perhaps fair enough, but methinks it could get murky at times. Nice to see the retention of a full Sheffield Shield comp is recommended by the Review. Sutherland added maybe playing SS games in Darwin/Cairns in September to free up the state scheduled. Fair enough, says I. But the hint he gave of perhaps cutting out the Ryobi Cup altogether - because apparently AUS plays enough ODI cricket to make its domestic counterpart redundant - left me stunned. Sure, cut the thing to 15 games and leave it, but gone completely? Are CA insane? I spent many-a-Sunday arvo coming straight home from church services to flick on Nine for the Mercantile Mutual/ING Cup (as it was) to get a dose of early-season cricket in mid-October. Seriously, if CA do away with domestic one-dayers, I will be even more unimpressed than I am already (with the Big Bash revamp - daft, not worthy of my support or $). Nice to see the keen-ness kept for Test cricket, however (not T20s). As for possible selectors (FT and PT), aside from the usual fan's entry into such debate (Warnie, probably), I'd personally go for Tubby Taylor, AB and Boof Lehmann. Who else? Boonie? Discount Dean Jones. Don't mind the Tom Moody or Geoff Lawson ideas as mooted above. Probably not Steve Waugh though. But we do need some recently-retired types who were part of that golden double-decade of success. They must have some idea of how it was all done!
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
So was he a selector or not?
fisher price
Guest
Ponting had some sort of say though - he called for Doherty ahead of Brisbane, for instance.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
I had a quick look over the report. 1. Didnt see anything addressing why Australia's preparation was so terrible. England finished their ODI series against Pakistan 2 months before the 1st test and then went straight into Ashes preparation. England learnt from their mistakes in 2006/07. Australia was playing against India and ODI series against Sri Lanka. Why? CA blamed ICC scheduling but brings into the question why didnt CA stand up to the ICC? Again it gets back to the report not willing to go after CA. 2. The 'Gabba pitch. Whatever slim chances Australia had of regaining the Ashes was lost after the draw at Fortress Gabba. We needed to win in Brisbane. Even though technically we hadn't lost the Ashes until defeat in the 4th test at the MCG in reality they were lost after this draw. The 2nd innings combined total is 2 wickets for 624 runs. Ridiculous. Even Ponting was scoring runs in his 2nd innings. It seems that the 'Gabba pitch was prepared to make sure the game lasted 5 days rather than produce a result. Add in the decline in the WACA pitch (it still isn't back to its old self) and it brings into question Australian pitches not helping Australia like they once did. I'm not advocating pitch doctoring like India does when it looks like they're going to lose a series (ie Kanpur against S.Af in 2008) but having the 'Gabba and WACA their traditional fast bowler friendly qualities. Again it seems like cricket administrators around Australia have been putting $$ concerns ahead of a strong national team. While making money is important, the easy option of short term quick money is at the expense of the long term interest of the game in Australia.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
Mark Taylor was a good selector when he was captain. From memory Steve Waugh stopped captains being a selector over the drama of Warne being (rightly) dropped in the 1999 series against West Indies since he wasn't fully fit and Lara was smashing him all round the place. Border was responsible for some bad selection calls based on personality during his time as captain. If Ponting had been a selector during the Ashes ashes series he could have put his foot down over the inconsistencies in selection. As it is he was forced to sit and watch the selection antics. Problem with only 3 selectors is that one selector can dominate, like Hilditch did.
David Lord
Guest
You miss the point Arjuna, the Argus Review is all about precise plans, most of them unworkable.
Rhys
Guest
Given Australia's busy schedule leading up to this coming summer, it will be interesting to see how progress is made in terms of implementing the recommendations. Will the current inept coach hang around till after the South African tour? Will a new selection panel be established before or after that? Surely it will be best to have everything resolved well before the start of the 11/12 season, ie. dismiss the current coach as soon as the current Sri Lankan tour concludes, and have the new selection/coaching regime in place asap.
Plonker
Guest
Michael Clarke, Brett Lee and Ricky Ponting should have all been shown the door. Ultimately our problems stem from lack of onfield results and leadership and that triumvirate of rubbish are a big chunk of our problems. Hopefully that Phil Hughes never plays again until he has worked out that hitting the ball in the air gets you out. That Nick Reivoldt look alike should never be in the team again either. What was he a batsmen or a bowler. Bloody hopeless. Watson should be instilled as captain immediately.
srilankan Arjuna
Guest
Cool down guys. this is only a REVIEW. No precise targets, plans, or goals. David's article missses it. Sri Lanka is full of REPORTS AND REVIEWS. Nothing WORKS. No OUTPUT. Sounds like Aussies are becoming like a developing system with corruption and conflcit of interest. There should be a follow up report after 3 months to REVIEW the REVIEW. so that even the reviewers also BECOME accountable.
Philpster
Guest
The Journo's obsos are spot on. Committees can't run anything. Need dictators with strong generals. Chappell could fit either bill.. Have n't got much time before trhe next Ashes. Not much - But enough. Get on. . N.B it should b. . and ne ' er the twain shall meet. It's acontraction of never. Not nair. Spell-checker needs re-programming.
QLDER
Guest
2) Retention of ten Sheffield Sheild matches, with several matches held prior to the first tests of each summer… how and when did we decide a few one dayas against Sri Lanka was a good warm up to a home Ashes series, when the Poms were here playing several proper first class games beforehand..seriously. Absolute must. And all test players must play these games to be eligible for test selection.