In the space of 10 days, Cricket Australia has again shown why they are hopelessly incapable of dragging the Australian cricket team out of its current mire.
I should declare that I have been Chief Executive Officer and/or on the board of four Human Resources companies (recruitment, search, contracting, retention, training, psych, assessment, career planning) and have turned around seven people-based companies that were at their financial death’s door.
Firstly, Cricket Australia appointed Pat Howard as General Manager of Team Performance.
Howard has a wonderful pedigree in rugby. He was a Wallaby. His father, Jake Howard, was a Wallaby and his grandfather, Cyril Towers was a colossus for Randwick, (231 games), the Waratahs (82 games) and the Wallabies (19 games), including three as captain.
But he was not even close to being the best candidate for the job.
His resume has significant holes in it. His experience of sport is non-existent in the past four years.
He has had five jobs in four years – Leicester, ARU High Performance Manager, family pharmaceuticals business, a property trust and now Cricket Australia.
Each of these jobs is significantly different to each other. As Leicester coach, he was in the front line of a seven-day a week, high profile and very emotive and subjective, people-based business where he determined tactics.
The ARU was still in sport but was more back office and had a blend of tactical and strategic due to the longer time-frame. It had a more traditional managerial component that the Leicester job did not have, particularly in the mid-2000s in the UK.
The ARU job required the skills of an experienced, turnaround manager.
After just 10 months, he left the ARU citing the desire to spend more time with his family. Did he not realise that the ARU job was going to be very demanding on his family before he took the job?
The Wallabies had just returned from an abominable Rugby World Cup 2007. His boss, John O’Neill, wanted a root and branch change. It was never going to be a family-friendly role. It was always going to be a very challenging and demanding role.
Then he changed sectors and made a massive change of direction. He left sport and moved to FMCG and the uniqueness of a family-run business.
After the brief sojourn into the family business, he moved to a property trust. This was again an extraordinary change of direction.
Property trusts, by their very nature, are bricks and mortar rather than skin and bone assets. They are also long-term businesses, and in direct contrast to the short-term nature of both professional sport and FMCG.
He took a Chief Operating Officer role, and another back office low-profile role.
Now Howard has gone the full circle. He is back in sport, in a front-line family-unfriendly role, at the head of a team in dire straits and in an organisation that is as incompetent as the Cronulla Sharks.
The ongoing decline of the team has reached such a point that it requires him to hit the ground running and get quick results.
Howard is not a cricketer. I don’t care if he was not a very good cricket player. I do care that he is steeped in the history and current situation.
This comes from a career path inside the game. He does not know the nuances of the game, he does not know or understand the tectonic shifts occurring in the game in Australia and globally, as India flexes its purchasing power and short-termist, incompetence and disregard for the long-term growth of the game.
He has never met the coaches and managers that he will be garnering opinions from and building his knowledge base from.
He does not have any favours or capital that he can call on from them. He is alone in a leaking boat in very big sea full of very nasty sharks and he is a first-time sailor.
Last Friday, Cricket Australia further shackled Howard with a new full-time chairman of selectors, John Inverarity.
At 67 and nine months, he is more suited to retirement than the rigours of rebuilding the Australian cricket team from the ground up.
Inverarity has been out of the game for the past 30 years. This has included roles as a Maths teacher at Pembroke School and then Headmaster of Hale College in from 1989-2003.
Most recently, he has been Warden of St George’s College, University of Western Australia.
My initial list of candidates, including some who might have needed to be tapped on the shoulder for either or both positions, would have included Todd Greenberg, CEO of the Canterbury Bulldogs, David Gallop, CEO of the NRL, Geoff Lawson or Ric Charlesworth.
Charlesworth is the stand-out candidate.
All are proven performers in sport and know cricket better than either Howard or Inverarity, of whom I will reconsider my assessment if they make the most obvious and essential decision in the near future – remove Michael Clarke from the captaincy.
The General Manager, High Performance and Executive Chairman of Selectors, like Qantas’ Alan Joyce, need to show vision, leadership, courage and decisiveness in the face of ‘Brand Clarke’.
Clarke’s captaincy agenda is not compatible with the needs of the team and the game in Australia at this crucial time.
Emorej31
Roar Rookie
Yeah he did go into Education because that was his Job mate, you forget that cricketers weren't always pad so well, and needed to work for a living as well, or has that slipped your mind. John new cricket wasn't going to put food on the table and feed his family so he went into teaching. Tell you this come to Western Australia and talk to anyone who actually can make an informed comment and you will discover that he is the most sort after person to speak to young cricketers to provide coaching etc. Mind you those who live on the East Coast have always thought Australia stopped at the Great Dividing Range.
Politics Politics Politics
Guest
Greg Matthews....ha ha brilliant!
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Emorej31, so if he was so successful and enjoyed his job so much, what has he been doing for the past 35 years or half a career? he left cricket, or cricket left him and he went into education. as regards Pat, I am generally in favour of a fresh pair of eyes in circumstances where major change is required. However, Pat Howard's CV reads of someone who has not worked out what he wants to do with his live. 5 jobs in 4 years...........no thanks. Too big a risk that he will depart after 10 months..............as he has done for the past 4 years..................CA doesnt need that instability. Also, he has no track record as a HP manager anyway and there are much better candidates. You could hardly include Lawson or Charlesworth or Steve Waugh as insiders. Even Katich would have been good, but also not an insider!!!!! Now that is a lateral thought. He has the knowledge of the game, the intellect, the personality and the toughness. While it would be his first exec position, he is a better candidate that Pat Howard.........................
Lolly
Guest
You don't need to do an indepth study of the WACA you just need to look at Tom Beaton's rise to the state level. He literally did nothing in grade cricket during his first year then was in the state contract system. Unbelievable. I mean he was genuinely mediocre in grade cricket but that meant nothing. Pat Cummins did very relatively little at grade cricket then state cricket, then got a CA contract.
Emorej31
Roar Rookie
Left Arm Spinner clearly you simple dont have a clue. John Inverarity is the perfect choice as Chairman, why because very simple he knows what it takes to build and re-build a young team, because he had to do it as Captain of Western Australia not once but twice, first in the early part of the seventies then again during World Series cricket. You may not realise this but during the World Series era most of Australia were calling for John to be made the Australian Captain because he was considered the best person to lead young players. As for the appointment of Pat Howard this is a good move the reason Australian cricket is where it is is because to many insiders have been listened to and not enough hard tough decisions have been taken. Perhaps Australian cricket needs to stop being New South Wales centric
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
GRS, this is a big end of town appointment and if CA didn't use a search agency to comb the world, then more fool them. Would you employ a person in a type of job that he has no industry background in and when he has been in four jobs in 4 years previously and when he held the closest comparable job for just 10 months before offering a feeble excuse on departure? the Borders, Chappells and Waughs are there. I Include taylor. he is a man of intellect and substance and what he endured in England in 1993 from the local press was extraordinary, but he did have a great team with him.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
John B, thanks for that. I only went back 6 series as these were the ones that determined and related to the captaincy. Katich in heart beat would be my replacement. He is intelligent, tough and calls it as he sees it. that is what is needed to rebuild the team and win back the supporters. I am one of those. Hughes goes until he can be consistent and that requires both a change in technique and a change in his mental approach.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Johnno, a head master is the master of his domain. They get immediate respect and authority, their decisions are not questioned openly and are appointed for long periods, the parents wont cross him as the risk is that he would victimise their clhld. JI will be under press scrutiny from day one, as we have scrutinised him here. the roles are completely different. the career path to chairman of selectors for the aust cricket team is not via secondary school teacher and headmaster. it is via a long and distinguished career in cricket, in multiple roles, asst, club coach, club coach, state coach, overseas experience, academy experience, national team panel selector and then chairman. rebuilding: this is the most critical part of his brief, but I doubt that CA see it that way. this team is a shot duck. the culture is wrong, the captain is wrong, the players are wrong, they are about to burn Cummins out in the various forms of the game, there are serious external threats on the horizon, money, power, influence, distracting advertising/sponsorships that need to be repositioned. the game has been sold, from under our noses to fast food........................the absolute antithesis of what sport is about. health, nutrition and balance!!!
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
jarrod, just settle down.
JohnB
Guest
I'm always a little puzzled when people point to Clarke's record. After starting strongly in 6 tests/2 series he had 6 series/1 off games (16 in all) where he was at best moderate. But then he had a run of 12 series as set out below (not repeating the first 2 you've mentioned): 2006-07 (v Eng) 5 matches, 7 innings, 389 runs, HS 135*, Av 77.80 2007-08 (v SL) 2, 2, 216, 145*, 216.00 2007-08 (v Ind) 4, 7, 316, 118, 45.14 2008 (v WI) 2, 4, 168, 110, 56.00 2008-09 (v Ind) 4, 7, 251, 112, 35.85 2008-09 (v NZ) 2, 3, 217, 110, 72.33 2008-09 (v SAf) 3, 6, 383, 138, 76.60 2008-09 (v SAf) 3, 6, 141, 68, 28.20 2009 (v Eng) 5, 8, 448, 136, 64.00 2009-10 (v WI) 3, 5, 209, 71, 52.25 That's 12 successive series in which just looking at the raw numbers he's had one you could describe as poor (v SA Av 28) and one as moderate (v Ind Av 35 - and an average of 35 is hardly a sacking offence). He's then had only one more (v Ind Av 45 - a pass mark in anyone's book I'd have thought) below 50. He's then played 4 more series after that as you mention - given the pitches they had in England when playing Pakistan, his performance there was far from bad. He then unarguably had 2 poor games against India and a very ordinary Ashes series (not on his own there mind you). He had a decent SL series, with a couple of important knocks. To me, a fair reading of that is that from 2006-7 to 2009-10 he was a consistently strong performer. From 2010 on he's tailed off a bit, without by any means being a disaster. So attack him on other grounds by all means but attacking his batting record doesn't seem reasonable to me. Incidentally, still no response on who you'd replace Clarke with?
Gary Russell-Sharam
Guest
Firstly, telling me that you have all this experience at the big end of town doesn't particularly push up your level of opinion in my book. I rely on the content of the article to assess what level of expertise you bring to the table. I do concede that you have some valid points in relation to the employ of Pat Howard, but I'm with Chris a bit as I can't see the logic of Todd Greenberg and David Gallop etc being any different to what your against. That cricket Australia is a bumbling mess is a given, they have been lurching from one disaster to another for a long time now, so maybe Howard coming from outside without baggage might be what they need. Who knows. As for Pup I have no real opinion as to his worth you would probably have a much better understanding of that than me. The only thing that I find irksome is his fetish for silly bimbo's and for getting into a argument preferring to be with her than sing the team song. He sounds and looks a bit shallow to me, not as I would like my captains to be of the national side, I prefer Borders and (Ian) Chapels etc.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
and for those that criticise me for critisising Michael Clarke, just read the roar articles on him.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Sledge, spot on. and with series averages of those set out below in his last 6 series, it is nothing special particularly the 2010/11 Ashes: Pakistan in Australia Test Series, 2009/10: 63.75 Trans-Tasman Trophy (Australia in New Zealand), 2009/10: 86.33 MCC Spirit of Cricket Test Series (Australia, Pakistan in England), 2010: 34.75 Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Australia in India), 2010/11: 8.75 The Ashes (England in Australia), 2010/11: 21.44 Warne-Muralitharan Trophy (Australia in Sri Lanka), 2011: 42.80
jameswm
Guest
And no one hates him for it. He can be whoever he wants. But Joe Public is entitled to say he doesn't think Clarke is the sort of person who should be captain.
jameswm
Guest
Al - don't catch Jarrod's disease. It's not hatred for Clarke, it's just people saying he shouldn't be captain. And with a fair amount of justification, really.
jameswm
Guest
Jarrod, just settle down young fella. Who hates Clarke? I don't know the bloke. I don't think he should be captain of our test team, and I don't think the vice-captain should take 22yo rookies out to bars during a big game. That doesn't mean I hate Clarke. He comes across as a decent bloke, if a bit too worried about his own brand. Thanks for the amateur psychology, but on sites like this you're better off arguing with cold logic, than hysterical rants.
jameswm
Guest
It's here Jarrod, all in good time. If you think series wins in Bangers and Sri Lanka constitute "going great guns", then you are easier to please than me. I'm all for praising them when they deserve it, but they earn it by several series back to back of good, tough, smart cricket. Not tight wins against minnows, in series they bloody well should win. You also might eant to check your facts on Hughes,. In fact he averages 39 in tests and 50 in 1st class games. Sure he got a ton on a road last knock, but anyone can do that. Let's see how he goes in tougher conditions, because we're not here to pick teams to win the easy games. I note he failed overnight in bowler friendly conditions, against SA's 2nd string attack. In the 10 tests Hughes played before that hundred, he'd scored 280 runs @ 16, including one sole half century in NZ under no pressure. If that's good enough for you, then again, you're easier to please than me. Even if you want to include that century, it makes 406 runs in his last 11 tests, @ 21. The most distressing part is how often he plays and misses, how he can't put away balls on his pads (should be bread and butter), how he struggles against the short ball, how he still jumps, how his back foot doesn't get across and most importantly how his head still moves at contact, meaning he gets out due to large holes in his technique. Contrast with Katish, whose head is dead still at contact, who knows where his off stump is, and who has scored 1,291 runs @ 49 in his last 14 tests, with 9 1st innings half centuries in those 14 tests (all bar one over 80), and one second innings 50 and two hundreds. He was absolutely our rock, and formed a fantastic combination with Watto. If you want to go back further, it's 1,786 in his last 20 tests, at the same average, with 4 hundreds and 12 50s in those last 20 tests. And if you want further context - since Kat came back into the test team in 2008, after 3 years out of the team, he's scored 2,915 runs in 32 tests, at an average of 52, and with 17 fifties and 8 hundreds. Fantastic stats and not worthy of being dropped, regardless of age. Hughes had some time in the wilderness, and since his return he's scored a grand total of 299 runs in 11 innings in 6 tests, at an average of 27. And that's INCLUDING his last start century . He took Kat's spot when he was injured in the Ashes series, with arguable justification, and managed scores of 2, 12, 16, 23, 31 and 13, in big games. 3 tests, 6 innings, and 97 runs at 16. Yet he keeps the spot, and Katich averaging 50 is dumped. And people like you try to justify it, even on the numbers. Even in SL, Hughes scored 12, 28, 36 and 0, before his hundred on a road. Half the Shield batsmen could have managed 4 failures before a decent score, and people like you seem to think one good innings absolves the 4 failures (in decent batting conditions) beforehand. Honestly, in a tough series-deciding match against quality opposition, who do you want walking out with Watto? I don't care how old Kat is. I was batting better at 35 than 25, and I don't pick youngsters just because they are young. Hughes did not warrant re-selection before he was brought back in (hardly scored a run in 18 months of 1st class cricket), and has not justified it since. He has taken the place of a tough, smart, reliable, experienced opener, with an imposing track record, and has broken up one of the most successful opening pairs in history. Yet you argue that he should stay.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Vas, I want the Australian cricket team to be successful on and off the field. CA have clearly lost the knowledge of how to achieve this now that they don't have game winners of the likes of Gillchurch, Warnie, Pidg, Waugh and Hayden to mask their mistakes. I have the experience to comment on the most critical elements of this process, the recruitment of the key people. I write to bring this experience to the larger audience so that the pressure is placed on CA when they don't get it right. CA to make considered and correct decisions on key positions, to get the best man or woman for the job and commence the rebuilding of this team before it is too late. we live in very uncertain times in cricket. the economic pressures are driving the game in a direction that will see the loss of the best players to other meaningless competitions overseas unless the local interest is maintained.
Brett McKay
Expert
Leftie, surely you know how corporate sponsorships work...
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Jarrrod, do you agree with the appointment of Howard and JI?