The controversial Argus Review has placed Michael Clarke in an invidious position. By nominating three selectors, the captain, and the coach as the new national five-man panel, the Review has inhibited Clarke’s position as captain to the media.
Yesterday, Clarke publicly supported the retention of his beleaguered trio of Ricky Ponting, Brad Haddin, and Mitchell Johnson for next week’s first Test against the Kiwis at the Gabba.
That’s fine, as captain.
But a definitive no-no as a selector, where only the chairman talks about selections after the side has been announced.
Tradition demands not one of the other panel members have a public opinion on players. But Clarke wears two senior caps in a conflict of interests.
Invidious alright, and just another reason why the captain and coach should never be selectors, just consulted before the panel sits down to finalise the team.
Cricket is unique when it comes to national selections.
In rugby league, Kangaroo coach Tim Sheens is essentially sole selector, and that’s how it should be. It’s his livelihood that’s on the line, and he sinks or swims on his ability to put the best side on the paddock.
In international rugby, there’s a three-man panel, but that’s just window dressing. Wallaby coach Robbie Deans gets who he wants in the lineup.
As does Holger Osieck with the Socceroos.
In the AFL there are selections panels, but again the coach is virtually in command.
While Davis Cup captain Pat Rafter has the last say. He too is in control, but on a much smaller scale in numbers.
In the professional era, there’s a lot to be said for the coach to be the sole selector. But that wouldn’t work in cricket circles with three different formats, and so many games the national coach would be battle weary watching tapes before he does his own job.
But a three-man full-time panel is the answer – John Inverarity in the chair with Rod Marsh and Andy Bichel – releasing captain Clarke and coach Mickey Arthur to do what they have been selected to do, with no restrictive extra strings attached.
That’s plain commonsense, and the sooner Cricket Australia wakes up to that fact the better.
It’s never too late to correct a mistake before it creates unnecessary problems and tension in the shed.
jmo
Guest
If Capt Clarke sticks up for his out-of-form teammate he can still be out-voted 4-1. If the coach jumps on board the poor f*cker's bandwagon they can still be out-voted 3-2. SOMEONE else in the panel has to also stick up for guy! If that happens it's a 3-2 majority (and classic democracy in action). You media blokes (not being on the panel - suck it) as much as you favour one-man democracy (i.e. obedience of your own opinion) will just have to live with it!.
zenboomerang
Guest
Lords lack of logic in using other sports as selector examples stands out as running away from what he wrote: "But that wouldn’t work in cricket circles with three different formats, and so many games the national coach would be battle weary watching tapes before he does his own job." A football coach may have 28 matches (including preseason/finals) during the season and he alone is responsible for team performance... The Australia cricket coach has just 6 Tests, 9 ODI's (plus final) and 2 T20's... wow 17 matches to work out teams for... lol... and its a known fact that his 3 assistant coaches are responsible for match day coaching responsibilities for ODI's & T20's... So the coach is only fully occupied by the 6 Tests this summer... lol... the coach must be exhausted... Then the Australian coach has 3 very experienced cricketing minds in the selectors to get player information and the captains thoughts... Plus the national coach is responsible for all the State coaches, so he has 6 experienced heads to inform him of which players to look out for... All things considered, the national coach has the best resources available for selecting players in the team... Finally, both the national captain & coach have publicly expressed that they should be included in the selection process as have many captains in the past... obviously long overdue... Perhaps Lord should read up on the coaches duties as he seems to think he spends all day watching video tapes... At the end of the day, previously selectors have never been accountable for their picks but under this new "Argus" system captains, coaches & selectors are responsible for team performance and the buck stops with them... Argus... bring it on...
Matt F
Roar Guru
I've never understood why we changed the format of the selection panel. All the criticism was of the people on the panel, not the panel as a structure (apart from that maybe they should be full-time instead of part-time.) I don't mind the coach having a vote as the specialist coaches (i.e. batting, bowling, fielding coaches) take care of the technical stuff. The head coach is more of the manager. The captain getting a vote has the potential to be plagued with self-interest. A captain will never drop himself, and it will take a strong leader to drop his mates (whether Clarke is strong enough I'm not sure though his stance on Symonds indicates that he might be.) Also if the captain chats to a player going through a bad patch, is he going to them as a captain/friend/teammate or as a selector? Given a captain (and coach as well i guess) will spend all their time with the national team, and so little time watching domestic cricket, how will they be able to make an unbiased choice between a current teammate and a new candidate that they would have barely seen? The captain has always had some input into what the team will look like anyway, and it always carries significant weight so I'm not sure why they need a vote as well.
Rellum
Roar Guru
This is a very different world to the one of Bradman and Chappell. Those guys played lots of shield cricket, so they got to play against the quality shield players regularly enough to know how good they were. Clark would never see any up and coming players as he rarely pays shield cricket, so I don'r know how he is supposed to judge their qualities as a cricketer. That's not even getting into the man management side of things. Does Clark have that personality of Chappelli of Border to be both a selector and Captain/team mate.
Brett McKay
Expert
that's why it's an uneviable position, David. As Captain he will be asked those questions for as long as he carries the (C). You just know his comments came from a "Do you still want Ponting/Haddin/Johnson in your team?" question. As captain, he can't not answer questions about players within his team, otherwise his interviews become a waste of time. The solution in time may well be to remove his vote, but by the same token, Clarke being a selector might just work. Best we wait and see... EDIT: I've found Clarke's comments on the AAP piece today - http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/11/24/ponting-determined-to-fight-for-career/ Test captain Michael Clarke backed Ponting to keep his spot in the team, saying he still has a lot to offer Australian cricket if he can build on his most recent Test innings. “If I thought that Ricky Ponting or Mitchell Johnson couldn’t perform at this level, I wouldn’t be supporting them as I have done,” Clarke said. “I’ve been watching Ricky bat in the nets – I know he’s in good nick. “Under pressure the other night, he did that but the reality is that he needs to perform better than he has done of late to stay in the team.” I think Clarke's last sentence here is the key, and to be honest, I don't have to much problem with him saying this even as a selector. Ponting DOES need to perform better than he has been of late. These comments together, for me at least, seem to be a case of Clarke commenting in the right balance as Captain and Selector..
David Lord
Guest
Brett, the problem is Michael Clarke cannot air his thoughts and comments as a selector - full stop. It's a crazy untenable situation.
David Lord
Guest
Morning Sheek, as usual you've nailed the solution, we're on the same page.
Brett McKay
Expert
Clarke is certainly in an uneviable position, for sure. Though I do wonder with the selection panel now increasing from four to five, how often Clarke's "vote" will be required? For eg, if around the table there's three other dissenting voices about Ponting, Haddin, Johnson, then Clarke's thoughts and comments may amount to nothing.. It will definitely be an interesting week ahead...
sheek
Guest
David, More often than not we find ourselves looking back & realising they actually had it right all those years ago. When I first began following cricket in the late 1960s, Bill Lawry had just replaced Bobby Simpson as national captain. The idea of a coach was decades into the future. There was a 3 man part-time selection panel. I say part-time because it was an honorary, unpaid position. The selectors were Sir Donald Bradman, also chairman & member of the then ACB, veteran Jack Ryder & Neil Harvey. The selectors were supposed to confer with the captain, & probably did so after a fashion. Although Bradman wasn't a guy to take advice from anyone generally. The selectors picked each home test team & all away touring teams. However, on tour the captain, vice-captain & a 3rd senior player became the selectors. The system seemed to work fairly well. Since those days, we've had the introduction of a coach. As you argue, the coach is central to the selection panel in the football codes. Should it be so in cricket? Being such a technically driven game, players may be reticent to divulge technical flaws to their captain or coach, for fear they may use that against them at the selection table. So David, I agree with you - have a permanent panel of 3 selectors, who confer with both the captain & coach, who don't have a say in selection voting matters. However, on tour, the coach, captain & vice-captain become the selectors. It worked well in the past. It should work well now.
Chris
Guest
At last - a sensible article from David Lord! Agree 100% - the captain is put in an awful position. Does he express confidence in clearly out of form team-mates? In which case he will be ridiculed. Or does he acknowledge out of form players as such and admit their positions are under threat? Which will result in team disharmony. The only option open to the captain is to state right from the start that he will not comment on selection issues. Which means his press conferences will be very short and very boring - and most of all, utterly pointless. Most decision that are made by sports administrators I can at least recognise some logic, even if I don't agree with them. But this one was just nonsensical. How long will it be until it is ditched.