In January of this year I wrote an article looking at Cricket Australia, where I deemed them to be ‘infected by the Endemic Clandestine Cronyism (ECC) parasite’.
I highlighted in what I believed was a moribund jobs-for-the-boys organisation that lived in a vacuum ,believing that they had a “good year” despite emphatically losing the Ashes home and dropping out of the top four Test cricket playing nations.
There has been much criticism with the appointments of Pat Howard (who admits to knowing little about cricket) and Mickey Arthur (who is not an Australian).
Well, we can’t have our cake and eat it as well. Both of these gentlemen come to their positions free of baggage – they haven’t risen through the highly political state cricket caucuses where a wink and nod on the way up through to the senior ranks is very much the way.
They are not beholden to anyone and can do their respective jobs without fear nor favour, which is a pleasant change and can only be for the good of the game.
I do however wonder at the wisdom of having the captain and the coach also as selectors. To quote Roar writer Ryan O’Connell, “players play, coaches coach, selectors select”. Clearly these a three separate functions and need to be conducted independently of each other.
As David Lord has suggested – it places Michael Clarke in a most invidious position.
Three fulltime selectors working independently while taking advice and consideration from the captain and the coach is the only way to go.
Otherwise, sooner or later, accusations of player politics, cronyism and blind favoritism will cloud the captaincy of Michael Clarke and will bring into question the legitimacy of player, captain and coach selections.
Just a pass mark thus far for Cricket Australia.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
Good point Danno - he would already have to have one of the busiest sports jobs in Australia. The Chairman of the selectors should be the conduit between the selectors and the players. Unless Clarke is quite an extraordinary individual he is likely to burn out ahead of time. I had my doubts about his ability to captain a Test Match - I have to say that I am happily surprised at his deft understanding of the poigant moments of the game, especially his use of Nathan Lyon. This all bodes well but burdening Clarke with yet more duties is not in his best interests nor the teams.
Danno1
Guest
I'm sure Dan Vettori was in a similar, if not more influential, position in NZ cricket, and he went well for a while before it all became too much. Burden a captain with extra duties on top of their already hectic schedule is beyond bizarre, it is a sure fire recipe for burnout and poor relationships with everyone, family, players, media and staff.
Lancey5times
Guest
Does somebody out there know if any others countries in the upper levels of world cricket have there captain as a selector? And doesn't the selection panel number being five relieve some of this pressure on Clarke? My understanding is also that one of the aims of making the captain a selector was to improve the channels of communication which was effectively non existent with the old structure. With every change there is a risk but surely if the right man is captain (which I believe Clarke is) than this has every chance to be an overwhelming success -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Seano
Guest
Half agree, no capt should be a selector but the coach should as they do in afl. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.