It’s taken only three months for Pat Howard, Cricket Australia’s inaugural general manager of high performance, to rattle the cage.
Yesterday he dropped a bombshell, or more a clanger, by suggesting future Test selections will be governed by the standard of the opposition, not by form. A highly dangerous variation of the proposed rotation policy.
The higher-rated countries like England, South Africa, and India will face the best team Australia can muster at the time.
Lower-rated opponents like New Zealand, the West Indies, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh will do battle with a smattering of emerging Australian talent for a taste of Test cricket.
“But we will never put a ‘B’ Australian team on the paddock,” was Howard’s promise. Try selling that to first choice Australian players ‘rested’, and to New Zealand et al.
It’s a provocative view from the former 20-cap Wallaby utility-back-cum-rugby coach-cum-pharmacist who freely admitted on appointment he knows very little about cricket.
And he’s just proved it. What better way to devalue the coveted baggy green cap and deny the more talented Australian batsmen and bowlers the chance to cash in against the lower-performed countries to bolster their career stats.
He has the future of Australian cricket in his powerful hands, answerable only to Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland.
Howard is in total charge of the selection panel, where he sits in on every selection meeting. He’s also in charge of every Test and first-class player and coach in the country. Lock, stock, and barrel.
And he knows very little about cricket. Which begs the question, how did Howard get the job in the first place?
He came from an identical position in rugby, a sport he has known inside out since the moment he could walk and talk.
His grandfather is legendary inside-back Cyril Towers, who captained the Wallabies in some of his latter 19 caps between 1926 and 1937. His father Jake Howard was a seven-cap teak-tough prop from 1970 to 1973.
But even with that superb background, and his own Wallaby experience, there was no high performance from Howard as the ARU’s general manager of high performance over the last four years, with the Wallabies winning just 58.9 percent, or 33 of 56, internationals.
Since rugby turned pro in 1996, only Eddie Jones has a marginally worse Wallaby coaching record, with 57 percent. But the mark is way below Rod Macqueen’s 79 percent, John Connolly’s 64 percent, and Greg Smith’s 63 percent. Even in the amateur days leading into professionalism Alan Jones had a 76.67 percent win record, Bobby Dwyer 63.01 percent.
The only Howard highs were capturing the Tri-Nations for the first time in a decade last season, and the 59-16 flogging of Six Nations champions France in 2010.
The lows, a 10-game losing streak to the All Blacks with just three wins in 15 meetings, the loss to Samoa at the beginning of last season, a very costly loss to Ireland in the last Rugby World Cup – and the meagre 58.9 percent.
Hardly a background that justifies making radical recommendations in a sport where Pat Howard is still wet behind the ears.
We haven’t heard the last of this left-field proposal by a long shot.
Wayne Holmes
Guest
Why is this person Pat Howard our Australian Cricket Team manager when he's a non cricketer?. How would a non cricketer be able at all to undertand what cricket players do?.
Brian
Guest
Didn't payoff for Hawthorn who lost to Geelong in the subsequent week.
AndyMack
Guest
Hands down the worst article I have read on Roar!! 1) Howards comments are taken out of context. He said players with niggles would most likely be rested in lower valued series (eg: banga or NZ) but same player with same niggle would play if it was in a more valued series (eg: ashes or india). You have beat this up into something it isn't. 2) You compare coaching records as if Howard was the coach. He wasn't. Someone unfamiliar with Rugby might be led to beleive he was the coach based on your comparison, a tad cheeky.
jamesb
Guest
unless its rotation with fast bowlers
sheek
Guest
Remember when rugby union nations started talking about 22 man squads? 15 man rugby was suddenly so last century. Make that last millenium. We don't think of (15 man) teams so much anymore, it's (22 man) squads now. A guy who plays one minute is credited with a test the same as a guy who plays 80 minutes. Doesn't seem quite right, does it? But the squad is now king simply because so many more test matches of greater intesnsity are being played year after year. It's the same with cricket, which will probably go the same way as baseball, where the guys whose bodies are placed under greatest stress - pitchers in baeball & fastmen in cricket - will see more of them in a squad than players from other positions. In baseball, there are 9 players in the field at any one time. But a team might rotate 3-4 pitchers durting a MLB game. Then in the very next MLB game have an entirely new set of 3-4 pitchers. The way cricket is going, with the proliferation of tests & their intensity, you will have 14-15 man test squads comprising maybe 7 batsmen, one keeper, one spinner, & as many as 5 or 6 fastmen rotating between tests. Doesn't seem quite right, but that's the reality.....
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Spot on Ian, You are dead right about the different Socceroo squads. Good point
jeznez
Roar Guru
I'm really hoping someone pulls together the 'stats' to compare the HPU win/loss performance ratios between Howard and Nucifora.
Bob
Guest
Then again we could promote the Sheffield Shield. How about playing a few less meaningless ODIs, then make our test players fight for their places in first class cricket? Do you think CA might think of that if they want depth?
mitchwally
Roar Rookie
Ditto!!!
Steve War
Guest
This is one way Cricket Australia could include a guy that they have already paid out good money for (a contracted player) while resting a young talent Why does Mitchell Johnson's image appear in my mind???
anopinion
Guest
David is this true? "Howard as the ARU’s general manager of high performance over the last four years, with the Wallabies winning just 58.9 percent, or 33 of 56, internationals." I thought Nucifora was the high performance manager for the ARU, Howard quit the position quite a while ago.
Brian
Guest
Thats the ironic thing. By not advocating more power to the ICC CA is pandering to the BCCI and the losers are the Boards of NZ, SL, WI and Pakistan. Gayle, Bravo & Malinga no longer play test cricket yet no one at CA thinks this is a shame. Having a basic understanding of capitalism, what the CA should realise is what happens next? When the attrition continues and the IPL wants to expand - who do they think will win out?
Mighty Horua
Guest
But isnt Nucifora the High Perfomance Manager responsible for the recent 3Nations rugby victory?
trevor
Guest
What an idiot! Didn't Australia's finest cricketers just lose a test match to Newzealand.
Russ
Guest
Chris, the ICC is Australia and the other full members. They run the shop, and the prevalent attitude to scramble after the "good" tours and ignore the bad is why anyone with an opinion thinks cricket is poorly run with too many meaningless matches. If the recent governance review says what it ought: that the ICC administrative arm needs to be running the game, not the full members, then things might change. We'll also have to put up with dozens of article complaining that the ICC is diminishing the iconic Australian series by forcing them to tour elsewhere in the name of development. If Cricket Australia wants to avoid that scenario they ought to put in place the structures to prevent it while they still have some influence, if it isn't already too late.
Tom Dimanis
Roar Pro
The Baggy Green should represent the best players in the country. Period. How about resting fast bowlers from the pointless 20-20 games? Pat Howard's appointment sure was a bit left field, doesn't really make sense but maybe CA thought they needed a fresh perspective.
anopinion
Guest
We should not be worried about "Tom" because this is a team game. "Tom" gets his chances and it is up to him to take them. The most important thing is the team and all teams need experience, form, fresh blood and enthusiasm. The trick is to select the correct mixture at the right time. A certainty in sport is that you will rarely get to play your best team at the same time, versatility is important.
Chris
Guest
Firstly, it's the ICC's responsibility to develop the game, not Australia. And with the amount of cricket being played around the world these days, having a squad to choose from, rather than 12-13 players is the only way Australia will be able to honour its commitments to actually play all the required games over the next few years. Or would you like to see James Pattinson's career over by the time he's 25?
anopinion
Guest
You might need to be reminded the Aussie Team has lost many games with what they believed was the best 11. A few changes and what do you know, a few other players who can bat and bowl.
anopinion
Guest
"the Baggy Green cheapened". We are talking about players 1-19 here not a raffle to see who wears it. The Australian First 11 is a dynamic organism effected by injuries, pitches, weather conditions and opponents. The selections should reflect this by being pliable.