Mickey Arthur out of line with selection policies

But the skipper on the field and in the changerooms can SEE if a player is struggling, surely? It's how they perform that will be the key and that is hardly a secret to anyone.

I think there's too many problems with the new format Vas. The captain and coach have always had input into the team but a vote each is a bit much for my liking. Because their attention is 100% on the national team they won't be familiar enough with domestic cricket to know how the potential national team candidates are doing and will naturally be biased to their current players as they know what they can do. It would also be a brave captain to drop one of his more popular players. It also makes press conferences very treahcerous for them as they now can't say too much about the team make up due to their new role. If the captain or coach goes up to a player who's struggling a bit and asks them how they're doing, are they asking as a captain/coach or as a selector? The previous format of the selection panel was fine and served us well for many years. It was the people on the panel that were the problem.

Vas your points are cogent however I believe them to be a negative not a positive. What you are driving at with your points is that it is important for the coach and captain to be selectors to keep the team a harmonious clique, otherwise known as a boys’ club. Performance is not as important as being liked and therefore wanted by the captain and the coach. Such a system might work only as long as the captain and coach were men of unimpeachable integrity. If such men exist, they don’t play professional sports I can guarantee that. What you end up with is selection policy playing favourites. I say again, how can Clarke or Arthur possibly evaluate any fringe players against the incumbents when they see at most half-a-dozen domestic fixtures across all forms of the game in a season?

David, your whole assessment of players play, selectors select, and coaches coach is fine if you want the captain and coach to not have a sense of accountability regarding performance. The fact is that no system is perfect. Last summer, Andrew Hilditch and his cowboys decided to name a 17-man squad for the First Test of an Ashes series. Indeed, that series featured names such as Doherty, Smith and Beer, none of which looked like had much faith from neither captain nor coach. But now, Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur are given a vote, which I feel is critical in terms of allowing their views to be official in terms of assessing the team's performance. The situation regarding Haddin is unfortunate in terms of the miscommunication. But I would rather be miscommunicated by the selectors off the pitch as Haddin is, compared to being miscommunicated by your own captain on the pitch, as Steve Smith was last year. Haddin's problem isn't going to affect the next game we play, but I wonder how much the ambiguous nature of Steve Smith's role last year played on his mind to having a poor series. While your "players play, captains captain, coaches coach, and selectors select" manifesto does sound sensible in practice, the performances of one all affect the quality of the other. And that's why having Clarke and Arthur have an official vote is crucial, because they then have true ownership of this team. At least every one of those 11 guys on the pitch know they are there on the behest of either their captain/coach (or both). It's important to feel wanted. That is why I feel that no matter how good his domestic record is, Brad Hodge wouldn't be successful in the international scene for long, because it is not an environment where he is wanted by his peers.

I'm pretty pleased with the effect Arthur has had on the Test team so far. Hard to fault his choices.

It's a shame that White's form is cold now. I had high hopes for him as a potential Test captain - I know that sounds ludacris now!

You would think that everyone in the squad will play one out of the two T20 games so I don't think Christian being in the ODI said has much relevance with his selection chances. He may miss out on one of the games but it won't be because of the ODI series. Whoever misses out tonight will play in Melbourne on Friday. I can see Finch missing out tonight, especially given he'll be a certainty for the MCG one in front of his home fans

You're dead right about mixed messages. Similar article from Andrew Faulkner at The Oz about it: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/selectors-sending-mixed-messages-with-one-day-selections/story-e6frg7rx-1226258798684

Looks like Finch is one and probably Christian since he'll be in the ODI side.

Lee, McKay, Faulkner plus Hogg/Doherty as the bowling lineup. Faulkner is more a bowling all roudner atm. Mitch Marsh and Christian I see as batting all rounders both aren't good enough as bowlers only and their batting would be wasted at 8 anyway. Opener S Marsh and Warner with Birt at 3. I like keeping the players in their usual position. Guessing Bailey at 4 although that does waste Dussey who is more a 4.

Apologies for the inaccuracy on Marsh - just got on a roll and didn't want to let the truth get in the way of a good story! Agreed on Hodge, obviously it's got nothing to do with form. I recall Crash Craddock saying on radio a year or so back that Krejza wasn't in the side because he was a bit of an odd character and didn't fit in with "team harmony". Then there's Matthew Elliott...

Bailey came in in at 3 for the first 3 or 4 BBL games and then was moved down the order (5, 6, 7ish) for the last few games. His overall strikerate for the tournament was 110. His T20 career is very good, it's just that his last season wasn't. re Ferguson - surely when picking a ODI team the most important form line would be his ODD form? There have been plenty of examples of players who excel at one form of the game whilst being average at others. certainly averaging 70 for the Ryobi Cup season must count for something? Having said that I thought Tom Cooper was more unlucky then Ferguson. Cooper's averaged 85 in the Ryobi Cup this season and averaged 33 in the BBL with a strike rate of 136....

There is another angle to consider too. If I were an optimist I would say that Inverarity and Arthur are giving themselves up until the 2013 Ashes to build some depth into Australian cricket (specifically the batting since the bowling seems to be ahead of schedule in that regard). I would postulate (if I were that optimist) they want to be in a position so that if Ponting and Hussey retire / suffer a slump in form / accidentally poke each others eyes out while attempting a high-five they have a pool of batsmen with international experience at their disposal (allowing them to select the one in form). Hughes, Marsh, Khawaja, Cowan and Warner have all had recent test experience and only Warner has genuinely grabbed a permanent spot so far. Christian, Bailey and Forrest are being given a sniff during the limited-overs matches this summer and maybe in the West Indies too. White, Ferguson, Smith and North have all had international exposure within the last couple of years as well and could make comebacks on the back of good form.

For the bowling I'd say that two out of Mackay, Doherty and Christian will miss out, depening on pitch/weather etc. Faulkner's good enough to open the bowling, which he did for the Stars, so I don't think there's a need to play both Lee and Mackay, especially given how important spin is becoming in T20, and Lee is the number one fast bowler in that team. Finch opened for the Renegades so you'd imagine he would be the likely candidate with Birt coming in at 3. S Marsh could also open, or bat at 3. Wade was the opener for the Stars at the start of the BBL but found his form down the order so I don't think he'll open. The real question is, which batsman/batting all-rounder will be unlucky enough to miss out for Bailey?

True, however picking from a limited squad like on tour can kill careers too. I remember on tour Tom Moody was made to open in Sri Lanka. Didn't work and was never heard of again as a test player again. I'd be surprised if Moody ever opened for WA. They did pick Cowan on form. I'm sure the people knocking down the door won't be ignored. Anyway I should stop avoiding work.

I understand your confusion however... Ferguson has been poor in the Shield and 20-20. White has been poor in all three forms of cricket (barely a score above 30) and Bailey's 20-20 form depends on where he actually batted for the Stars. I would need to check, but Bailey probably came in the middle order? It would mean his strike rate is the important stat not his overall run tally. His career strike rate for 20-20 is 132 which is pretty good. 20-20 stats are hard to compare the top 3 batsman to the ones coming in from 4 onwards. Personly I feel from 4 onwards the strike rate is more important then the average per innings. I thought Shaun Marsh was selected for the 20-20 but dropped from the ODI to get more Shield games. They must have debated playing him in the ODI's but decided (rightly) to leave him for WA. Even his brother is only played the ODI's from 3 on to play a shield game. Brad Hodge. Look there must be reasons other then his 'stats' that he was not selected. Certainly the chorus (especially here in Victoria) are always outraged but cricket is a team sport (with individual stats). I suspect the selectors felt he wasn't a team player. Personality? Big mouth? Has to be something. Hogg's in form and put his hand up. His economy rate for 20-20 is nothing sort of extrodinary.

Sadly that's actually pretty accurate. Though S Marsh wasn't dropped from both the short form teams, only the ODI side. I'll defend them on Brad Hogg though. There's a T20 World Cup in September so Hogg's age isn't an issue there. He was clearly the best BBL spinner and I can't see him falling apart in 8 months. As for Hodge, well there's been a persistent rumour for a while now that he and the rest of the Aussie dressing room never quite saw eye to eye, to put it mildly. That's never been officially confirmed but it would explain a lot.

The problem arises with the coach-selector and captain-selector in that they never see the fringe players play. They don’t have time. Clarke and Arthur would see at most half-a-dozen domestic games of cricket across all forms in a season. They will always be a two-block vote to keep the incumbents in the team, because they know them and they never see the other candidates for the position. The squad for any given set of matches should be selected without the bias of the coach and captain. Inverarity, Marsh and Bichel have a duty to provide a squad equipped to win. After that the coach and captain and “selector on duty” as it used to be called (I don’t know if they still use this format) select the match-day XI from the squad. I do not believe home series should be treated any differently than tour series in this regard; injury cover is just closer at hand is all.

Lordy, the bowling line-up will be just as interesting, given they've picked four allrounders (M.Marsh, Christian, Faulkner, D.Hussey), two spinners (Hogg and Doherty) plus Lee and McKay in the 14 man squad. Finch or Birt would be the obvious option to open with Warner, I'd imagine, though Wade could certainly do the job too. That said, he did very well as a late-innings basher at 6/7 for the Stars. (and just a small thing, Peter Forrest isn't in the T20 squad, just the ODI squad..)

So do you want Haddin kept in the team David? Or do you just not like the way Arthur talks to the press or what? I don't think Haddin actually said he got dropped, he just didn't like giving someone else the oppurtunity to take his place. I vaguely recall Arthur suggested Warner may be a captain of the future of the 20-20 not for the next game? (or World Cup). Could be wrong but that was my interpretation. I certainly wouldn't think you could put Warner as captain of Australia on the basis of one Chairman's XI game. What else has he captained? Grade? Wouldn't think for NSW. Our of curisoity who captained for the Australia A games last year? Quote: 'Justification for the umpteenth time: selectors select, players play, coaches coach – they never mix.' I politly disagree. I would like to see this system get a chance before it gets struck down. The Captain as I understand it is giving input to the selectors who then pick the final team. I understand Bailey was asked to pick a 'mock' 20-20 Australian team before he was given the reigns. The senior selectors considered his team and then announced their team. It differed. I'm sure Clarke or Arthur have their 2-cents but the final decisions rest on Inveriaty/Bichel/Marsh. This system will live and die on results. I hope the results are good.