Australian cricket is fast losing its appeal, and the heart of the problem is the ambiguous role of today’s coaches and selectors.
David Hussey’s ill-advised disclosure that he and his brother Mike don’t want to be rested or dropped has caused ripples.
It raises the question, who actually runs cricket and who runs the Australian cricket team?
It seems like there is no top-down structure. There are people from every level voicing an opinion. Everyone wants to be a selector. The captain has a lot of say, but blokes in the team can drop stories, rumours or leaks whenever they want.
There is a perception that the captain runs the show alone because the coaches are not in the middle during game time. But this is a fantasy of ‘experts’ such as Ian Chappell, who can’t stop talking about captains being selectors and running the game.
Frankly it’s baloney; the type of self-aggrandising one might expect from an ex-captain in the Channel Nine commentary box.
If I were the Australian coach, I would want to be the sole arbiter of who took the field. The governing body could be involved with naming an Australia- contracted squad, with my help, but if we went outside the squad to pick someone, he would have to be contracted too.
That would mean our initial 25 blokes had better be bloody right.
Forget this business of recruiting selectors from the dim, distant past. If I am the coach, I want the autonomy to decide who plays, who gets left out, who bats where and who runs the drinks.
I want to be the king, but I am prepared for my head to end up on the chopping block. After all, that’s what I get paid for.
If I were Mickey Arthur I wouldn’t want four other blokes calling themselves selectors and deciding where and when my career might end. I wouldn’t want them calling my shots. I’d want my destiny in my own hands. I could consult anyone I liked, or keep to myself. That would be my prerogative. Again, that would be what I’m paid for.
The players who performed under my reign eye would obey my instructions, and mine only. Without respecting anybody, I still wouldn’t want Ian Chappell, Rod Marsh, my mother-in-law, James Sutherland, Michael Clarke, John Howard, Gina Rinehart, or any other Tom, Dick or Harry telling me who is going to play.
Am I going to play Davey Warner every game? Maybe not.
Am I going to drop Mike and Dave Hussey from time to time? You bet I am.
Am I going to talk to these guys about it? You bloody bet I will.
If I were coach, I would decide who was in need of rest after consulting… whoever I want. I would not be bound by the opinions of external experts. Why? Because if I were the coach I would want to run the show.
Fire me if I have a bad season. Kick my butt right off the team. But don’t tell me who I can and can’t pick. That’s what I’m paid to do. This decision-making by whispers and committee has got to stop.
matt0872@hotmail.com
Guest
well its like this we dont have an australian team we have about 5 austratralian teams which no doubt would unsettle the players no end, ive been bowling well in the driveway am i up for selection, the selectors and coaches alike have lost the plot over the recent years the baggy green is now worn by half of australia and no the team is not that good,put them up against a team inform specially 20/20 they havnt a hope 20/20 is the real batsmans test how quick you pick the ball up as a player is based on how well youll do in scoring runs, this year australia has been lucky the bowling has been good but our batting well you watch em only a few are realy seeing the ball well. the pre game pressure for the batsman must be so overwhelming before they go out how do they perform well with that on there back,marsh made more ducks then i have at the farm but they stuck with him for ages then theres other batsmen who dont perform well after 2 games there gone the selectors are very inconsistant and the players must be scared, australia wont do well against the best teams at the moment clearly cause they dont even know if theyll be playing, you say they are going well cause they winning at the moment if the selectors keep choping and changing teams they will slowly get the losing disease but hey lets sit back and see what happens when there playing the top sides, england, south africa they havnt a chance if they keep half the australian population on stand buy for call up find a team thats good sit with and play it togehter many times over then sit back and look at what can be achieved, you now have a team of 15 sertainties not 100 maybes for all forms of the game the elite players can play all forms of the game, you dont have 3 completely different teams for the 3 different types or when they go overseas to play do you send 2 a380s full of players the australian selectors have always been thorn in aus crickets arse so far they have been lucky specially the last couple of years lets sit back and see
Bearfax
Guest
I agree. I dont care where he comes from as long as he has a good knowledge of cricket and doesnt show the same parochialism and bias as 'former...' does. Trouble is Micky also suffers from that ailment. How else can he be selecting the Marsh brothers over so many other more talented and succesful players in the country...just because he was the ex West Oz coach. Works both ways Ian.
Ian
Guest
How short-sighted and parochial is that! The stakes are far to high today in the professional arena. You hire the best available coach, and if he happens to hail from another country, then so be it (e.g. Robbie Deans, Andy Flower, etc.). It happens all over the world, and you'd better get used to it, because it's not going to change soon. Considering how Australian cricket has slumped over the past 4 years, hiring an outsider is exactly what was needed. Furthermore, it has the distinct advantage of removing state bias, and bringing someone in with a different world view.
Lolly
Guest
One thing I will say on the selectors' behalf is that they are always in the wrong. Always will be and always have been. Fans like nothing better than to take the selectors at fault.
Lolly
Guest
What about Brettig showing some professionalism? He's not shooting his mouth off on a forum, he's supposed to be enngaged in writing sports journalism on a reputable site. I hope Khawaja reads that and contacts him for an explanation as throwing around those sorts of allegations about a young player's personality while giving the vaguest of evidence is bloody bad form.
Bearfax
Guest
I agree the coach should be the selector. And he lives or dies by his selections instead of hiding behind a committee to soften any deserved criticism. This would ensure that to save his job, he is more careful regarding who he selects instead of playing favourites as he seems to be doing, and then being able to share the blame.
The Bush
Roar Guru
In other words, captains captain, coaches coach and selectors select. Something that has been said on this forum many times recently.
Bigbaz
Guest
I am unaware of too many other sports where the captain is a selector.(maybe the odd Kangaroo tour) In most cases the coach is either sole selector or part of the selection team.
KombiPhil
Guest
The process shouldn't be difficult. The The Board should appoint a panel of Selectors who attend all Sheffield Shield matches, consult each other and compare notes, and pick the best 12 players for the next Test, one of whom shall be Captain. The Captain has absolute control over the team from when the coin is tossed to the conclusion of the match. That answers the question over 'who runs the team?' During the match, the Captain does. End of story. The Coach runs the fitness drills and skills practice sessions, under the instructions of the Captain, and oversees the batting, bowling and fielding coaches in their roles. He may give the Captain some suggestions on strategies as the match progresses, but the Captain is certainly not bound by them. The Coach should NOT be a selector because it conflicts with his role as a guide and mentor for the players. If a player is down on his form or struggling with one facet of his game, he should be able to consult the Coach for assistance -which is what the Coach is there for - without any fear that the Coach might drop him because he now knows that player has a weakness. This article way overstates the importance of the 'Coach', a position that didn't even exist in Test cricket for 110 years. Armstrong, Woodfull, Bradman, Hasset, Benaud - and Chappell - never had coaches. If we have to have one, he should support the Captain and his team, and nothing more. And he should be restrained from speaking for the team - that is the Captain's job too. It is the Selectors' role to choose the team, whether it be a squad of 25 or a match day lineup of 11 and a 12th man.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Mickey Mouse would be a fairer option. But what's fair in Cricket Australia? Neither coach or captain should be selectors because they have personal affections and opinions that don't allow them to be objective. On the subject of the curious disappearance of U T Khawaja it is worth noting that he is, in fact, already in the pantheon of Australian cricket, so if they continue to blame him for his own demise he always has this; After 11 test innings he has a better aggregate and average than I M Chappell, Hayden, S R Waugh, Boon, Langer, Watson and Symonds had at the same point. All turned out to be pretty handy.
Chris
Guest
I wouldn't expect him to have much (if any) influence over the internal workings of the team, but I would expect him to hold the selectors accountable. I would dispute the public mounthpiece of CA description - I haven't heard boo from him since his appointment!
Rhys
Guest
Good point Chris. But I'm wondering just how well defined the parameters of Pat Howard's role are. Just how much authority/influence does/can he have over the internal workings of the team structure. I've developed an increasingly uncomfortable feeling that he is little more than a public mouthpiece, at the beck and call of the true puppet masters within Cricket Australia, eventually to be consigned to the historical role of 'fall guy'.
Chris
Guest
Interesting question - and one to put to Pat Howard I think. Isn't he the person to whom the selectors answer?
Rhys
Guest
Justified or not, it's interesting that the same debates over selection policy/process that plagued the previous much maligned selection panel are still occurring under the post-Argus setup. Is there a common element in the Cricket Australia structure, a lingering odour of ineptitude and questionable motives if you will, that is contaminating the revamped model, and compromising attempts to provide a genuinely transparent selection process (to the players, if not always the public).
formeropenside
Guest
Best thing to do is get rid of the saffa coach and find a local who can do the job.
Chris
Guest
As Red Kev says, how would Arthur know who is in form or not? While I am absolute in thinking that the captain should not be a selector I am ambivalent about the coach - I can see there are valid arguments for and against. As I've said before in other posts, all I really ask for the selectors to do is to pick players who are in form and be consistent with the criteria. Sadly, neither of those goals are being met at the moment.
Brett McKay
Expert
"Australian cricket is fast losing its appeal.." Seriously, because of selections?? Does anyone watch the actual game any more??
Red Kev
Guest
Yeah read the comments, it's a clear case of author bias.
Disco
Roar Guru
Arthur plays favourites so a dual role as selector and coach is untenable. Meanwhile, here's a strange piece almost justifying the selectors' treatment of Khawaja: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/553379.html?comments=all#comments
Red Kev
Guest
That's far more of an English Premier League Football Club "Manager" role than a coach role. The problem is Arthur see's perhaps 5% of the domestic cricket played in Australia in a season - he can't evaluate any fringe players making it almost impossible to break into the team. That is half the problem with selections even now - too much loyalty to incumbents. If the season was scheduled more like rugby where the provincial season gets played first then the international season what you suggest would be possible. But not when the two run simultaneously.