Many of the problems that confront the Australian cricket team are primarily a result of the lack of knowledge and nous possessed by the National Selection Panel (NSP).
That, by the way, is not my assessment but that of a great number of the cricketing public.
A few days ago I wrote a piece for this website about the recent form of Shane Watson.
Among the comments supplied was this one – “We need to look at our selectors, they do NOT know what they are doing. Who keeps hiring these clowns?”
It seems to be a pseudo national sport to take your wrath out on the selectors if you feel things aren’t running as smoothly as you would like.
So just who is the current bunch of ‘clowns’?
The chairman is John Inverarity, a man regarded as one of the finest captains to have played the first-class game in Australia – he led Western Australia to four Shield and two domestic one-day titles.
He played six Tests for Australia and when he retired from Sheffield Shield ranks he held the record for the most runs in the competition’s history.
Professionally, before becoming the first full-time selector, he spent a career in education as a highly respected private school headmaster and developer of young men.
A man who openly rated him as one of the finest skippers of all-time – Rod Marsh – played under him for WA and now works alongside him as a selector.
Marsh is a bone fide legend of the game – 96 Tests and a world record of 355 dismissals as a keeper when he retired from Test ranks in 1984.
He then went on to head up, to great acclaim, Cricket Australia’s Academy in Adelaide.
Such was his success he was approached to set up a similar system in England.
Former international pace bowler Andy Bichel is also on the panel.
He played 19 Tests and 67 ODIs for Australia with his 7/20 against England in the 2003 World Cup a highlight.
He retired from first-class cricket as the third most productive bowler in Shield history with 430 wickets at 23 and a strike
rate of 45.7, the best of the 33 bowlers to have claimed over 250 wickets.
The NSP is rounded out by coach Mickey Arthur, who engineered South Africa’s rise to world number one, and skipper Michael Clarke, who is winning ever-increasing plaudits for his tactical nous with a young team.
It is hard to imagine a more competent or professional quintet.
Yet fans often disagree.
It makes sense that supporters question the abilities of current members of the Test team for they get to see them strut their stuff on television regularly, thus giving them an opportunity to form an opinion.
But it’s the often vehement arguments that are thrown up over players who they believe should be in the team that I find fascinating.
When you go to a Sheffield Shield match anywhere in Australia these days you are lucky to see a crowd – or should I say gathering – that reaches as many as one thousand.
Yet, despite the incredibly miniscule following that Shield cricket attracts nowadays it is amazing how so many punters can lay claim to knowing just who should be wearing the baggy green.
Save for the ardent fan – either pensioners or the unemployed given that a large majority of Shield games are scheduled for weekdays – there are not too many cricket followers in this country who can judge a player’s merits other than by using statistics.
It seems that whenever a player throws up a beautiful set of numbers he should immediately be considered for national selection.
It’s a good thing that Paul Keating doesn’t choose the team.
Unfortunately, numbers alone do not determine a player’s worth with respect to the next level.
There have been myriad examples of players who have boasted staggering first-class figures but, for whatever reason, have not made the appropriate transition to Test level – Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash and Michael Bevan readily spring to mind.
There have also been a vast number of players who were chosen by selectors who could see something that the fans could not because, again, they were just going off statistics – remember a bloke by the name of Shane Warne being chosen from nowhere to make his Test debut back in January 1991?
While very few fans are present at domestic first-class fixtures in this country you can guarantee that one of the selection panel is.
Messrs Inverarity, Marsh and Bichel are charged with the responsibility of being in attendance whenever Shield matches are played.
It is their seasoned and experienced eye that provides the panel with far more than mere numbers ever will.
These men speak to state skippers, coaches, teammates and opponents in order to add to their dossier on players who are on the fringe of selection.
They are men with exceptionally strong CVs who know what they are doing.
And, most of all, they actually see what is happening.
So remember Mr and Mrs Fan, next time you want to plumb for a certain player to be elevated to Test status, take a moment and consider that, with few exceptions, all you have to go on is a set of numbers.
And numbers do not tell the full story.
That is why we have selectors otherwise we could just get Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis to choose our Test team.
And if that were the case, let’s hope it’s raining.
Disco
Roar Guru
Exactly. The accusations are based on state parochialism rather than reality.
Disco
Roar Guru
That's fair enough, so long as the selectors aren't clouded by personal bias/favouritism/friendships.
Disco
Roar Guru
Well, the boys' club seems to override the Argus Report.
ianm
Guest
I think your article is spot on Glenn, most people's opinion is formed by statistics alone and so players look better when they are not in the team. Sadly for me, the current New Zealand team is selected using spreadsheets and in my opinion it's lead to some awful selection decisions (Tarum Nethula's axing and the return of 2-metre Peter being the big ones). A Bangladeshi friend of mine is adamant test averages are unfair as his (Bangladeshi) batsmen don't get to face Bangladeshi bowlers in test matches so don't get to top their averages up. Conversely, whilst there is no denying the abilities of Hayden, Langer, either Waugh and Ponting, there averages may have taken dent if there were test series where they'd had to face the likes of McGrath, Warne, etc. I guess my point is test players need an x factor that statistics don't show. That is the main reason why I support the inclusion of Kwajaha in the Aus team, he has something about him that just says 'Test quality batsman' to me but don't ask me to provide quantitative evidence to back it up!
Harriet
Guest
Pretty! This was an incredibly wonderful article. Thanks for supplying this info.
Mikey
Guest
The non-selection of Bird is a strange one. But I have never seen him bowl - so as Glenn points out - its hard for us armchair critics to really have a complete picture of why he hasn't been picked. Obviously the selectors don't think he is good enough for whatever reason. I don't believe they would continue to ignore his claims for any other reason. But based on stats alone it does look unfair.
Steele
Guest
You make a good point as far as making decisions purely on stats, however sometimes it becomes mind boggling. Consider Jackson birds stats compared to his contempories and then try and work out how he falls behind names such as hazlewood, starc, Hastings, Johnson, hilf, sidds, and cummins. I'm not saying he should deffinately be in the eleven but how does the best shield bowler for nearly two yrs now find himself so far behind the pack?? Selectors sometimes opt for experience (ie, Johnson in Perth) and often go for potential(ie, starc, hazlewood, cummins) but why don't they opt for performance more often.
Mikey
Guest
Australia were clearly outclassed by a superior South African side. Yet a lot of fans seem to think that there are a bunch of superstars in domestic cricket not being picked who would have won it for us. That is just rubbish!! Even use the stats argument there are not many "pick me!" performances you can highlight. Oh hang on...there was a bloke named Ricky Ponting who made a big hundred in a shield match and a few other good scores before the test series started. His was in "pick me" form and was certainly performing better than most of the unknown superstars that many fans seem to think are out there. We got beaten by a superior side and that is not the fault of the selectors. Sure if we keep losing they have to change a few things. But I suspect we will thrash Sri Lanka and everyone will suddenly think the selectors are geniuses!
A1
Guest
Glenn how come youve replied to many other comments but not this intelligent one? Its disrespectful to ignore a comment just because it catches you out. Clarke and Uncle Arthur shouldn't be selectors because they're not able to watch Shield games. Simple! I'm almost certain that when Michael Beer made his debut that Clarke was captain and had never heard of him.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
I'm with you on this one Glenn. I'm definitely guilty of this at times. People are too obsessed with having an opinion and don't focus enough on the merit of their opinion.
Rhys
Guest
I'm fine with both captain and coach being involved in the selection process, but only in an advisory, and non voting, capacity. The duties of making the final selection on teams/squads should reside with the core trio of Inverarity, Marsh, and Bichel. Captain and coach should be in attendance at every NSP meeting, to offer input and feedback regarding incumbent players form and work/team ethic. It would give Inverarity and Co. valuable insight from an inhouse perspective. They could then factor that in with their own opinions and views on other potential candidates for selection. In essence it could be the best of both worlds. Inputs from the widest available knowledge base, but with final team selections once removed from captain/coach involvement.
The no. three.
Guest
Kerry O'Keefe was the best spinner of all time, I wonder what's his opinion of bringing through Cameron Boyce the leggie that Asley Mallet rated the best today?
Johnno
Guest
Brett I disagree, . you are saying you'd rather Andrew Hilditch or Trever Hohns pick the squad than the masses, the masses who are not bound by conflict to pick the team the establishment or marketing department want. I think you have to much faith in the the likes of Hohns or Hildtich who were both lousy selectors, and hardly popular. Have you ever met a popular selector or ref, Brett.
The no. three.
Guest
The perfect senario doesnt exist in the country at the moment. Having stated that, I'd pick the batting this way, D Warner, U Khawaja, M Clarke, A Doolan, M Hussey (for one more season), S Watson. If Botham, Imran and Dev never generally batted higher than six or in the top four,, either should Watto. There was a reason for this, they couldn't.There are others that are a stones throw away too, in C Ferguson for no. five, J Faulkner for no. six and S Henry at no. one.
The no. three.
Guest
No, not drop all batsmen except M Clarke. The ideal people for some batting spots are not available in the Aussie system at the moment. like A Cook and H Amla, therefore, my batting lineup today would look like : Warner, U Khawaja, M Clarke, A Doolan, M Hussey, S Watson. Why would Watto bat higher than six? He can bowl, he is stifled when played up the order like J Kallis. though. Botham, Imran or anyone else that was an allrounder that I care to remember didn't bat opening or in the top four, and there was a reason, they couldnt. What makes him any better, and why are the averages not expected around fifty in the test batting order anymore? What's old must become new then is the answer. Some things must need changing.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Also, I think you need to be realistic about how AUS would have fared against RSA in a 5/6 Test series. Just as we dominated the world when he had such an outstanding team, the Proteas currently have the best side in the world. Amla, de Villiers and Kaliis all in the top-10 batsmen in the world plus Smith. And a bowling attack led by the world number one Steyn plus very handy back-up from Morkel and Philander. I am not sure on balance that there are the players currently in AUS who could match that squad. So I am not too sure how the selectors would have been exposed if the players aren't there.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I must say that this whole idea centred around NSW bias is something I will never quite understand. At present Clarke is the only selector who is from NSW. If you look back over recent times we have had very few NSW-based or bred selectors - Boon, Cox, G Chappell, M Hughes. With such a small representation of NSW people on the panel I have quite understood why all the others would be so heavily in favour of Blues' players. It would be a very sad situation if one member of a selection panel of three or five could sway the others to go for his NSW mates. As for NSW performing poorly at domestic level, I would think it is a logical conclusion that if you have a lot of your best players out you may struggle. Strangely, it has not affected NSW greatly as they have appeared in five of the last ten Shield finals so I am not too sure what you are getting at.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
Feel like I need the right of reply, seeing this article is addressing my concerns about the selectors bungling. There appears to be an agenda to pick "favourites", maybe there are untouchables in the team whatever but EVERYONE here has played the game at some level and watched it for years so we do know what we are talking about. Maybe if we all had mates like the selectors we could have all had a go at test cricket! Australia, as a nation of cricketers, has that many quality cricketers we could field a bunch of test teams BUT because these jokers are selecting sides that appear to be their mates or people with vested interests mates we have the problem of losing. # Mitch Johnson back in the team was odd. Is it because of advertising reasons he was put back in, his Shield form was not up to scratch. I thought for a couple of years Brett Lee, Andrew Symonds and Clarke seemed to be getting selected because of their "Weet Bix" advertising deals. Clarke has come good, but the others have bowed out. Warner seems to be the new "Weet Bix" pin up boy. # Batting Quiney at 3 and having the CAPTAIN of the national team being hidden down at number 5. He should be leading the team and batting at 1st drop and stop shoving in rookies to save your own hide taking the heat off the quicks. # Sticking with favourites of certain states too long. You get the feeling they would only pick NSW players if they could get away with it. It is like no other state exists YET NSW performs poorly at Shield level the past decade! # Hughes back in when he has been up and down after being dropped 2 or 3 times already. There are other players out there. Maybe Phil is connected somehow to the Aussie cricket authorities but it seems ludicrous they keep trying him again and again. The good news for Invers and the rest of these jokers he is in cahoots with is the heat is off, as we have Sri Lanka who we should beat 3 BLOB in the tests. It'll no doubt be back slapping time again for these so called brains and all the I told you so brigade will be out in force. All I can say is it is a crying shame we didn't have South Africa here for the full 5 or 6 test match tour and then all their genius would have been exposed to the world. They dodged a bullet this summer because it was an early and short series against the Saffers. Next 12 months could be very nasty for these brainiacs.
langou
Roar Guru
so you would drop the whole top 6 except Clarke? Sorry "The no. three." the glory days of having a top 7 averaging 50 are over.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I don't see Mickey Arthur as a hands on coaching win the same way that you point out the AFL. You highlight that in the AFL system they have assistants who do the hands on work. it is exactly the same at Test level. Thre are batting, bowling & fielding coaches just there a specialists within AFL clubs. Like Ferguson etc, Arthur is a 'manager' rather than a hands on coach.