Much has been made of the performance of the national selection panel (NSP) in recent times. And rightly so.
They are responsible for selecting the right players at the right times to give the team the best chance of success.
Many have suggested that the NSP is not doing its job. But is that really true?
There have been many criticisms of the selectors this summer. Some relate directly to selections, while others relate to policies set down by Cricket Australia following the Argus review.
First of all is the make-up of the NSP, with the captain and coach also being selectors. While I do not favour the captain and coach being on the selection panel, they rightly should have significant input.
Cricket Australia has made the decision to include them on the selection panel, so the panel itself cannot be held to account there.
The rotation policy for fast bowlers has also come under fire, but again this is a Cricket Australia policy. The NSP are simply following orders.
Comments made by John Inverarity explaining or justifying selections have come under fire, but once again the NSP is following the orders of Cricket Australia. The Argus review identified communication as a big issue and Inverarity is delivering on that.
His explanations of Brad Haddin’s replacement with Matthew Wade, the selection of Rob Quiney, the choice between Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja and, most recently, the omission of Mike Hussey from the one day international team are his attempts to again follow the direction of Cricket Australia in regards to communication.
Now let’s look at the actual selections.
The first big selection was that of Wade ahead of Haddin. This was a calculated move made with an eye to the future. Sure Wade has a lot of work to do but so did Ian Healy and Adam Gilchrist when they were given their chance.
Interestingly the door was left firmly open for Haddin right from the start of the summer, so his selection in the ODI squad and his likely selection as back-up for the Ashes tour should not be considered an about-face at all.
There has been criticism of the succession planning for the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Hussey. But the NSP did have two candidates in mind to replace Ponting in Hughes and Khawaja. Both were considered with a decision going Hughes’s way.
Hussey’s retirement was unexpected but, again, the NSP had Khawaja ready to go and leaving Hussey out of the ODI team is another example of decisive planning for the future. Seems like pretty good succession planning to me.
Now let’s examine the rotation policy. While most of us are not fans (me included), the rotation has given us a good look at a few bowlers.
We saw John Hastings, Mitchell Starc, and Jackson Bird given their chances and we have a clearer picture of who stepped up and who didn’t. We also had another look at Mitchell Johnson to see whether he has improved.
So as a result we now have a few more options on the bowling table. There will always be debate about who is best but at least the debate is more informed now.
I don’t mind keeping a player waiting just a little bit. It often has the effect of making them hungrier for success when the opportunity does come. Bird is probably the best example of this and Hughes has made the most of his chance when it came. Hopefully Khawaja will do exactly the same.
All things considered, I think the NSP is actually doing a pretty good job.
matt h
Guest
Of course we do! If we didn't who would comment on the Roar?
matt h
Guest
Quiney has good domestic numbers over the last two years so was arguable, even if you did not agree. Ponting was toping the averages in the Shield prior to the first test. Hastings ... well I have no idea how that one slipped through.
AndyMack
Guest
Well said Andy-Roo Inverarity.....
AndyMack
Guest
Hey Sheek, Think u are usually on the money, but why Maxwell at #6?? If we playing India in India, wouldn't be need a genuine second spinner, and a proper number 6?? And if we playing in ashes, think we could use a genuine number 6 as well, surely warner and clarke can provide the "useful spinners" role.
AndyMack
Guest
Picking him at 7 indicates they think he is an all-rounder.
kurt83
Roar Rookie
Hi Sheek, Like this side... except I'd like to see selectors persevere with Bird. Agree with Watson returning to opener as Cowan I think seems a little lazy and lacks proper concentration (specifically when running between wickets) Not a major issue but do you not think that it would be more beneficial to the team if Dave warner was givin the vice captaincy? seeings Watson is hardly ever on the pitch?
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Andy_Roo, They picked four pacemen for Sydney because they didn't have the collective guts to be ridiculed for resting a paceman who didn't need resting. Johnson & Siddle had had their turns, so it was likely to be Bird, who didn't deserve to be dropped after a promising debut. Both Marsh & Bichel aren't wallflowers, so it's surprising they don't stand up to CA re the rotation policy. The rotation policy is an utter nonsense. Otherwise, I agree with you the selectors have done a reasonable job. Ponting deserved a reprieve on the basis of his return to form last year. Quiney & Hastings didn't work out, but that's the way it goes. Not every selection will be gold plated correct. Hussey's retirement so soon was unexpected. Wade has done a reasonable job. Some Roarers carry on like they're clairvoyants. But they're usually the wiser only after the event, like us all. If Watson returns sans bowling, I expect he can reclaim his opening spot at the expense of Cowan. With everyone healthy & fit, I would like to see the following XI: Dave Warner Shane Watson(vc) Phil Hughes Michael Clarke(c) Usman Kawaja Glen Maxwell Matthew Wade(k) Peter Siddle James Pattinson Pat Cummins Nathan Lyon Mitchell Johnson or Mitchell Starc (12th man)
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
The selectors didn't have Hughes and Khawaja ready to go. They're just the next two best batsmen. To have them ready they should have been exposing them to international cricket. Both of them are excellent one day batsmen, yet they are only now making their ODI debuts? Forward thinking would have them playing one day cricket for Australia over at least the past year. The rotation policy isn't their fault, and I didn't say it was. But it shouldn't corner the selectors into picking five bowlers. They needed to make the hard call and leave Mitchell Johnson out. But no, they were weak and allowed the policy to corner them.
Brian
Guest
Yes but wasn't the Grand Final the WACA test match to which they arrived with Johnson, Starc & Hastings and got roundly beaten. Lets face it 90% of roarers could pick the team and beat SL 3-0. SA was the yardstick close in Adelaide but ultimately far.
boes
Roar Pro
Anything can be justified with the right explanation and citing the relevant statistics in the flavour you want to back up your argument. I think a big issue has been their terrible communication skills and explanations. Its made them look like bumbling fools. 2 worst examples which have already been mentioned above; -Picking Quiney after 2 seasons of consistent run making, seemed fair enough - then later admitting he was picked to shield Hughes... -Husseys ODI omission looking to the 2015 world cup, again makes sense, but then picking Haddin who will 37 going on 38 for that tournament. That said there have been some mystifying decisions, none more so that the 5 bowlers, Johnners as an all rounder farce that was Sydney. Good to see Bird get a chance to stretch his wings and hopefully they will soon run out of excuses to not pick Khawaja.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Bad bits Firstly Coach and Captain on the selection panel is just plain wrong. Too close to their mates and favourites. Khawaja being dropped after the NZ loss . Not having a word to Ricky during India series. The selections of Marsh and Quiney who scored 26 in nine digs at no.3 and Watto not much more, before Hughes was restored the positon averaged about 14. At least Quiney can say he played test cricket. Ditto Hastings. How he was preferred to Bird is anyone's guess. The 4 fast bowlers one spinner at Sydney just plain weird. Not playing Khawaja at Sydney Good bits Warner Pattinson Starc Bird Wade recalling Hughes Johnners ( no seriously ) The results 1-1, 4-0, 2-0, 0-1, 3-0 - A romping 10-2-( 3 draws ) 2 Big series coming up. tough times ahead
josh
Roar Rookie
Hussey retied from Test cricket not from the ODI. Today there is a difference. How has Haddin been "braining them"? Their Ryobi Cup form is about the same. And Paine is the 6th top run getter in the BBL? Haddin's form hasn't that remarkable to demand inclusion above Paine.
Disco
Roar Guru
Yes. Ponting, Quiney and Hastings were great picks for the South Africa series, weren't they?
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
The fans will always complain about the selectors. It's what we do. It has nothing to do with the actual performance of the team, it's more to do with the fact that despite the fact that none of us are experts, none of us have any experience in playing professional sport or in selection processes of professional sports players, we insist that we know more than those who do.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Nope he didn't. Andy Roo is correct - nobody in authority has actually described Johnson as an all-rounder. The closest anyone got was Clarke saying that "He's batting as well as an all-rounder". Which at the time in a statistical sense, was absolutely true.
Robie
Guest
Khawaja and Hughes will our 2 best batsman for the next 5 years, they both need a good run especially Khawaja who hasn't been given a proper go yet.
Rohit
Guest
I agree with Andy_Roo, selectors had Hughes and Khawaja primed for big roles in the batting lineup, Hughes got Punter's spot and Khawaja should ge Hussey's spot as both these young batsman will be key to rebuilding our batting lineup. Khawaja is fantastic in bowler friendly conditions, as must be given a chance to really settle into the side b4 the ashes start. He will be a long term number 4 similar to amla, just needs a good go at it. Really performed well this season, as has played on difficult pitches. Well suited to the position, and can hold an innings together.
sledgeross
Guest
Maybe watch some more cricket mate. Payne has had a few ok knocks in the Big bash but nothing else, while Haddin has been braining them in all forms. Paine has been unlucky and hardly played in 2 seasons also. Ludeman and Hartley are currently better value than Paine. Also, as much as I thought Huss deserved a one day farewell, there is no comparison to the Haddin situation. Hussey has retired, Haddin hasnt.
Lancey5times
Guest
Couldn't agree more on the Perth debacle. The question it raises is this. In that 3 test series we used Hilfy, Siddle, Pattinson, Johnson, Starc and Hastings as frontine fast bowlers. 6 fast bowlers in 3 tests with only 1 change forced by an actual injury (fatigue not being counted as an injury). With this in mind we should be selecting 8 fast bowlers for 4 tests in India and 10 for the 5 in England. As we know, our quicks will toil during the next 9 tests. If one test in Adelaide wore them out they are in for a rude shock over there. I don't want to go on about the rotation policy but Perth was embarrassing.
Justin Ware
Roar Rookie
Got to agree with Josh on that one, Haddin has been in the sun too long, he's stale. Surely Tim Paine, or even Peter Nevill, would get the call up. No disrespect to Haddin, who from all reports has had a great shield season, but why even rest Wade in the first place, get him keeping as much as possible.