When an ex-player-cum-celebrity like Shane Warne make suggestions about people who should be playing, coaching and administrating, I want a detailed list of the managers or agents of the celebrity and the player/coach/celebrity he is touting for a big job.
What is the company, for instance, that manages Warne and what is the company that manages, for example, Stephen Fleming? And so on.
This potential conflict of interest that celebrity/player/experts sometimes have can explain a lot about why certain people are pushed forward, or sometimes held back.
I have no idea who manages Fleming or Shane Warne, or any of the other former cricketers who he is touting. But I’d like to see in brackets when these sort of sensational suggestions are put forward who the relevant managers are.
For the life of me I can’t see why Fleming would make a better coach of an Australian side, in the Warne model of NOT having selectorial responsibilities, than Darren Lehman.
Granted Fleming was a good enough captain, although never in the same class, in my view, as Mark Taylor or even Michael Clarke. But he hasn’t had the coaching experience of Lehman.
This same injunction about naming managers should apply to other sports as well. I have lobbied the ARU for years, for instance, to publish a list of managers and the players and coaches they are managing – so far to no avail.
But I know of instances where a player has got a job at a club solely (in my opinion) because the coach and the manager share the same manager.
Getting back to the Warne list, it would open up the debate a lot more about the merits of his suggestions if we had all the facts about who is managed by whom and so on.
John Berry Hobbs
Guest
I have always liked Fleming and he seemed to march to the beat of his own drum. I hope for his sake he hasn't fallen in with the broadcasting boys club Will turn your brain to mush in no time!
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"Problem is, attendances, interest and performances by the national team are at all time lows." Incorrect. I take it you either aren't old enough, or don't remember the 80s...
Spiro although I fully agree with your sentiment of providing info that can expose any conflict of interest, I wholly disagree with your assessment of Fleming as a captain.
Jason
Guest
While we're at it, it would be good to know which commentators share managers with players as well.
Carnivean
Guest
The problem with accepting anything Warne says is that Warne is suffering from Relevancy Deprivation Syndrome. It happens to celebrities that find that their 15 minutes has been and gone. Symptoms include the belief that they are still a star, that they can get away with anything, and less and less reality in their public statements. The end state of this Syndrome is either becoming an ex-celebrity or becoming Anthony Mundine or Geoff Boycott. Warne didn't put this out there because he sat down and had a good hard think about the problem with cricket these days. He wrote this as quick as he could because he knew that by doing something outrageous he could get his name into a headline. As for the idea of putting the best 11 for each format out, is that sometimes they're 1 guy. Everyone needs a break sometimes. Also the current selectors don't have a clear best 11 for any format. They have 2 batsmen, a handful of wicket keepers and some bowlers who are constantly falling to bits. If they could clearly identify the best 11 for ODIs, then the rotations would be about 3 per 5 game series. Instead they have to try out the various players on the cusp. There was no problem doing that a decade ago, when our C team would have slaughtered Sri Lanka, but now things are close enough that we could only draw the series. That doesn't make the experimentation any less valid, or essential. We could do it against Sri Lanka because nobody really cares about that series. What we really care about is the India tour and the Ashes. Better to test players out now and assess them, than then.
Concerned cricket person
Guest
It seems to be popular at the moment to put down Shane Warne and his "manifesto". Problem is, attendances, interest and performances by the national team are at all time lows. The fans want to see the best Aussie 11 playing. At the prices we are expected to pay at the gate, why are we putting up with these 3rd x 11 teams noone has heard of? Keep going along the path you are going Cricket Australia and you will be in for an almighty shock one day.
swannies05
Roar Pro
Christo the Daddyo - I don't think everything Warney says is newsworthy but he had, and in my opinion still does, have one of the best cricketing brains that the world, let alone Australia has ever seen. For this reason, what Warney says should always be taken on board by Cricket Australia and the cricketing public in general. Clearly, like most people's advice, a lot of it will be rubbish and won't work, however, some of what the second best Australian cricketer of all time has to say probably has a lot of merit. I particularly enjoyed his idea that the best 11 cricketers for each format should be selcted for each (or at least most of) match. It would be a whole lot better than the current poor game of tetris that Inverarity & co. are playing with our First XI's in each format of the game. Spiro- good article, I love this idea and let's hope the ARU, CA and all other major governing bodies adopt this approach sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, I don't even think it will be later, it will be never. We can always hope though!
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
There's been far too much attention paid to the nonsensical ramblings of Shane Warne by journos who should know better. He's throwing stuff out there under the misapprehension that his opinion matters. Writing about it simply fuels this belief. If we all ignore Warne, hopefully he'll go away.
Arthur fonzarelli.
Guest
Good suggestion spiro . Even if it's in italics at the end of the article . Call it product disclosure . Would add some perspective to the Sunday sports gossip columns too .