Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel deserves a significant pay rise. Considering some of the vitriol directed as the selectors this summer, that statement is sure to cause a stir, so allow me to quickly explain myself before I’m completely lambasted.
In the wake of the release of part one of Shane Warne’s Cricket Manifesto, it was more intriguing gauging the response to it, rather than its actual contents.
By and large, most people felt that Warne made some valid points while also making some ill-informed ones.
Central to the latter point was the fact that some of the individuals that Warne appointed for a role in his ‘Dream Team’ of Cricket Australia officials would need to take a pay cut to fulfill the position that Warne had pencilled them in for, especially those in a selector role.
While the first reaction to that oversight by Warne was to scoff that he hadn’t done his homework and that his suggestions were therefore unrealistic, the ensuing thought that popped into my mind was that those tasked with making the major decisions on playing personnel in Australian cricket may not be being paid very well.
Which in turn opens Cricket Australia up to mocking phrases like ‘You get what you pay for’.
In cricket, you could argue that there is only one individual (or individuals) more important than the players: those that actually choose the players.
After all, you can be the best player in the land and the most influential player in the team, but if the selectors don’t pick you, you cease to be important.
Which is a very hyperbolic way of illustrating that the selectors’ job is extremely important.
It’s therefore very alarming to learn that these very important roles may actually not pay very well, relatively speaking.
If the selectors’ role is so important, surely they should have a salary that reflects it?
While I can appreciate that travelling around Australia watching Sheffield Shield games in empty grounds may not sound that glamorous, it’s the output of such excursions that truly matter.
It’s an obvious point, but the decisions that the selectors make have a drastic impact on Australian cricket.
With that responsibility and pressure should come the financial remuneration to match it.
Yet it appears that may not be the case.
I would hate to think Cricket Australia don’t currently have the very best candidates for the National Selection Panel because the positions don’t pay highly enough.
I understand that you can’t just throw money around irresponsibly, but I would argue that allocating a significant portion of Cricket Australia revenue towards the NSP is actually one of the more astute and responsible things CA could do.
Where should the extra money for the selectors salaries come from?
Obviously I don’t have vision of Cricket Australia’s books, but if you cut the pyrotechnics budget of the Big Bash in half, there would be a significant amount of money freed up.
Which do you think is more crucial to the success of Australian cricket: fireworks or well paid selectors?
Failing that, reducing player salaries by just 1% across the board would ensure the selectors’ bank accounts receive a healthy boost.
If one of the most important – if not the most important – positions in Australian cricket isn’t currently attractive, desirable, aspirational and well paid, I think Cricket Australia should make it its number one objective to ensure it is.
It’s no big deal though.
It’s only the immediate and future success of Australia cricket riding on it.
sledgeross
Guest
And 1!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
". . .for some basketballer . . ." Haha! Nice one David! So you read The Roar bio and immediately labeled me a basketetballer who knows nothing about any other sport? That's actually pretty funny! Keep those little personal jabs coming buddy, they're good for a laugh! Firstly, I wouldn't call myself a basketballer anyway. And secondly, I welcome any challenge to my love and knowledge of cricket. Having said that, I would never suggest I know more about cricket, or indeed selecting players, than Marsh, Bichel, Inverarity, etc. I actually even commented later than those individuals may still be the best people for the job if money was no issue. But I just hope money is never an issue in attracting the best candidates. Selections will always cause debate, as they're subjective. Overall, I think the selectors have done a solid job this year, and I applaud much of what they have done. So, to that point, please show me where exactly in the article I accuse the current selectors of not doing a good job?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I agree that that the notion of Hodge earning a Test recall is ridiculous. It's why I listed him a 10,000/1 chance in a recent piece. But questioning his proficiency against the short deliveries based on one ball is almost as ridiculous. Throughout his career, the short ball has never been an issue, and to suggest is was based on one, albeit memorable, delivery is a little unfair. Every batsman in history had an ungainly dismissal in their resume.
David
Guest
What rubbish. Hodge hasn't playea a FC match for over two years. Had he been serious about a Test recall (one no doubt the English bowlers would have been licking their lips over), he would have come back to Australia and made himself available for Victoria's last three Shield games. Instead, he wanted his cake and to eat it as well, playing out his full contract in Bangladesh and then coming home and walking into the Shield side for TWO whole games. As well as being a nicker who didn't get behind the line sufficiently for top international bowling, Hodge was also succeptible to the short ball, as anyone who remembers his embarassing dismissal by Andre Nel in '06 will remember. That was in his prime. Can anyone seriously imagine someone who has joined the ranks of superannuated retirees doing the T20 circuits for two years suddenly, at the age of 38, unretiring and handling the English bowlers in English conditions?
David
Guest
Implicit in your article seems to be the accusation that the current slectors are not doing a good job. Maybe you have been taken in by Warney's recent rants. In my opinion, and I'm sure those who actually follow cricket closely, they have done a very good job, and have developed a pool of players capable of doing Australia proud once the important matches against india and then England start to come around. They ahve been instrumental in turning the team around from a very low point 2 years ago. Seems to be a lot of hysteria in the media recently simply because Australia rested some players for the ODIs which are undoubledly the least important matches the team will play over a packed next 12 months. Australia's batting does not have much depth at present, but that is a reflection of the batting of Sheffield Shield sides over the last half a dozen years or so, not the fault of the selectors. Frankly, for some basketballer to be questioning the knowledge of Inverarity, Clarke, Rod Marsh, Bichel and Arthur is a bit rich.
David
Guest
"Quiney was going to be playing no more than two games" Nope. He had his chance and blew it, as Chaos said. Given his record, he should count himself lucky to have had the chance.
David
Guest
Agar is going to India for 7 days, NOT the whole tour. This is partly because the squad is going over to India in three stages, and there will only be eleven others there when the first 2-day match is played. Of course he doesn't get a baggy green - you have to be selected in the Test team for that.
Nick
Roar Guru
definitely. Hopes was twice as good as Watson. Hopes couldn't (or sensibly wouldn't) hit sixes...and I think thats why he was dropped.
Nick
Roar Guru
There have been plenty of players who have failed for their first few innings and yet still had more chances. Quiney was going to be playing no more than two games.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
They should be getting to State training sessions then.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Undoubtedly
Dadiggle
Guest
I did but answer my question. Do they offer them contracts?
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
They are part-time because there are often week-long gaps between games, particularly at shield level.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I'm glad you put 'probably' in there, Bayman, because it was really only the selectors that had an issue with Hodge, and it was because Hodge had an issue with them (in continuously getting overlooked). The myth that Hodge was disliked by other players is a shocking case of Chinese whispers becoming 'truth'. Enough people have heard it now that's it's unfortunately taken as gospel. Was he universally loved like a Mike Hussey? No. But it wasn't like he was some cancerous member of the change room or someone everyone hated.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Just to clarify - again - I'm not talking about the current selectors getting a payrise. I'm making the point that the positions themselves should potentially offer higher salaries, if it's an issue in not attracting the very best candidates.
Jason
Guest
Hardly. Perth and the MCG were a fiasco. I'm still not sure if Siddle was rested or actually injured. And Starc was apparently rested but later had bone spurs but later the bone spurs weren't enough for him not to play. Etc..
lolly
Guest
Yes, I think they are doing a decent job too given the constraints. 'Silk purse' and 'sow's ear' spring to mind when you look at the available talent.
lolly
Guest
CA was having problems with the stream so I couldn't watch any sessions the first day which was a shame as watching wickets fall is fun. Us Warriors fans must take our domestic cricket pleasure how we can.
lolly
Guest
But Invers does give thorough explanations frequently. And still gets caned for it.
lolly
Guest
I thought he is only going over for a week while WA don't have a Shield match - for the net bowling and the first tour match. I'm sure he's not over there for the duration.