Australian cricket’s armchair selectors have had somewhat of a ground-breaking summer.
The puzzling selections of Bobby Quiney against South Africa, Hastings in Perth, five bowlers in Sydney and the omission of Stephen O’Keefe for Glenn Maxwell and Xavier Doherty on the plane to India have created a summer unlike many others for Australia’s millions of ill-informed and unsanctioned selectors.
Like you I’ve joined the party bandying about all sorts of criticisms despite my Sheffield Shield observations being limited to CricInfo’s impressive array of domestic stats.
And here is where a lot of the debate and criticism of the National Selection Panel becomes tiresome and irrelevant.
Very few people watch the Sheffield Shield, the true testing field for Test cricket hopefuls. Of the people that do watch the Shield religiously even less have access to details such as players off field behaviour, application to training and impact upon team dynamics.
I believe the number of people armed with all this information across the State sides totals single figures.
Essentially you are left with the National Selection Panel which I therefore conclude the most qualified candidates for Test cricket selection, regardless of how brain dead they can appear to be.
Why? Because like it or not, the other variables that we’re not privy too are important. Incredibly important and no one can make intelligent decisions without being armed with all the relevant data.
If winning cricket matches was a simple as picking the blokes who top scored or took a bagful of wickets last week the Argus review would not have identified selection as an area for significant improvement.
While I’m not saying selectors can’t be wrong or shouldn’t be criticized, look at the last home Ashes series for a crash course in suicidal selections.
I’m simply saying is we should gives the players selected the benefit of the doubt and support to exceed rather than the oft written comments along the lines of I hope we lose so player ‘X’ is dropped for player ‘Y’.
I wrote an article a few days ago (Tall Poppy Syndrome is Alive and Well) on our propensity to cannibalise our own sporting stars and the vitriol directed at a young Australian that has done nothing more than strive to represent us and get picked in a touring squad has been downright appalling.
Especially from a misinformed crowd of hecklers that probably don’t watch the Sheffield Shield and at the very least know very little about the sub-surface qualities of the various alternatives being thrown around.
I will qualify this article by stating I was disappointed Stephen O’Keefe wasn’t selected to tour India as I believe he is the best fit spin bowler in the country.
This is based entirely on the mediocre offerings of Nathan Lyon in the Test arena, the handful of times I have seen fringe spinners bowl and the ever reliable CricInfo statistics.
This is my opinion which perhaps mirrors your own and the majority of readers on the Roar but I can acknowledge I’m not placed favourably to be picking a Test squad and those that are well placed to aid our success have this responsibility.
So I’m willing to back Lyon, Doherty and Maxwell and hope against my own judgement that they will be successful. Shouldn’t the rest of Australia?
I’ll leave you with an illustration of the importance of attitude and team dynamics at the selection table in a cricket side.
I play mediocre level park cricket with a group of mates and have managed to be relatively successful in the past five years, winning four premierships.
The fifth year we ended up runners up. However it was that year that we fielded our most talented side, on the sole basis of two outstanding players.
It was the only year we have had two players score multiple centuries, the only time we’ve had two players pass 500 runs in a season and of finally the only time we’ve had two players average over 35 let alone 60.
Statistically it was our best side hands down. We regularly posted scores of 300 and bowled teams out for under 70. We cruised into a grand final unbeaten having beaten our opponents by more than 200 runs in our only previous encounter.
The two however were toxic to the dynamic of the team. They were players far better than the level of competition we played at, that didn’t get along.
The side was silently split into two camps as the two fought for control of the side. Sure enough the situation eventually exploded in the field on grand final day and despite having the opposition two for nothing we managed to drop our bundle and they posted 240.
The bickering and in-fighting continued after the days play and into the next morning until we were dismissed for 75 in an absolute shellacking. And based on the final 48 hours the side became untenable, disbanded for a year before rejoining sans toxic influences in a new district for more premiership glory.
The underlying cause of the terrible performance in the field was the lack of camaraderie and team morale eroded by the dynamics of the side.
Statistically the two players would be the first players picked in any side I’ve played in over the last five years. But four times I’ve learnt that success boils down to more than just individual runs and wicket.
In this case it had to be one or none of them to ensure the team could be successful.
We all want to win in India and then back-to-back Ashes series. The simplest way to achieve this is for players selected over the next 18 months to perform in the Baggy Green and I for one will continue cheering on the eleven men chosen to run out for Australia.
Because for me Australians being successful and sweeping all comers in three days like the good old days is more important than my favourite player getting picked.
Praveen
Guest
John as you guys have mentioned attitude along with runs have lead to Hughes and Khawaja's fortunes this season, both have worked hard and are being rewarded
James
Guest
Agree entirely. There are decisions I am a little uncomfortable with but the reasoning is completely sound (eg Hughes - I still reckon that he is going to spend his ashes getting caught in the slip but I think that he has shown enough at the domestic level to be worthy of another chance at test level - and to be honest if not Hughes who) There are decisions I really disagree with but for which I can understand the reasoning (eg Quiney, Starc in tests) And then there are decisions which make no sense (eg the selection of the fast bowlers for the SA test at the WACA - ignoring the good performers at domestic level (eg Bird) and picking stragglers like Hastings and the selection of Doherty instead of O'Keefe) As a Tasmanian supporter I would love to see Doherty picked for the test and take 10 wickets for under 200 for the match but I don't really think it is going to happen.
John Edgar
Guest
Well said Sunil.
A Punter
Guest
I still see no logic for the selection of Hastings against SA and the exclusion of SOK. If the selectors have the stats as you they, then they should use them! Doherty and Hastings are not on the radar in the Shield stats.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
You've hit the nail on the head St Mark. What does it matter if someone doesn't meet some illdefined cultural benchmark? Players will always be different and don't have to be best mates. As long as they are not obviously disruptive who cares? Dean Jones related recently that Border barely spoke to him in the 4 weeks prior to his Madras epic. Old Capt Cranky may have had personal views or was just that sort of bloke but he got stuck with Deano and duly picked him on merit. I think a major problem is that the coach and captain are selectors, touring aside. It makes them less than objective and more inclined to put their favourites forward. By all means they should have a say on who they prefer but never the final one.
Renegade
Guest
St Mark W, Good post. "Any selection system that isn’t primarily based on statistics is, rightly, open to criticism of favouritism and nepotism." I have seen Moneyball and i agree stats are an important part however the conflict in Cricket is they can interpreted to suit any argument. The problem i have is a lot of people have recently tabled some ridiculous stats to suggest why a player they hate shouldn't be in the team or one of their favourites should and this seems to be more the case in Cricket than other sport. In RL, the number of tackles, hit ups, etc can't be interpreted in any other manner however in cricket, it's the pitch condition and lack of quality of opposition and all sorts of ridiculous factors get placed into the debate to try and justify or argue against a stat. A perfect example is how sheffield shield stats of a player are used against the international stats of a current australian player to justify a direct swap......it's not a level playing field. One is playing at international level and the other at state level!! "A true professional would not allow personal differences to impact team performance." Totally agree however I believe attitute is a key part and if the person has the talent they also need to have the right attitude.. Jarryd Hayne is a perfect example in rugby league, all the talent in the world however he hasn't always had the right attitude thinking his talents alone allowed him for special treatment in a team environment which isn't good for team dynamics or culture. That being said, if someone has the right attitude, talent and stats to back it up then they should be picked. There shouldn't be a situation why a player is not picked just because someone else in the team doesn't like him.
matt h
Guest
Taken to the extreme - I've been told I'm a really really good bloke. Select me ... I can't play cricket though. There obviously has to be a balance here. In the all conquering Oz side of the Waugh/Ponting era there were blokes in that side that did not get along and had wildly differing philosophies on life. They seemed to do ok. They were completely destroying the English even while Hayden and Martyn were at odds. So professional teams can do a lot to overcome personality issues. England are ahead of us and they comtinue to live with Pietersen. Stats do not tell us everything, but they must tell us something. It is logical that the better bowler will in most situaitons take more wickets than an inferior competitor. If it consistently happens like SOK compared to other spinners bandied about, then it MUST say something.
St Mark W
Guest
Have you watched 'Moneyball' or read the book? If you haven't I'd encourage you to do so. The basic idea is that a competitive can be built from unfashionable and unheralded players based purely on their stats that show they can get the job done. Bottom line, sport really is all about the numbers. I think you are stretching to fit the dynamics of your park cricket team to the selection of a professional Australian representative. A true professional would not allow personal differences to impact team performance. Anybody who thinks they have a 'right' to be in the team should be shown that they don't, by not being selected. Any selection system that isn't primarily based on statistics is, rightly, open to criticism of favouritism and nepotism. In accord with the NSP better communication policy, if a player is being left out because of perceived personality or behavioural failings then that should be clearly conveyed to the player and the fact be made known to the supporters of Australian cricket. I'm all for supporting the selected Australian team.
Sunil
Guest
Good article, an example of this is when last season both Hughes and Khawaja were told to go away and wok on their fielding, both changed states and did this successfully and we could see the improvements in their fielding this season. Often we don't have access to this extra information but the key is for players to take the right attitude and the guys in this example did which is why they have been rewarded this season and why both are in India at present.
James
Guest
Except of course when the team isn't performing and the players who we know haven't performed at domestic level then underperform at test level.
Renegade
Guest
This is the most common sense article, post, comment written about the Australian Cricket Team and it's selection over the last 6 months. I've posted previously that regardless of my opinion, i'll cheer on whoever gets picked. I'm also sick of people throwing up stupid stats and shield figures into the debate.
A View From the Top
Roar Pro
Makes you think perhaps there's more to the story? In fairness to X his first few years of Shield were atrocious which skews his career record and he plays half his games in Hobart. Why a spinner, let alone two would play for Tasmania has me beat. Agar is mo where near ready, not even close to close
Dinny Navaratnam
Roar Guru
The article makes a lot of sense. A lot of us wonder why Doherty is picked ahead of O'Keefe but the selectors would know a lot more than us as the general public. As the writer points out, team culture is crucial to performance.
Varun
Guest
Let's send a SOK for an SOS
Johnno
Guest
Stephen O’Keefe omission I just can't work out. Doherty has had an awful 1st class season. And the young WA spinner, has had good 1st class year.