At present everyone has an opinion on the Australian cricket team and its governor, Cricket Australia.
In the main those opinions are strongly and passionately held.
With the team floundering in India at present and facing the prospect of a four-nil whitewash some fans are really going in hard – on Twitter, radio talkback, letters to the editor – wherever they can find an outlet for their frustrations.
But just how much blame should be directed at CA with regard to some of the key areas that are causing the greatest angst with the punters?
Much of what is being vilified are issues that arose out of the Argus Report, a team performance review initiated by CA in the wake of the Ashes loss in 2010-11.
The panel charged with reviewing all aspects of the Australian team’s performance was led by former BHP Billiton and National Australia Bank chairman, Don Argus, a man with a very solid background in corporate management and governance.
The second member of the panel was Malcolm Speed, former CEO of both CA and the ICC.
The last three men called upon to make up the committee were former Australian Test captains Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh.
Between that trio – regarded by most cricket followers as some of the best brains in Australian cricket – they boasted a total of 428 matches in the baggy green, 200 of them as skipper.
If you were going to select three men with cricket pedigree to help shape the future of the sport at elite level in this country it is hard to imagine choosing a more worthy trio.
When men like them speak, along with the other two panellists with such strong administrative backgrounds in business and sport, CA would be hard pressed to argue with their recommendations.
And yet, that is what a vast number of Australian cricket fans are currently doing – telling the likes of Border, Taylor and Waugh that they don’t know what they are doing.
It was this panel that recommended the current restructure of the National Selection Panel.
Their exact recommendation was that the NSP for Tests, ODIs and T20s consist of:
– A full-time national selector (who will chair the panel and retain a casting vote)
– The Test, ODI and T20 captain as appropriate
– The Head Coach
– Two independent, part-time selectors
So, the CEO and the board of CA – most of whom don’t have strong playing backgrounds – are handed this recommendation from three esteemed former captains with over 400 Tests of experience.
It would seem a pretty fair bet that what the Argus group believed was the right way to take cricket forward would be implemented.
And why not, some of the most erudite cricket minds were making the recommendation.
Most cricket fans welcomed the appointment of Border, Taylor and Waugh to review the sport.
So, if the bulk of us believed they were the right men and CA did also, how could they have made such a cock-up?
Is it we, mere armchair critics, that know more than three great minds of the game?
Apparently so when you read the vitriol that is currently being cast at CA for allowing such a change to be implemented.
People argue that the coach should not be a selector. Why?
Alex Ferguson has a say in selecting Manchester United’s team each week.
Kookaburras coach Ric Charlesworth is on the selection panel of Hockey Australia.
And the coaches of every one of the 18 clubs in the AFL are on their respective selection panels, often with all the assistant coaches.
Fans say having a coach as a selector is a bad move because players could feel uncomfortable talking to them about certain issues as it may affect their selection.
Strangely though, myriad other teams and sports seem to have no problem with the concept.
People also point to the fact that the captain should not be a selector yet three former highly successful Australian Test captains believed it was the way to go.
Surely, as a result of having such an intimate knowledge of the selection process they must have had extremely sound reasons for recommending the skipper be placed on the NSP.
When men like that say it is necessary you can fully understand why ‘mere administrators’ agree.
People criticised the appointment of John Inverarity to the role of NSP chairman saying he had been out of the game for too long.
But is that really such an issue?
Selectors don’t need to be fully conversant with the latest trends in biomechanics, diet and which isotonic drink works best – they simply need to know how to evaluate cricketing talent.
And I would think a man who was seen as having one of the most astute minds in the game during his tenure as captain of Western Australia would certainly still have the nous and wherewithal to identify talent.
People will always disagree with certain selections or omissions but ruling Inverarity out on grounds of his time away from a hands on role in the sport is not relevant.
I would feel the same if rather than Inverarity, CA had appointed the likes of Ric McCosker or Paul Sheehan.
Then there is the rotation policy.
Nobody seems to like it yet the likes of Rod Marsh, a tough as nails throwback to the truly macho days of Australian cricket, obviously does as he is a selector.
Some may argue that he has just one vote among five.
True, he could be outvoted but I would think that a man of Marsh’s character would soon resign his post if he felt cricket was heading down the wrong path.
Even the quintessential never-say-die Dennis Lillee has spoken out in favour of the rotation policy.
The Argus Report also suggested that a new position be created – general manager of team performance.
This is the role that Pat Howard currently holds.
But hang on, isn’t he from a rugby background?
He may not be the right man for the job, and recruitment mistakes can always occur, but simply ruling people out because they come from a different sport is extremely short-sighted.
Professional sport is a business, and as such, cross pollination should be accepted in all areas just as it is in the corporate world.
The role Howard occupies is still an administrative one and not one that requires him to coach or instruct players on technique.
Plenty of sports in this country have either employed or ‘poached’ administrators from other codes – Malcolm Speed from basketball to cricket; John O’Neill from rugby to soccer; former AFL powerbroker Ben Buckley moved to the FFA; and David Gallop, the former CEO of the NRL took the same role at the FFA.
It happens all the time.
The poaching of foreign coaches is yet another very common occurrence nowadays, especially in cricket.
Zimbabwean Duncan Fletcher coached England and is now overseeing India’s demolition of Australia; Gary Kirsten coached India before taking over his native South Africa; New Zealander John Wright coached India and Zimbabwe’s Andy Flower will be in charge of England at this year’s Ashes series.
Australians Tom Moody, Dav Whatmore, Geoff Lawson, Steve Rixon, Geoff Marsh, Jamie Siddons, John Dyson and several others have been snapped up overseas.
Australia is not the font of all knowledge in the cricketing world and the appointment of Mickey Arthur, who masterminded South Africa’s series victory in Australia in 2007-08 – the first by a touring team in 15 years – en route to taking the Proteas to world number one, boasted excellent credentials when CA appointed him as the Australian coach.
And then there is the current captain.
Taylor, Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud and many other cricketing sages saw him as the right option to replace Ponting.
During the Australian summer many experts, including former national captains, praised his tactical nous and attacking attitude plus the way he was able to improve his own personal output despite the added burdens of captaincy – after 24 Tests at the helm he scored nine centuries and averaged 66.
Now, a handful of weeks later and with a fractious tour of India both on and off the field some are writing him off.
Sure, he may need to work on his interpersonal skills off the ground and if he is sensible he will accept it band CA will arrange it.
But, as a match day skipper, he has received the tick from many people in the game who have powerful and influential voices.
So, there you have it.
Some of the things implemented of late may not have worked out and that is often the case in business.
But before guns are levelled at CA, in particular, remember just who it is they have taken their advice and guidance from – Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, Ian Chappell, Rod Marsh, Dennis Lillee et al.
Some things may have not worked out as hoped but it is worth remembering that many of the things implemented came from some of the best cricketing brains in the world.
And that being the case it would seem strange if a bunch of administrators didn’t take their recommendations on board.
sam
Guest
GUESS WHAT??? NOTHING WRONG WITH THE AUSTRALIAN TEAM. Australian's are realising other teams are better. HOW ARROGANT to believe when you lose you are doing something wrong because you should always win..... WAKE up...there is a world out there.
Bearfax
Guest
Harry I agree with much you had to say in your earlier comment on captains not being selectors and the problems with the administration. But this comment you've just made is obviously borne out of frustration and not much clear consideration of the value of the players you are identifying. Lets start with Warner. Warner may be struggling with the Indians and having to learn quickly how to adapt to spin of this quality but statistically he is our second best batsman after Clarke with a test average over 41. For all his faults, he still knows how to score runs and do it quickly and on occasion demolish a bowling attack. There is no way, at this time, that you would drop Warner. We would be much weaker without him Then there's Hughes. I know he's had a bad tour. It happens to the best of players. But he's 24-25 years old. It happens to young players in their early career in tests. We know he can score runs and build big innings. He's done it often before in first class cricket and a couple of times in tests. His performances have apparently been shown to be on a par with Ponting when he first started. A kid with this much talent, you've just got to persevere with. He's been very successful in English county cricket so we know he can handle that environment well, as can Khawaja. Quiney should never have been given a test cap. Unlike Hughes and Warner, he is now over 30 and therefore probably at the peak of his potential. Yet he has a first class average of only 35.78. Worse still his first class average from his last four matches is 28.4. That's less at first class level that Hughes and Khawaja at test level. Do you really want such a player in the test side....would be even more disastrous and would also not gain anything given his age. Much the same applies to Shaun Marsh, who I know you didnt mention, but is a name that keeps popping up as our great potential saviour. Rubbish. He may be a good batsman at the shorter form of the game, but he consistently fails in the longer form. First class average 35.77. Test average 27.36. And he is in the 30 years range. Again, some people are not thinking clearly about these guys. And now Steve Smith. He's been attacked because of some loose shots that have got him out. Well I've seen Ponting do loose shots that get him out too. What is it about Steve Smith that people dont like. He has a first class average of almost 42, and a test average, remembering he is only 23 with limited tests of 32.36, only fractionally less that Cowan. And unlike Cowan, Smith will get better. I'm quite OK about loose shots if he is scoring just as well as those who seem more disciplined. Says to me their potential is significantly better.
Harry of Floreat
Guest
For the record, I hope that anyone who pulls the baggy green on does well in the test match arena, however, selections are not justified with a single innings and hence Hughes would get the chop. He only played because of homework-gate. I don't care that he thinks he has changed his technique, what he has is not a sustainable technique at this level. If they shielded him from the Saffer's, then what chance against the poms in England (perhaps they should bring Quiney back for that series and then reinstate Hughes at home!) Warner has to go. Yes he mesmerises people with one day and T20 innings in the test match arena every now and then but the manner of his second innings dismissals in both of the last 2 tests has been nothing short of astounding. They talk about a team culture and doing things as instructed, I will guarantee you he wasn't told to go and cross-bat swipe in the first over of the second innings in Mohali and if you read Arthur's comments after the second test, he and Hughes actually disobeyed pre-second innings instructions to go and take heed of the Vijay-Pujara partnership in that test and not play across the line. Both out sweeping. It is selfish, dumb cricket. Good riddance to T20 and One dayers where he is a terrific player. Cowan and 'last chance saloon' Watson should open in England and failing that bring back Buck Rogers.
Harry of Floreat
Guest
Glen, "Marsh is a selector and hence a proponent of the rotation policy?" That's just not a defensible statement. He may respect the solidarity associated with the selection panel and not speaking out against decisions, but that does not mean he is a supporter of the rotation policy. Where is the proof in that statement? I wouldn't believe it until I see his quotes. The captain should not be a selector, because he is a cricketer that needs to be selected and he shouldn't be able to choose himself. He can be a tour selector, that's fine, but not a squad selector. As good a captain as Clarke might be on the field, it is blindingly obvious that he is not a good man manager and would appear to favour those in his own image. That doesn't auger well for the near term for Australian cricket. As for the coach, well jury is out for me, I can see the merits of him being a selector, but I think back to the Bob Simpson era of sycophancy and I shudder. The recent happenings in the Australian camp are swiftly taking me back there.
Harry of Floreat
Guest
Smith only got to play and score his 92 because of homework-gate, otherwise all the criticisms of him would stand the test based on his previous test performances. Some of his test dismissals resemble what you would expect of third grade suburban cricket. His dismissal in the second innings was just awful and belied any technical strengths he had claims to.
Blackie
Guest
The present demise in the fortunes of Australian Cricket arose from poor team selection as far back as the 2009 Ashes when they only took 2 openers on tour.. Phil Hughes should have been persevered with. He got 36 in his one bat at Cardiff in the First Test. Then at Lords he got 4 and 17. Johnson was bowling rubbish and then they drop the young opener to put in an allrounder and non opener in Watson in order to cover for the possibility that Johnson might start missing the pitch altogether. Watson has some limited success with the bat and then suddenly we are stuck with him. Inevitably Watson breaks down and then we have to find an opener again. Hughes is struggling by this time and so they get another opener in Cowan. Cowan is doing ok so they have to keep him when Watson comes back. Meanwhile Hughes gets his form back and is restored to the team where he should have stayed all along. Unfortunately we are now left with 4 openers which is what Watson is if he does not bowl.or bat 6. The team has been selected to revolve around Watson. Any wonder he does not think he needs to complete his homework! If Watson is not bowling and batting at 6 then he has to go. Then one out of the group Warner, Cowan and Hughes has to go. I would keep Warner and Hughes because of their age as well as their ability. We could then bring in Bailey,Kawajah or Marsh or any other middle order batsmen that one might fancy..
Matt F
Roar Guru
I'm not saying that Smith is in the same class as him, just that they have similar overall records. It was an argument about cuzza's point that Smith doesn't have a record when he clearly does. It doesn't hurt to remember that Smith is only 23 so you would expect Khawaja at 26 to be better.
sheek
Roar Guru
Glenn, Having thought more about this over 24 hours, I think the cricketing setup is right, even if we might quibble about individuals. I think it appropriate that both coach & captain are selectors, while the convener of the NSP is full time. Here's an easy exercise for fans, pick your favourite ex-players as coach & selectors. Now ask yourself if you're happy with the set-up? I think the problem is that too many fans play personalities rather than looking at the situation & the structures on their merits. However, CA must accept responsibility for the way it is tinkering with playing structures. This I believe is a major problem.
Bearfax
Guest
Hey Luke. Dont forget to use the Force....sorry I know you've heard that too often before. But I'm referring to Sandhu, who has been killing them as a fast bowler in his first few games in all versions. He could end up our best fast bowler. Then there is a special kid not yet in the Shield called Bosisto. Understand he has a very mature nature and is an outstanding batsman. Ahmed also deserves a mention
The Gospel of Luke
Guest
No doubting the credentials of Border,Taylor and Waugh. I'm not trying to denigrate their knowledge on the game. They got alot of things right in the Argus Review. But even the best can make mistakes imo. The problem is Border, Taylor and Waugh are looking at it from the point of view as former Captains. They are probably thinking of what is best for Michael Clarke. I think all 3 of those men would of loved to have those selection capabilities during their times as captain. But what is best for Michael Clarke is not necessarily what is best for the performance of the team. He naturally will want to pick guys he gets along with (it happens in all walks of life) and may not select teams based on performance and ability to contribute to the Australian team. I highlighted my problem with Arthur being a selector. I've certainly not played to anywhere near that sort of level but know from experience that I would not want to inform someone (with the potential to drop me from the team) of my weaknesses that are affecting my game (both mentally, physically and technically), if that person can then use my weaknesses to drop me from the team. I understand what they were trying to do with putting Captain and Coach on the selection panel (create more accountabilty in the performance from both Captain and Coach). But I think it creates more problem than it solves. And onto Pat Howard as High Performance Manager. I do think that sporting codes should keep an open mind about bringing in people from other sports that can provide relevant skills to the benefit of their particular sport. And it certainly can work in some instances (ie the example you said about England Rugby in 03). But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in every instance and that there aren't guys better suited to the job. One of the roles of High Performance Manager (in reading the Argus Review) was to liason with the Centre of Excellence and the State Coaching systems to ensure that the coaching setup is performing the way it should. I was a big advocate of having Rodney Marsh as the High Performance Manager (as he has the track record of understanding what it takes to setup coaching systems in Australia and England and the role sounded perfect for him). The role needs imo extensive experience in "Cricket" coaching and understanding of the structure of what makes a successful "Cricket" system. Rod Marsh is widely credited with the success of Australia's CoE and England's CoE. Anyway thanks for replying, Glenn.
Phil
Guest
Agree fully
pope paul v11
Guest
Fair enough as always Glenn
Vivek
Guest
Yes hard to feel sorry for a guy who used the homework episode to take attention away from the onfield failures and is again looking for excues by saying that we are missing Hussey and Ponting, get on with the job and pick players on merit and not who your favorites are. Pattinson, Khawaja and Watson should come in for the Dehli test
Red Kev
Guest
Hard to feel sorry for a guy who's been wasting his time on twitter when he should have been coaching the side about how to (a) bowl spin effectively and (b) play spin effectively. If he can't do those things what is he paid for? Oh I know, to make stupid statements in the press all the time - it was kind of sad to read about his eagerness for Mike Hussey to return.
Calum
Guest
In some ways I broadly agree with that. India are always dangerous in there home conditions, Australia send an inexperienced side in transition ... What did people think was realistically likely to happen? However, I really think there are things going on that are just baffling. Where to start? Quiney in the SA series, the Perth selection debacle, not playing 2 spinners, dropping Lyon for the second test and suggesting he has confidence problems, then picking him again, homeworkgate, and on, and on, and on. Okay, so maybe people loose sight of the fact it was always going to be a tough tour. Maybe had all these decision been right it still wouldn't have been a succesful tour but you have to think it would a hell of a lot better! At the moment things are shambolic.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I wholeheartedly agree Nick. It is disgraceful that Mickey Arthur has been forced to close his Twitter account due to constant abusive tweets directed his way by faceless cowards, the majority of whom no doubt go under pseudonyms that have no bearing to their actual names. Everyone has the right to disagree with his theories and practices but there is absolutely NO need to abuse him personally through the social media. Anyone is able to get their point or dissatisfaction across without having to resort to abuse. In short, people need to grow up!
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Pope Paul, you make a reasonable point re football coaches as selectors. However, Ric Charlesworth - arguably the greatest coach to have been produced in this country across all team spots - is currently a selector for the men's national hockey team, as he was when he led the women to two Olympic gold medals. Players who aren't selected by him cannot just move to another country without having to undergo a very significant time out of international competition until they qualify to represent their adopted country. The presence of Charlesworth as a national selector of teams he has coached does not seem to have diluted his team's performance.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Luke, Ric Charlesworth's assistant coach during his reign as coach of the dual Olympic gold-medal winning women's hockey team was a chap named Chris Spice. He was poached by England Rugby as its high performance manager. Chris played a substantial role in England winning the 2003 Rugby World Cup staged in Australia. So choosing someone to cross over between sports is not necessarily a recipe for disaster as you have intimated with regard to CA employing someone from another code. It is interesting that you throw up the name of Greg Chappell. Border, Taylor and S Waugh are said to be wrong re their belief that the captain should be a selector. Marsh is a selector and as such is a strong proponent of the much maligned rotation policy. All these issues are re basis of this article. Effectively, what people are saying is that four former longstanding & successful Test captains plus a veteran wicketkeeper of 96 Tests have got it wrong. If these legendary and highly successful names can't get it right just who should CA go to for advice or employ in their stead?
Phil
Guest
I am a fan of Agar too, good young talent
Phil
Guest
I think its obvious that UTK being on the sidelines for 4 months is not fair, he deserves a crack in Dehli.