Why Darren Lehmann shouldn't be a selector

The difference with cricket stems from the fact that historically it was the captain who controlled the team. The coach in cricket is a relatively new concept. The selection panel picked a team, and the captain ran the show. If you listen to the likes of Chappelli and Warne, they would still like it that way.

Mitch Marsh's test bowling figures aligns closely with that of Steve Waugh. If only, Mitch could follow in those footsteps with his batting. I am not saying for a moment that Mitch should be in the test side, but should he be selected, this will be the closest he has been to having his batting form actually warrant selection. Given our selection panel's love for Mitch Marsh his return to the squad was not a surprise. There may be several batsmen in superior form to Marsh, but it was always going to be an emergent rush back to the team scenario when or if he made a big score. Let's be realistic... If Shaun Marsh was the best choice at the start of the test series with his shield season average of 39, then Mitch Marsh averaging 44 was always a fast track to test team situation.

Lordy this is the right article about the wrong bloke It’s Michael Chieka who needs to be removed from the selection committee if the country is to unite behind the national rugby union team (not just Sydney)

Hey, hey ! Um, yeah well fair point....

Somehow, someone always manages to manufacture a way to bring the Marsh brothers back in. (That being said, Shaun is making their critics look a little silly at the moment). You got it spot on re quality. It's one thing to say a players' skill sets match a strategic requirement or percieved needs in relation to team balance - which is what they harp on about endlessly nowadays. Its another thing entirely to say a player's skills are adequate for a given level. In the case of Mitch Marsh, he has the lowest batting average of a number 6 in the history of test cricket - lower than Starc's, off memory. And his bowling average is nearly 40. His figures, by comparison, make Shane Watson look like a Gary Sobers or Jacques Kallis. And no one can say he has not had a fair crack of the whip. The biggest problem has always been his batting. There is no way, on past form, he is fit to be a number 6, and it is crazy to say he should be regarded as a better batting option than either Hanscomb or Maxwell. It will be interesting to see if Mitch Marsh has made serious inroads in improving his technique, or if the good form is a temporary deviation from the norm. Either way, I don't see the rush to bring him back when he is really there for the bowling, but has bowled 22 overs in two games - that's an average of 11 a match and about five an innings. That doesn't shout out match fit to me. We have heard a lot from Justin Langer lately. Justin Langer is an Australian great. He supports his local boys and believes in them and fair enough, you would expect nothing less. You can't blame him for anything he has said, but people listening to his advice need to put what he says into perspective.

The guy they call Boof is, has been, and will always be a dipstick.

Does Lehmann feel obligated to give Geoff Marsh's kids a leg up because Lehmann wasn't able to crack the national team until Marsh was coaching? Lehmann and Bob Simpson didn't get along if you remember. The Australian team is for the best players in the country. Not for the coach and captain to wield their power to avenge petty grievances or to help out mates.

It will be a huge slap in the face for Starc, Paine and Cummins if Mitch Marsh bats ahead of them in the order. All are superior Test batsmen to Mitch Marsh. I'd be reluctant to actually bowl Marsh because he's still coming off a long-term injury, more susceptible to injury when he bowls, and over a long sample size he's proven himself to be an ineffective bowler at Test level.

You only have to look at coaching staff to see there is a problem. One Canadian, one Englishman and one American. Don't we have good people here any more. A fielding coach and a fielding consultant.

I think all cricket teams do have panels, my question was when will one of them break with that tradition. All Blacks is interesting although I dont think of the QLD league team as an international team (but they might). Re Australian Olympic team sports, mens and womens football don't have a panel and I'm pretty sure mens and womens basketball don't, not sure about hockey, water polo, volleyball or rugby but I would be surprised if coahc wasn't sole selector. I think of it as a cricket curiosity as its more of an individual game within a team context. No professional football manager would accept someone else picking their team as tactics and personnel are so intrinsically interlinked.

How about we have a new selection maxim: unless you can competently bowl some variety to net standard then you don't get a look-in at positions 1 to 6 in the batting order. That'll knock the question of an all-rounder in the eleven on the head. The way this selection panel chops, changes and justifies their picks out-of-the-blue, may as well add another condition to the formula.

That's two articles in a row I'm agreeing with David. I feel like I'm losing my mind. First of all, Handscomb should be given another crack. And secondly if they are determined to swap him out, how is Maxwell not first cab off the rank. Disgraceful.

No. I don't think we'd be able to spot the difference between the Aussie team and the Warriors if JL was coach.

Most international sides in Cricket have a selection panel. Since the advent of coaches being appointed to senior positions in the past 30 years (our first may have been Bob Simpson?) they usually have a vote on the panel. Australia even had both the captain and the coach as selectors when touring until a few years ago. The All Blacks still have a selection panel as does the QLD League team and there are likely plenty of other examples. Most Aus Olympic team sports have selection panels.

Insightful article David. You've hit the nail on the head again. Incidentally do you know what the coach actually does? Is Boof a technical coach? Would he be the one to perhaps suggest that Peter Hanscomb does not play so far back so regularly? Or is he more of a manager?

I wonder when an international cricket team will break with tradition and fall into line with all other international sport (could be hyperbole, I havent checked) and have the coach pick the team.

Yep!

Excessively biased.

Gillespie

JL should be it.