Time for Cricket Australia to bite the bullet over selectors

Clarke threw everyone under the bus including himself. If you were going to war he would be the last bloke you would want. And now he's white anting himself into the channel 9 team. Gees I have to turn the t.v. off when he comes on.

Sutherland gets a pass then, I presume?

Apparently, in Cricket Australia's system, the selectors are never accountable. Well, not since Mickey Arthur was thrown under a bus by his partner in crime, captain MJ Clarke, following the "Homeworkgate" tour of India. Since then, when has there been accountability? Sure, Rod Marsh fell on his sword after last summer's "Terror in Tassie" test, but he was ending his reign shortly after that regardless. I recall Darren Lehmann, in his early days as Australian coach, advising players desiring test selection that test batsmen will be selected on big scores in shield and bowlers will be picked for their shield wicket tally. That seemed to be a fairly reasonable and very transparent selection method. Since that comment there have been some great selections, based on that method. None better than Chris Rogers. However, there have been some "broken crystal ball" moments too and the names Marsh and Wade come to mind. Less speculative "look at your navel" decisions, made at the end of a drinking session at the races and more selections based on actual performances, with priority given to first class four day games, would be great.

Argus, that great business name, was also the CEO of NAB Who offered $24+ per share for AMP (whose chair foolishly declined the offer)barely days before the AMP share price slumped from $22 to under $10. Lucky Don, as opposed to "smart Don" should be his sobriquet and just why he was asked to do the ACB review only his fellow overpaid board members of failing Australian companies could answer.

Dean Jones?

Heck I'd probably do it for $30,000!

I wasn't suggesting he should have been dislodged (apart from on that Indian tour) - just that I rate Marto more.

lol spotto

Marto probably should have got an earlier call up, especially when guys like Blewitt and Elliot were getting plenty of tests. But I struggle to accept that Mark Waugh should have been dislodged for him - that's just too much "what if" for me.

Perry, As I said in my follow comment above, Jones, Border and Boon faced even better bowling. But as you can see in the rest of my comment, Waugh was a pretty amazing all round cricketer, the type that could change a game from anywhere on the field at any time. But yes, I'd say Jones was a better test bat for sure. I also wouldn't have dropped Jones when we did. Thing is, Jones was an unpopular figure with the establishment. If you're going to be controversial, you need to the be the best (think Warne), not just good.

Incidentally, Lawrie Sawle is the name that should always come up when there are complaints about the top level playing record or other qualifications of selectors (in that he had a moderate FC record & I think cricket administrative experience, but no more - and is regarded as one of the best ever).

In the case of Hohns, the explanation is he's a long term hobbyhorse of David's. About the most David comes up with is that some long serving players were dropped at the end of their careers on Hohns' watch.

I think Waugh deserved his place in the team and was he also a once in a generation fielder. Talent wise he was as at least as good as Steve but not as dedicated. He actually said that he often was napping in the dressing room before he went in to bat and sometimes he hadn't quite woken up before taking strike. On that work ethic I wouldn't choose him as a selector. Leaving that aside, how hard can the job be? It's not like working out who should be starting as tight head prop where there are all sorts of nuances to take into account. Memo to cricket selectors - just start with who has the highest averages - and then there has to be a legitimate reason for picking someone who has a significantly lower one. And never, never, ever, pick someone who has a batting average of 21 and a bowling average of 37 - in any capacity. You don't need $300,000 per year to be aware of that.

Bah. Cricket fans on the net and around the traps fetishise the whole selection thing. They work themselves up into such a lather and with such conviction and unshakable certainty, they completely minimise the number of times they were completely wrong, even to the point of arguing the selectors still got the call wrong when the player they were against has been pivotal in victories. It's like little selection goldfish swimming round and round, astounded by the new rock that keeps appearing.

That's interesting anon as I get the opposite impression of Waugh. He (and Ponting & Gilchrist) have great empathy for the players as it is a tough game, even in the apparently hit and giggle land of BBL. I think they very forgiving of the trials and tribulations of the players having been through there own struggles. And they still have a laugh. Much more so than the humourless ch 9 cheer squad who generally are very critical of struggling players. You are right that he forgets stats. Probably inspired by his own 10 innings for 90 @ 9 in Sri Lanka.

#jamesb re Hohns, if I were to be critical based on length of tenure as a test cricket then yep - you gotta wonder. However that wasn't my point of consternation - it was simply the example setting of that time that might have been regarded as acceptable in the minds of people holding influence now. Or - perhaps we just write it off that Bob Simpson had too much power back then. Whatever the reason - it was an odd selection. #TheBush And Dean Jones averaging 46 was exposed from 1984 to 1992 to Holding, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Hadlee, Morrison, Akram, Waqar, Kapil, etc etc. My point was not demeaning M.Waugh against current players - simply that the man that they squeezed out after that tour to retain M.Waugh (and I'm suggesting that Martyn coming in might have been fine, he would come in for M.Waugh, but then the decision would have been to instead of dropping M.Waugh as was warranted that they dropped D.Jones) that Jones had faced many of the best fast bowlers of all time at their peak!!! And also re-wrote the ODI batting handbook.

Great stuff Bush...that mirrors my recollections and thoughts of Waugh. I think he would have been better if he wasn’t in such a great side. His best often came when Australia was in trouble and his annoying lackadaisical worst when they were on top.

If you watch Mark Waugh in commentary you realise he's an intellectual lightweight. In BBL games, seems like the least informed guy in the commentary box. Doesn't know basic player stats, can't remember recent player performances, his observations are the type that any casual cricket viewer could make. Selector is bit of a nothing job. You're not really accountable unless the team falls off a cliff, and even then you just blame the players but take the "fall" by resigning.

He was the best to watch of his era and probably a lot of eras. Made it look easy but he was a fighter nonetheless.

Fair enough