The answer to Cricket Australia's shattered image was there all the time

The more important question to ask is what "should" the High performance manager do? To me the HPM should only be responsible for organising data, sub-metrics, coaches and sports science for the National team. All player development pathways and junior programs should be moved to a Pathways/High performance manager for each State who are not beholden to anyone but the State association. The national High Performance manager should also have zero input into the Shield or other domestic comps. This way we can return to having actual Comps where the State coaches KPI's are reduced to winning the Shield and JLT cups. Right now their KPI's are all around producing players for the National team.

The question is whether she is currently more valuable to the organisation in an executive capacity. The Chair does not get involved in the day to day running of the organisation.

Clark is only filling and there are now plans for her to take the role full time. At this point she will be heading back to her existing role.

Everything since the beginning of the 'High-performance era' through recommendation, hasn't worked out so well. Perhaps it is needed in this modern professional environment, but I remain unconvinced. Australia were the best side in the world for a long period before anything of the sort was created.

The chairperson of any entity should be both a figurehead (i.e. someone with a strong public image) and someone who knows the ins and outs of their organisation's subject matter intimately. In the case of cricket that's not just the national side, but everything down to grass roots. The directors with financial, legal, marketing, corporate etc. expertise should be the ones supporting the chair, not the other way around. The chair is responsible for steering the ship as a whole. You need someone whose primary focus is on what the goals of the organisation are, not the finer points of how it operates. From what I know of Clark she would seem to be a decent option for chair. Clearly that won't happen in the short term, though.

I think your last sentence is very pertinent. The fact that the role was questionable under Howard doesn't mean Clark can't make it useful. Let's wait and see what she can do with it.

It comes across as patronising because it's saying 'hey look, women can be in charge now too' as if we were starting from an assumption that Clark couldn't be in a senior position because of her gender. What I'm assuming David was trying to get at was the patriarchy in CA (or perhaps elite sports generally). It doesn't actually read that way because he goes out on a tangent with women in politics, but since this is easily the best, most positive David Lord article I can recall reading I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. On Clark - wonderful appointment. Maybe she can actually make this position worthwhile.

What does a high performance director actually do? My understanding of what Pat Howard did was to rotate bowlers out of the team when they were in form, not get enough overs into bowlers so they continually broke down and make the players do meaningless homework. If the role is about management of workloads and the like, then what are Belinda Clark's credentials for the role? Sure, she's played lots of women's cricket, but the loads and pressures are nothing like men's cricket. Or did he do something else entirely?

Beat me to it, Sheek. The resources should’ve been channeled towards junior development long ago, not some hazy, preposterous role that Howard was parachuted into. He’s probably amazed himself, that the whole charade lasted this long.

Spruce moose, Why is this comment from David Lord patronising? What is shameful is that its taken 140 years (of Australia playing international cricket) for a woman to be appointed to such a supposedly senior position. I say supposedly because I have my own doubts about the worth of the position of High Performance Director. I would totally endorse Belinda Clark as chairman of Cricket Australia. Unlike Raelene Castle over at Rugby Australia, which smells highly suspiciously of a politically correct appointment, Clark is the real deal.

James, I'm not really a fan of High Performance Director. What is high performance exactly? We all think we know what it means, but it might be one of those things that means different things to different people. To me, High Performance Director might mean ensuring all states & territories are on the same page delivering high quality tutoring & mentoring in basic skills. To CA, it might mean maximising revenue streams & keeping 'their' family, broadcasters & sponsors happy, at the expense of the 'real' family, that being players & fans. I think I would rather have a Basic Skills Director, someone who ensured every young player in the game was properly grounded in the basic techniques of the game, but without interfering with useful individual idiosyncracies. High Performance Director seems to be another of those inventions of administrative bodies, which is just another excuse to pay someone lots of money for a title that sounds grand & meaningful, but is really quite fluffy & elusive.

My bet is either Lehman or chappell.

We'll agree to disagree on the cricket matter but I do agree with you about Yvonne Sampson. By far far the most competent and professional female sports presenter on TV. How on earth did Chanel 9 let her go.

Agreed. Clark's gender has nothing to do with her claims to the role.

The question should not be who will replace Howard. It is should the role exist in the future, and if it does how should it be redefined. Clark has already said she doesn't want the job long term.

Yet only last week you INSISTED John Howard and Sir John Major were chairman material. Literally unbelievable. It's shocking how you abuse and belittle Christo when you yourself held a contrary view? Editors - surely David needs to actually apologise to Christo for this? he's asked a perfectly valid question in the context of VERY recent articles by David? This is not only rude, but it's deeply unprofessional. David has flip flopped frequently, and when people legitimately ask why, he's resorted to abuse.

"cricket more than any other sport needs a cricketer in the chair" Why?

If you're OK with David changing his mind about who should be CA's Board Chair on an almost daily basis that is your right of course. Just as it's my right to take a different view and express it. I'm confused about the "cheap and pointless political comment" though - what are you referring to? I didn't realise I had made one!

The coach IS that...as are the state coaches and the academy coaches. We have had a very clear indication that the High Performance coach works against high performance.

No I didn't. It was an attempt to backtrack. Nevermind.