There is one constant in Australian cricket that is guaranteed to get tongues wagging at home, in schools, workplaces and in pubs and clubs – selections for the Australian cricket sides.
For as long as I can remember, there have been ongoing sagas about players being selected or being left out of teams.
Each reader will have their own recollections of stars who they thought either should have got a game or should have been dropped for someone else; Rod Marsh being preferred to Brain Taber was my earliest recollection, Greg Campbell making the ’89 tour of England and Mr ‘Can’t Bowl, Can’t Throw’ Scott Muller making the team are a few players that spring to mind.
The past two seasons have continued the trend – selectors making decisions about player selections then failing to adequately explain their reasoning.
To this day, I cannot understand why Aaron Finch has been chosen as an opener, how Mitch Marsh earned a place in the third Test, how Marnus Labuschagne deserved consideration for the UAE tour or the fourth Test, why guys like Joe Burns, Matt Renshaw, Kurtis Pattinson and co can’t get a look in – and why Glenn Maxwell has not been considered at all.
I realise everyone has their own version of what our Test team should look like and I get it that Test selectors, in this case, are able to see far more cricket and understand the game better than I do. What I don’t like is being taken for a fool, because that’s what CA, through its selection panel is doing, to Australian cricket supporters at the moment.
The secret club which is the selection panel clearly feels no need to truthfully explain its decisions. There is no way for example, Mitch Marsh was the best option for the side in the last Test, as Tim Paine tried to explain pre-game.
The same guys have been arrogantly dismissive of public demand for explanations about Glenn Maxwell’s non-appearance in a baggy green and as recently as yesterday, failing to explain why the same top six guys, supplemented by a bloke who’s hardly made a Shield run this year, should be expected to beat an attack that hammered them in two innings less than a week earlier.
Glenn Maxwell celebrates a century. Was it his last in the baggy green? (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)
At present, it seems the selectors are a law unto themselves and this needs to change now. Cricket Australia needs to do three things to make selectors credible and responsive to the public who pays to watch games.
1. Selectors need to be on contract and paid well for their services. This should be an incentive to get the best people to apply, male or female;
2. All selections need to be completely justified. This includes specifics about why guys are in and others aren’t chosen. These explanations should be understandable by a ten-year-old and not some wishy-washy BS that makes for a good sound bite but means nothing;
3. Their tenure has to be based in results, exactly the same as it is for players. If they aren’t performing, then they’re sacked.
As a Roar expert said some years ago “these people decide who I get to watch play”. I want them to be open and accountable and above all, stop treating me like a fool with nonsensical selections.
Noah Barling
Roar Pro
The selectors need to get their act together. My local first-grade team is more clear with who they selected and why than they are.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Can we really point to 1st Grade form and just ignore Shield failure though?
Davico
Roar Pro
Actually the vast majority of funding for cricket in this country comes from the Federal government. (Schools, juniors, clubs etc). Without this funding the players that actually make it to be part of the national team would have zero pathways to even get there. Oh, and without the say so of the government the "Australian" cricket team would not be allowed to wear the "Coat of Arms" or "Officially" represent the country either at home or overseas. So as tax payers I think we are “we’re entitled to be told why”! Sporting bodies in this country can be run as much like private corporations as much as they like, but without the consent of the government they cannot claim to represent the country. Aside from the fact that every national sporting body that has tried it has done nothing but make our national teams worse off!!! eg Wallabies, Kangaroos, Swimming Australia etc
George
Guest
What are Langer's strengths?
Will
Guest
To dispel the myth that Matt Renshaw has scored no runs in 2018. Matt Renshaw 2018 Form: Sheffield Shield - 21 Innings, 2 not outs, 853 runs @ 44.89 Country Cricket - 11 Innings, 1 not out, 513 runs @ 51.30 6 First Class 100's, 4 x 50's. Granted he's averaged 20 to start the current Sheffield Shield season, he also has scored 648 @ 162, including a 345, in QLD 1st grade.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
Why do they have to be test players? Is the female test player just a token appointment? I don't think being a former test player should have anything to do with it, maybe one of the issues is being a boys club that looks after their own.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Oh dear - I dont think you get cricket at all Rabbitz !
The Anti-Don
Roar Rookie
Cricket in this country is not a business that is run by a company… maybe to some it is…. the bean-counters, the marketing pimps etc. but not to the vast majority of cricket followers. ‘The company’ as you call Cricket Australia are just the current guardians of a long and rich institution that Australians will not tolerate being mismanaged like it is currently.
Paul
Roar Guru
I hope this post gets to you Rabbitz, but I look at the totality of the relationships involved; CA, players, the general public and sponsors. The last two groups are the key players because we're the ones who fund the first two groups. If there's no sponsorship and no money coming in from the general public, the first two groups cease to exist. That being the case, the public and sponsors want to know they are watching the very best "product" available and these is a certain level of trust in CA and it's selectors that it is delivering the best "product" to us, ie the best players in the 3 formats. Right now that level of trust has been breached because CA is making decisions they're entitled to make but not clearly communicating these to the purchasers - the public or the sponsors. People will quickly lose trust and start voting with their feet at games and by watching other channels if they think they're being given a sub standard product and that's why we 're entitled to know why from CA.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
Sorry Rabbitz I disagree. Cricket is our no1 national sport. The Australian people have a vested interest in this team. Without the people, this team, CA, and cricket itself does not exist.
The Anti-Don
Roar Rookie
Great article Paul... summed up my own frustrations with the ridiculous selections that we are being shafted with recently.
Jero
Roar Rookie
I agree. I can understand why both captain and coach would want a direct say in selections. It’s no one’s problem when the Test team is doing well, and more or less picks itself. Like last summer. But when things aren’t going well, like now, it does more harm than good. Selection decisions become tortuous, and end up being basically avoided. We had great captains, coaches and great selectors in the past, like in the Laurie Sawle era. It obviously all comes down to having the right players in the first place, which selectors can’t control. But when it comes to making tough decisions, getting the message right to players and public, it’s hard for the captain and coach to be making all these press statements and invariably causing further confusion and consternation. Perceptions of bias spread. it’s much better for selection decisions to be made from arm’s length, even if from time to time captain and coach don’t agree with them. And at this moment, Langer has got more than enough on his plate, coaching three national teams. It’s unprecedented. He’s got obvious strengths as a coach. While selection is a shared responsibility, rightfully or wrongly, he ends up carrying the can when selections don’t work. I reckon he’d operate much more effectively as a coach by shedding the selector role. The right person can be found to take over. Of course, who are any of us to say what might happen. But Langer would be doing himself the favour of allowing himself to concentrate on his main area of strength, and not burn out before his time trying to carry responsibility for everything. It’s not workable, in my view.
Phillip
Guest
The public who are the main stakeholders of cricket do have the right to know why the selecters made sure to tank Maxwell's Test career. Thats just one of many issues with cricket in Australia, not a major one but still when a few blokes can pretty much screw over players then answers are demanded
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
I am genuinely curious why you say "we’re entitled to be told why"? Where does this entitlement come from? These are individuals, working for private enterprise. The players are effectively contractors. There is no reason to expect that employment details and reasons for choosing a particular contractor should (or must) be made public. The company (CA) are free to employ anyone they like and do not have to explain that to anyone outside the process.
Paul
Roar Guru
Dave, your comments about being sensitive to players is absolutely right and I for one would insist players be told, straight up and honestly, why they are or are not in the team. This explanation needs to be detailed so the player knows exactly where they stand, whether they're a chance to get back into the team and what they need to do to get there. I don't need to know 99% of the stuff I mentioned above, but I would have a lot more faith in our selectors if they told the truth about why guys are or are not in the team. As it stands, I'm left guessing and that leads me to conclude the current guys have zero idea about how to chose a Test team. I'm almost certainly wrong, but what else can I conclude when they won't open up to the public?
Paul
Roar Guru
many thanks for your kind remarks James.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Share your frustration and some greater accountability would be nice. But in fairness to the coach and selectors, they need to be sensitive to player and team morale and gild the lily a bit when explaining why some guys are in and others out. But with a bit of tact they could explain some of the weirder selections a bit better. You suspect with Maxwell and Burns there is something about character or technique they don’t want to mention.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Nothing will stop arguments about who should get picked, but we’re entitled to be told why. We may not agree of course, but at least we’ll understand We’ll say Shield runs should be rated higher/lower, ODI runs likewise etc. But the accountability will stop things like Langer saying runs are the only currency then the selectors picking someone who has barely scored a run this Shield season.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Top article Paul, fully agree. Great way to welcome in the new year!
Paul
Roar Guru
I'd like to see Cricket Australia advertise the positions over the next month then pick up on your suggestion and appoint an independent panel to choose the next selectors. This should comprise 3 ex-Test players and I'd like to see a female Test player involved, if nothing else to break up that "boys club" approach. They can make recommendations back to CA and we have new selectors and a list of others deemed suitable.