The wizards of Aus: Why the selectors must go

well sheek I disagree . I reckon a lot of us here have been there done that at varying levels. Being very good at something doesn't necessarily make you a good mentor or trainer and I would argue that the only thing G Chappell has excelled at is batting . I actually agree with a degree of picking for the future ie the Pontings and Waughs of this world. One wonders though , would they or say Dougie Walters be picked today , probably not. You really don't need to be a brain surgeon to work out that a journey man like Finch is never going to make it in the red ball game. Go with the brave and talented , let them sink or swim. And the brave and talented need to have a technique that is noy going to be broken down at the first video review.

And Lawrie Sawle played zero tests, had a moderate at best FC career, came from WA and was one of the selectors who picked guess who for every one of his 50 tests. And yet he's regarded as having been an outstanding selector and chairman of selectors.

And the questions raised by this article Sheek are 1. Have the selectors filled that brief to correctly assess the form of the incumbents and how long a rope they will get? 2. Have the selectors filled the brief of selecting players that add to the team, even if they are not the best performers at the lower level? 3. Have the selectors adequately explained to the public or the players their reasoning behind selections? I would argue that they have failed in all three: 1. They have placed blind faith in S Marsh despite a lengthy period of poor performance while being the senior batsman in the team. They have returned to P Handscomb in Sydney despite no evidence that his problems were solved. 2. Picking a middle order predominantly white ball player to open the batting did not compliment what was required by the team. Picking a number six in Melbourne for his bowling when our batting has been very weak did not compliment the team. Failing to pick a second specialist spinner for Sydney when we simply had to take 20 wickets to keep the series alive, but instead picking a part time bowler who averages over 50 in first class cricket. These selections did not compliment the existing team or their requirements. 3. I agree with you in some respects that the selectors do not need to communicate their reasoning in detail to the public, but recent comments from Ashton Agar and Nathan Coulter-Nile indicate that the selectors can't articulate their reasoning to the players either. Agar was made a permanent 12th man earlier this summer after being our most economical one day bowler and then has been dropped without playing and the advice given was 'get better'. Langer comes out and says runs are the only currency, Maxwell can't be selected because of a lack of centuries, and then he selects Finch who record is markedly inferior and Labuschagne who has barely scored a hundred in his career and averages 33 in first class cricket. All of that adds up to a selection panel that have no plan, no process and no clear reasons for their decisions.

I have a question for the author and Roarers in general, rookies or otherwise. I have a suspicion that Will Pucovski's recent health decline is in no small way connected with Australian cricket selections and I wanted some second, third and even more opinions. I have nothing much to base this on, don't know the guy or his family or anyone close to him. I just found it odd that his health issues came apparent on the back of some very public discussion about his possible and likely selection for Australia. I just wondered if the thought of being screwed over like Renshaw, Burns, Maxwell and others had anything to do with his state of mind (ie the expectations and little support). I mean, he had just delivered some very good performances (where he should have been feeling great about himself) and being in the selection mix should have been exciting. I could be way off line - happy to be corrected by anyone and I don't expect intimate details of his issues. I just have this strong feeling that selection and expectation policies have a resounding negative impact on the Shield players rather than inspiring them to greatness.

Bigbaz, Was it really a cop-out or the selectors' opinion, which just happens to be different from the keyboard warriors? For what its worth, I though picking Labuschagne at 3 was weird, although I was willing to accept, reluctantly, his naming at 6. I think if Finch was going to be dropped, & I thought the timing was too narrow, then Burns should have taken his spot. That would have seen minimum interruption to the batting order. Anyway, one thing about the selectors, they've been there & done that, unlike most of us keyboard warriors.

Perhaps you guys should re-read what I've said & digest its contents. Or is this a case of there is none so blind as those who will not see?

Regulator, Everyone says pick the highest scoring batsmen & highest wicket taking bowlers from the Shield, as if that's the silver bullet. It isn't. Every time a bunch of selectors sit down to pick their next test team, tour team, world cup team, or whatever, that team already has a story, a narrative, it's own history. Each team is underpinned by a number of key players who have been around for a while. This group of "permanents" may vary from team to team, & from year to year. Some may be tip-top form, others less so. One of the first things selectors might ask themselves is, how much more time do they give an underperforming key player who has delivered in the past. There is no formula for this. It is one of the things the selectors must decide on with collective gut feeling. It might be that this player will come good again. Or maybe he's reached the end of his line. Then there are places for 'newbies'. This is also complicated because the highest scoring batsman or highest wicket taking bowler might not be the right fit for those already in the team. There was a study conducted many years ago at the Cambridge University rowing Eight, preparing for its annual head of the river clash with Oxford University. A journalist/writer followed Cambridge as they had to decide on the last few positions in the boat. They didn't pick the next best rowers based on purely on strength or technique. What the star rowers in the boat wanted was a rower who would compliment their strength & help them perform at their best. Every team has its stars & support acts. The interaction between the two groups is both complex & delicate. If anyone has seen the film Bohemian Rhapsody recently, there is the scene where Queen gets back together after a short break. The character of Freddy Mercury tells his band mates that, while he is the star of the group, he is less without them, because the interaction of their personality with his, brings out the best in him. So picking the highest scoring batsman & highest wicket taking bowler is too often a simplicist solution. It might seem the right thing to do, but it's never that straight forward, or easy.

Because the Shield records of players currently being selected indicate they are not capable of scoring hundreds on a regular basis.

Good article (and response) Reg. I think sheek woke up a bit grumpy today. The selectors are totally incompetent !

I remember reading M Hussey's book, didn't he average 60+ and still wasn't getting picked in the Aus team? We need to get back to those days; rather than picking on potential. Also, what's wrong with picking debutantes in their late 20s/early 30s. If you can get a serviceable 3-5 years out of them, then that's good. Not every player is going to be a 100+ test star at 19.

Totally agree Pakistanstar. Chappell is the architect of this whole mess.... to quote him ‘talent is a bit like fruit, if you don’t pick it, it can go rotten’. As you correctly point out the Test team has been turned into a pseudo development team! Until this philosophy and the pathway system is dismantled or at least completely overhauled we will continue to perform the way we have been at international level sadly. We should be making it harder to play for Australia.... not easier.

Honestly Sheek.,... you are still holding water for the Australian selectors... how many bad selection decisions and losses will it take for you to see what i so clear to most? Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

I hate Trevor Hohns with a passion. The bloke played 7 Test matches for Australia. 7 only. Guess who played in the same side in each of those 7 Tests? Check for yourselves: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5688.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match

It's baffling that an organisation the size of Cricket Australia can get such an important position wrong. Playing for your country is the game's highest honour yet Hohns & Chappell have turned the test side into a pseudo-development team. Chappell & Pat Howard are also responsible for grooming players in underage sides as a pathway to the test team, which in turn has completely devalued the Sheffield Shield.

Sheek, it’s an opinion site

I wrote a piece very similar to this before the 4th Test. The arrogance and lack of respect being shown to the cricketing public by selectors is astounding, for all the reasons you've outlined. I don't know if these guys are good at their jobs ( though recent evidence suggests they're not), because they don't tell me why guys are or, more importantly, are not picked for teams. CA will struggle to regain public faith in their ability to support & promote the game in this country while they allow this rubbish communication about selections to persist. If they can't get better communicators in this role, maybe they should stop managing cricket all together.

Seems to be that you have a fair bit of support from a lot of people who have skin in the game . I’m in my 7th decade and have witnessed some very ordinary selections over the journey but have yet to see a poorer panel than this mob with the probable exception of RA who have only one selector. Keep up the good work.

Bringing in Labuschagne and putting him at No 3 is a complete cop out by our cowardly selectors. The 3 position is normally given to the teams best batsman although sometimes they choose themselves to play 4. He is in there on a so called captains call, the selectors honey boy. They did the same to Maxwell in the UAE once, brought him into the team to put in at 3 in a game they expected to lose. He was never going to be there for the next series. Just gutless selectors. The fact that Labuschagne did well is irrelevant. He played to his ability and scored ok on a flat pitch. We needed to win the last test so it was pathetic of our selectors to call up a new boy and ask him to take on the best team in the world in the most responsible position. It's a cop out by the feeble.