Australia announce two new vice-captains for Test side

Has it been disclosed anywhere why CA have introduced this footy model of appointing multiple leaders?

The greatest mystery in Australia is not the criteria used to select players. It is the benchmarks used to justify retaining our selectors. This is really starting to grind my gears. Firstly, the performance of the team appears to not have the slightest bearing. If it does, how many records for consecutive losses, historically unprecedented series losses, losses in a calender year, and other unwanted new records do we want to rake up before someone takes the initiate to say 'maybe these guys should move on.' And certainly the criteria has nothing to do with their decision making prowess. We have had the farce of selectors locking Maxwell and Renshaw into schedules they then used to justify not picking them, the ridiculous Mitch Marsh vice-captaincy selection, Finch batting in the wrong place, Handscomb getting dropped because he needed to work on his technique, then immediately getting recalled, then dropped after a solitary innings, batsmen with poor career averages being picked because of their bowling, only to be bowled sparingly, and etc, etc, etc. It goes on and on. And the criticisms are often from people who really know their stuff. Now we have a bowling all rounder who we rely an awful lot on who has just said he has too much on his plate to consider the captaincy, and we give him the vice captaincy. And another guy who barely makes the team, and whose place will almost certainly come under pressure when Smith and Warner return, made a second vice captain. The only thing I can say in the selectors defense is that we have so few players that are a lock in for anything approaching a long career that they don't have many choices. But that too is a result of the selectors ineptitude. So what is the criteria for keeping these guys on the CA payroll? To continue, it certainly can't be the logic of the selectors decisions because they constantly contradict themselves. Just ask Matty Wade. Sick of the criticism, sometimes now the selectors don't even bother or flat out refuse to explain their decisions or the logic that goes behind selections. The worse they perform, the less they want to be held accountable. And it certainly can't be their communication with the players. Because from what we've heard, a lot of the domestic players have no idea what they need to do to get selected. If what Wade has said is true, a lot of the players are reporting mixed signals and are very angry at them. And last of all, they are destroying the Shield by making performance in it virtually irrelevant to national selection, and by not allowing many of the best players in Australia to play in it - both of which have made the competition less competitive. So seriously, what do our selectors have to do to get dropped? Greg Chapell was a great player and a great servant of Australian cricket. But surely, selectors should be chosen on their ability to select and to perform in the aforementioned criteria. On which one of any of these (or any other) criteria could these guys have earned the right to keep that cushy gig? Why are they still there?

His selection negated the need for an all-rounder elsewhere. Meant you played a stronger 6.

I can only go on the fact that it declined this year to say it won't continue.

I'll preface this by saying I wouldn't have picked Head in the first place. Way back when against the UAE I'd have selected Patterson, Burns, Renshaw and others long before I ever selected Labs or Head. However, to be fair to Head: He started as an 18 year old, in a weak team. Batsmen who are drafted straight into FC cricket out of school frequently struggle at first and that weighs the average down. He's only 25 and yet he's played 80 FC games, compared to Patterson who is also 25 but has played 58. That means Head played a lot more cricket in his younger years, when he was less likely to succeed. It's really not that uncommon for young batsmen in their mid-20s to have batting averages in the 30s. He's also been burdened with the captaincy from a very young age, you can't discount the difficulty involved in that, when you're trying to work out your own game. The final thing to like about Head is his seasons have been improving. He averaged 36, then 43 and now 46. That shows a clear improve - who are we to say it won't continue? I'm not saying Head's going to turn into some batting god, but people make out like we didn't select young batsmen with middling averages. Michael Clarke was selected at 24/25 with a FC average of 37 and he went on to be quite successful.

I don't buy the "Watson was an all rounder" argument. He wanted to bat at first drop and he got to bat there for half his career. On that basis, he has to be considered as a batsman and as a batsman, he averaged 35.

Heaven forbid we enter the realm of co-captains. The AFL leaderships group is a load of new cobblers. In cricket at least, a captain is required for instant (for the young folk "instant" translates as "in the moment" or "real time") decisions and a vc and the bowler are handy to consult. However, wider, holistic (aaaagh I hate that word) leadership gibberish is just an insult to the rest of the team.

Watson was an all-rounder though remember. Low 40s is reasonable. But what chance does Head actually have of getting there?

That makes sense on his career but assuming he can manage a batting average in the low 40s is ludicrous. Has a career FC average of 36. Averages 33 this shield season. Averaged 46 last shield season. Averaged 43 the season before. Averaged 36 in 2015/16. Nothing indicates he can sustain FC form that will see him consistently average in the 40s. Since his debut in 2012 he has only averaged above 45 across a season once in his career, and followed it up with average 33 across the 5 innings he played before the test window.

Except Head is barely a potential test batsman right now. Let alone captain.

Paul, No doubt CA saw Smith as a 10 year captain and expected all sorts of young talent to come through during that time. They certainly never expected this. I also agree that we've generally had in place pretty good succession plans (Clarke replaced Ponting, Ponting replaced Waugh, Waugh replaced Taylor and Taylor replaced Border - all very orderly and without fuss). I dunno if bringing Bobby Simpson back in the late '70s really demonstrates that the modern, professional, billion dollar CA are likely to "think outside the box". But as I said, right now, anything could happen. I reckon we can both agree that it'd be better for all if Head establishes himself as a decent test bat and then the transition can be smooth?

I didn't say I "accepted it", I'm just telling you how it'll likely work (in my opinion). To be honest though, compared to a lot of the batting talent around at the moment (in Australia), if he does build his test average up to 38 or 39, that still makes him a much better batsman that than most of his competitors (Shaun Marsh averages about 34 now, Cowan averaged about 33, Marcus North averaged 35, even Watto finished with an average of 35, as some examples). The much praised India side has guys like Rahane averaging 41 (test VC), Dhawan averages 40, Rahul 35, Vijay 39, Raina 26 etc - so good teams having lots of batsmen who aren't that special. People have an inflated opinion of what a test batsmen looks like after having so many play for Australia. The reality for most decent sides is that you have a few class bats that are in the high 40s or low 50s (that's our Warner and Smith), you might have another in the low 40s (that's Khawaja) and then the rest are usually around the high 30s or very low 40s. Mark Waugh averaged 41 in a dominant side (more difficult batting conditions now doubt). Michael Vaughan only averaged about 40 or 41 by the end of his career and he was a very successful captain. It's a long road back to the top and it's going to take a few "mediocre" batsmen to get there.

It's not inconsequential if Paine breaks his finger again during a game. So would we have co-captains in this instance?? http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail/character_1612.html Perhaps the team will become an "anarcho-syndicalist commune" Just name a vice captain for crying out loud.

I dont know how you can accept our next 'captain' to be sufficient with an average in the high 30's. this is every thing wrong with Aus Cricket at the moment. Mediocracy has become acceptable.

A poisoned chalice for sure.

TB, one thing Australian cricket has done well throughout it's history is to have succession plans in place, so when a skipper decided to retire, he could be replaced by a player of Test quality, generally someone who had led a State team but had real leadership qualities. The problem with the current scenario is a flow on from the SA debacle. If we ignore the bowlers as potential Test captains (not because they're not good enough but because they're traditionally left out of contention), CA was hoping & needing a long run from Smith as captain because there were no other guys really pushing a case to be his understudy. Warner, at best, would have remained VC and is older than Smith and the rest of the batting was still cementing it's place in the side. The last time Australia had similar problem with a lack of a Test captain was in the World Series Cricket days when Simmo was dragged out of retirement. It shows CA or it's predessors were willing to look outside the box, hence my thinking about Patterson & Puckovski. Mind you, I hope we don't have a similar problem as we did then, when first Yallop, then Hughes got the captaincy and were right royally shafted.

Anything is possible with these selectors Paul, but they are usually pretty conservative when it comes to picking captains. They obviously were between a rock and a hard place with Paine (much like Border in the ’80s), but if you look at most prior captains, they’ve usually either been players with extensive backgrounds in captaincy or were ear marked as prodigies. People forget that Smith captained his BBL side (and I think even NSW) before he was made captain of Australia. I’m not really familiar with Patterson (as I’m not from NSW) – has he ever captained a team before? I’m even less familiar with Puckovski – has he ever captained anything? I really doubt they’ll select someone that young if there are other options. I agree that Head needs to being doing better than he is now to remain in the team and captain, but I don’t think he needs to be a world class bat to survive and be captain. The reality is he’s captained every side he’s ever been in and has clearly been earmarked as a future leader from day dot. They’ll be very happy making him captain if he’s scrapping around the 35 to 40 run mark. That’s my gut feel anyway.

TB, I think much will depend on which batsman does the best over the coming 12 - 24 months. If Puckovski or Patterson gets a decent go at Test cricket, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of them appointed captain down the track. I agree Head's the likely favourite at this stage, but he needs to consistently score runs. If he doesn't and they do, our next captain's last name could start with a P.

I actually think this is the brain child of Langer and Langer alone (see my response above), though the other selectors and board members have obviously bought into the idea.

Langer's in love with the idea due to his obsession with AFL. He's been pretty vocal about how he thinks it worked well in the WA set up when he was coach there.