When Australian cricket began obsessing with young talent in the early 2010s, newly appointed Australian selector George Bailey was one of its first ardent critics.
Under Greg Chappell and Pat Howard, selection policy slowly moved into an era of potential over performance, rewarding players of promise rather than those who had earned the right at domestic level.
Sometimes it worked. Steve Smith is an obvious example. More often, however, it didn’t. Nic Maddinson, Hilton Cartwright and Sam Heazlett are all examples of the latter.
Early on, Bailey was consistent in advocating for an anti-ageist system based on merit.
“I’ve got no doubt that cricket and the way bodies are, your best cricket you play after you’re 23, and it’s much the same as the Australian team,” he said in 2011, detailed in Daniel Brettig’s Whitewash to Whitewash. “I think the best Australian players are better for having a really strong first-class system, and the teams at this level playing good, hard cricket.”
And he was bang on the money. Under Howard and Chappell, the governing body became infatuated with elite pathways where players within the inner sanctum were of great importance and those on the outside were forced to scrap for opportunities.
This was often to the detriment of the domestic game, which those on the inside like Bailey knew was the best breeding ground for players. Initiatives such as the Futures League competition and the overly youthful Cricket Australia XI in the domestic one-day competition all failed.
As one anonymous former Test cricketer told Gideon Haigh in Crossing the Line, “A Mike Hussey would have never succeeded”.
Bailey’s appointment this week, then, is an important final shift away from that era.
(AAP Image/Rob Blakers)
In replacing Chappell, the Tasmanian will bring a renewed preference for selecting players who have proven themselves at domestic level. While it sounds straightforward, selection in recent years has been anything but.
In Justin Langer, Bailey will have a fellow selector who also champions the need for weight of domestic performances. The continual moving of the goalposts that characterised recent years appears to have settled and all of a sudden, the selection panel has a wholly different feel.
Neither believe the Australian XI is an environment to develop players, but one in which the best players are selected. Of course, promising young players like Will Pucovski may be fast-tracked into the Australia XI. But not to the extent that we’ve seen in previous years. Bailey and Langer, for instance, would not have selected the 2016 version of Maddinson.
At the other end of the spectrum, dropped players in their 30s won’t be frozen out. Langer’s recent insistence that the door was not shut on the international career of Usman Khawaja was testament to this.
The new structure is strikingly similar to the one used by England, who last year employed the recently retired James Taylor as a third selector alongside the coach and head selector.
Earlier this year, Ed Cowan called for Australia to do the same, and employ either Bailey or Cameron White. He now has his wish. Reports suggested Michael Klinger was another shortlisted candidate, until he accepted the newly vacated Melbourne Renegades posting.
Bailey is a well-liked, universally respected figure in the game, who many forget captained his country 57 times. Aaron Finch confirmed yesterday that players he had spoken to were “rapt” with his appointment, while Khawaja said the appointment was well overdue.
“There is no one more involved and more relevant in the game than people who are actually playing the game,” Khawaja said earlier this week. “Players are one of the biggest stakeholders, sometimes the most under-utilised and undervalued stakeholders in the game.”
More practically, Bailey’s intricate knowledge of T20 cricket bodes well for one of Australia’s biggest assignments next year – hosting its first ever men’s T20 World Cup.
Concerns that Bailey may either favour state teammates or disregard those who play poorly against him run contrary to the character references provided by respected industry figures. It’s been reported he will take up the position full-time in February when he retires from Tasmania and the Hobart Hurricanes, but until that time will act as an advisor.
Finally, having someone who has played with or against more domestic cricketers than perhaps any current player seems a no-brainer as the new selector. Bailey would see, hear and know things about the current generation of players that those sitting in the stands may not be privy to.
It’s a move that simply makes sense.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Hopefully, Bailey's appointment will bring some improved communication from selectors to players regarding just where they are in the selection panel's mind. Like Langer, he has spoken about the currency of runs and wickets, which, if followed, brings a natural transparency to selections. There will always be players that show a special something, grabbing the eye of selectors. "Elite honesty" from selectors would be most appreciated. Example A- we needed to strengthen our batting depth, and despite moderate returns this shield season, after a few red wines, "player x" looked a good pick. Example B- we were really jet-lagged when we discussed the concussion replacement batsmen in the squad so we figured someone averaged 9 this summer in shield would be the go.
Martin Low
Guest
For some time I’ve had an issue with selection of players on potential rather than results. Happens at state level too (in NSW anyway). Felt sorry for guys who perform consistently but seem to get ignored. I wonder how many success stories came via G Chappell’s talent pathway? Great to have Bailey as a selector. ???????? But overdue to move Hohns out.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
It will be nice if the boys club is no more and players are picked soley on performance.
Cobber
Guest
I'm pretty sure Smith was actually averaging around the 50 mark in shield cricket when he was first selected so there was some fairly solid numbers behind his selection. Lambuschagne however is an interesting one. He did have a solid shied season prior to being picked but his first class average overall was only in the mid 30's. When he was selected however he immediately looked like he had the temperament and technique to succeed so I think sometimes there is merit in going with your gut feeling.
David Schout
Expert
Cheers Marty
JamesH
Roar Guru
Well there you go. I suspect Chappell would have had some interaction with him through the Qld junior cricket ranks and the Queensland Academy of Sport, but that's only guesswork.
anon
Roar Pro
Harris plays most of his cricket on a road and was a miserable failure in England. Langer deserves no credit for picking Burns.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
True, but I imagine it was a close thing with Harris, given he’d scored a lot more runs than Burns in the Shield (albeit on easier pitches) and Burns looked very shaky against Pak A.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Interesting read, agree that having Bailey on board can only help. Also enjoyed reading an article about selectors that didn’t bag or take the mickey out of them. Made for a nice change.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Interesting article, agree that Baileys inclusion can only be positive. Also quite enjoyed reading an article about selectors that didn’t bag the crap or take the piss out of them. Made for a nice change.
Tom
Marnus was amongst the Qld u19 teams etc, but he was never involved with the Australian Chappell pathway stuff. Never played for the NPS or CAXI teams before his First Class debut as far as I can remember. I do know that Hohns had a very positive opinion of him at a young age though, and was probably a big part of him getting a Qld shield debut in the first place.
anon
Roar Pro
Langer had no choice but to go with Burns after the UAE and Indian series debacles where he had Finch as a Test opener and was persisting with Shaun Marsh despite the leanest run in 120 years. Then out of nowhere picked Mitch Marsh for the MCG Test which was a total flop. Burns finally gets picked, makes 180, then can't even get in the 25 man squad for the Ashes. Harris, Bancroft, Khawaja, Warner all flopped. All that he was left with was to pick Burns this summer unless he went with Khawaja again. Give Langer no credit for picking Burns. He's cycled through everyone but Burns with none of them standing up.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Agreed. Michael Klinger was apparently close in the running too. He would have been another who would have had the perspective of performances and experience over elite pathways, whilst also bringing a contemporary player’s perspective. On face vale, Bailey looks like a good appointment.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Bailey sounds like a good choice, as does reliance on domestic performance versus pathways. I did wonder about this sentence though: “In Justin Langer, Bailey will have a fellow selector who also champions the need for weight of domestic performances.” Marnus Labuschagne is the all time outrider in terms of domestic performances: his first class and Shield averages at the end of last season were 32 and 33, which is about 4 runs lower than the Shield average on Test debut of any Australian Test player who ever went on to forge an even moderately successful career in the last hundred-plus years. Which suggests it might (hopefully) turn out to be an inspired selection! (Of course he also got back into the team on the basis of English domestic runs.) Langer’s apparent fondness for Bancroft also makes me wonder about his approach. But the inclusion of Burns makes him this he, like Bailey, will look at Shield performances in context (pitches and opposition) and not just sheer numbers. Although as someone (Stephen Vagg?) argued on the Roar recently, the coach probably shouldn’t be a formal selector as well.
AREH
Roar Guru
Having the voice heard of a ‘current’ player within the system is a big tick, even if retirement is close for Bailey. I don’t know what it is, but perhaps an assured feeling that selectors are up to speed with the modern game, the individuals and the expectations on them. It might make fans a little less likely to lose complete faith in the panel, and in an ideal world, reduce the number of baffling, inappropriate selections!
Paul
Roar Guru
You're right General, the timing means Bailey's being eased into the role, but even still, he's going to have some interesting decisions to make, once he's in the job f/t.
Paul
Roar Guru
you're right of course, but equally Langer & Hohns might be biased from watching other games where Bailey didn't play. I guess it'll come own to managing the various bias and coming up with the very best team possible.
JamesH
Roar Guru
The elite pathways thing was very much driven by Greg Chappell. It occasionally worked (I think Labuschagne was a pathways product) but it must have irritated players who performed in the Shield no end.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
Can already see all the media articles as the very first selection change in the batting lineup whatever it is, is going to be chalked up to Bailey's new approach and vision hopefully he does give the players reassurance and backing - he will have fond recollections of the selectors sticking by an underperforming batsman all through the 2013/14 Ashes as they didn't want to disturb a winning side
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Bailey will not have to make any real decisions in the near future, as the BBL is on after the tests against NZ. Bailey said he will play in the BBL and then retire. Yes there is 3 ODI's in India from the 17/1 on, and the BBL does not finish till very early February. Our next International series is T20's starting on 22/2. Bailey is only on an advisory role till he retires. I think Hohns and Langer are capable of handling the responsibility of picking the side for those 3 ODI's, until Bailey becomes an official selector.