Should the Captain be a Selector?

[Run n Spread]

Much has been written about Michael Clarke and his role as captain within the team. Given the selectors thought it necessary to bring in a vice captain specifically to address team unity and as a back up if necessary it is not out of place to acknowledge there are issues of team unity and dynamics.

Now the issue may be a result of Clarke having a problem with man management and losing the players, lacking leadership experience or simply not being Mr Popular.

How much angst is due to him being a selector? If say the power to promote and drop players didn't rest with Clarke could any personal disagreements and differences of opinion be more easily sorted? Australian Captains have been selectors before and it was abandoned then (2001) due to the bad blood and team issues that were bought up. So is it a good idea now?

Pros
The wins and losses go against a captains name so of course he needs to have a say in who he wants.

The captain selects the tactics the team uses so should select players he believes can best match them.

Being a central member of the team the captain best understands the dynamics and what skills are needed.

Cons

Too much power is centralised

Cricket is a team sport where team work, trust and cooperation are encouraged and necessary amoung team mates. Thus having a team mate stand in judgement of others is not a great idea.

Having a captain stand in judgement means team divisions and disagreements can potentially flare up.

Not really in a great position to judge shield form

FWIW I think it is one of those things that works very well in theory but badly in practice. If Clarke or any captain focuses on tactics and on field leadership and setting the right example and leaves the selectors to select the side then that would make for a more cohesive set up.

 

[frankrizzo]

Mark Taylor was involved in the argus report and i guarantee you the whole thing with the skipper being back as a selector was from him.

It works when you have a bunch of all time greats in peak form and you are a master politician like taylor but in the current environment it has just forced the skipper and coach to become distanced from the men who are meant to trust them without question.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A selector should pick to win and not know anything about the team that happens off the cricket field. That's why captains and coaches should not be captains. Too many things get in the way of bias.

When Richie Benaud was captain and Don Bradman was chief of selectors, Richie said "give me the list of 12 names, and I'll pick the team" - he was staunchly against picking the team.

 

[BarneyBent]

There are pros and cons. The way I see it, it's much of a muchness really.

 

[The_Reaper]

He should be involved in the meetings at the very least.

The captain is in control of the tactical decisions. He's the first man blamed for losses.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

There are pros and cons. The way I see it, it's much of a muchness really.

Yep. I didn't vote because it's probably a case by case basis depending on the captain and how he relates to the team/how they relate to him.

 

[Phone]

If the captain is gonna cast the final vote anyway, you should acknowledge it happens, and I don't have a problem with it. I don't think he should play any part in contracts though

 

[Underarm]

Captain needs to be able to have input, especially with the bowler configuration. the bowling strategy that the Captain uses must be backed by picking the right bowlers.

 

[TassieEagle]

I am in the no camp for the exact reason we are in now. A player shouldn't hold careers of teammates in his hands.

 

[Belnakor]

would have made sense when you had a guy like Tubby Taylor or Punter running the team. Doesn't make sense when you have someone like Clarke in charge. Good player but he is hardly the man manager of Taylor's elk or have the same standing in the game as Ponting.

 

[courtjester]

Straight out no. And neither should the coach.

No one within the actual cricket team should be involved in the selection of players for tours or matches. Ever.

Selectors need to be the right people who are completely separate from the playing group. Having the captain as a selector is a massive no.

 

[Cooldude]

You gotta be a super good captain to be able to pull it off, the only one in recent times I can think of would be Tubby and Steve Fleming

Otherwise it's best that you don't, complicates things too much. Just get the best outta the resources given to you by the actual selectors

Clarke is a bit of a special case though, he seems to have this gift of pissing everyone off

 

[crownie]

Captain needs to have the team he wants.

If a captain can't manage the responsibility correctly then he shouldnt be captain and deserves no respect.

 

[TassieEagle]

Captain needs to have the team he wants.

If a captain can't manage the responsibility correctly then he shouldnt be captain and deserves no respect.

That sounds awful like lets pick the best player and have him pick his 10 best mates.

 

[crownie]

That sounds awful like lets pick the best player and have him pick his 10 best mates.

cause that would happen at international level....

 

[TassieEagle]

cause that would happen at international level....

Wouldn't if his 10 mates were park cricketers but if it was a choice between Matthew Wade and Brad Haddin.

 

[crownie]

Wouldn't if his 10 mates were park cricketers but if it was a choice between Matthew Wade and Brad Haddin.

Well seeing the selectors will pick Haddin over Wade for the first ashes test whats the problem?

 

[The Prosecutor]

The captain should give an outline on how he wants his squad to function and what type of roles he wants filled.

It should then be up to the selectors to fill those roles and functions.

 

[TassieEagle]

Well seeing the selectors will pick Haddin over Wade for the first ashes test whats the problem?

The problem is when he starts picking mates over similar performing peers he is not closely attached to. Do we expect a captain to be looking at every game of Shield cricket during the Summer the using that to form a unbiased opinion and drop a team-mate that he has been travelling with for the last x weeks irrelevant of State ties? Having a captain and coach as selectors causes more problems than it provides benefits, especially when you have someone of Clarke's reputation and personality filling that role. Selectors should be entirely separate from the playing group

 

[frankrizzo]

After the homework mess and after wade is dumped so an over the hill old mate of clarke's can be included in the team how can the younger generation possibly communicate openly and honestly with the skipper and the coach?

If you were a young bloke struggling mentally with the pressure of upcoming back to back ashes you would be crazy to share your fears and doubts with the two men who could then use those fears and doubts as a reason to end your test career.

It's a recipe for an unhappy team that could splinter into factions, the 1999 west indies series and 2001 ashes where wildly popular but struggling players were dumped by a not universally liked skipper are the perfect examples of how quickly a team can fracture, unlike those teams we don't have the talent to paper over the cracks.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The captain should give an outline on how he wants his squad to function and what type of roles he wants filled.

It should then be up to the selectors to fill those roles and functions.

Yep, captain's call on tactics, independent selectors call on selection to meet those tactics.

How the captain and coach can be selectors when they rarely (if ever) see anyone play from outside the national setup is beyond me. Having Mickey Arthur admit he had never seen Jackson Bird bowl before the Melbourne Test reinforced that as far as I was concerned.
Its not just with mates, but human nature to back those you know over the outsiders. All the selectors need to be independent of the team - and more of them need to be at more Shield games.

 

[crownie]

The problem is when he starts picking mates over similar performing peers he is not closely attached to. Do we expect a captain to be looking at every game of Shield cricket during the Summer the using that to form a unbiased opinion and drop a team-mate that he has been travelling with for the last x weeks irrelevant of State ties? Having a captain and coach as selectors causes more problems than it provides benefits, especially when you have someone of Clarke's reputation and personality filling that role. Selectors should be entirely separate from the playing group

yes and again do you think a captain of an Australian test team will get away with it? I doubt a squad would get selected with Clarkes '10 mates' for him to pick a team in the first place.

 

[TassieEagle]

Probably deserves a bump in light of recent events.

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

After giving it some thought about personalities versus process .... the answer is no.

The current captain has a trail of (career) corpses in his wake. We are expected to believe that the fact that the dropped players in question rubbed our boy Pup the wrong way is incidental.

So IMO not having the captain as a selected can be seen as a risk control that stopped personal bias corrupting the selection process.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

A simple no for me.

Anytime a captain has buy in to who plays in his side immediately opens up factors relating to personal bias. Imagine being a fringe player in a team, and having to suck up just because you want to be on the captain's good side to keep your place? I've been there playing footy and cricket and it sucks balls. Smiling and nodding even though you think the captain's a d*ck. Stepping on egg shells with everything you say and do - in the end it effects your game.

Someone like Clarke, with such a huge ego and a history of spits and dramas - its a recipe for disaster. And today everything imploded.